Talk:Wedding/Archive 3

Tossing the Bouquet
As to this line under North American Weddings: "These practices are falling into less favor in the 21st century.[22]", referring to tossing the bouquet, and possibly the garter. I have to strenuously disagree. As a chef for a catering company, I attend 30-50 weddings a year, and have been doing so for more than 6 years. Before that, I used to photograph weddings as a side job. In other words, I have attended hundreds of weddings in North America. In all this time, I have NEVER seen a wedding where the bride did not toss her bouquet. Generally, the groom also tosses the garter. This generally happens even when the bride or groom are pretty religious, such as at weddings where dancing is not permitted and alcohol is not allowed. I feel this line is incorrect and should be removed.

In fact, it could be mentioned that in more liberal settings, the man who caught the garter frequently places the garter on the leg of the lady who caught the garter.72.40.160.85 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what part of the country or in what circles you work, but in my area this has become very uncommon and is looked upon as archaic and tacky. The sheer number of weddings you have attended does not make you an expert on North American weddings, only on weddings of in your community. In any case, your or my personal opinion or experience is irrelevant. There is a reference. If you have a verifiable reference with a different point of view, please feel free to add your perspective to the article, but please do not delete the information which is already there. Njsustain (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was at two weddings in the past two weeks. Neither involved a garter being removed or tossed, and neither included a bouquet toss. One was religious, one wasn't. Both included dancing and drinking. My personal experiences, like 72.40's, do not make me an expert in any way. I mention them only to illustrate how unreliable personal impressions are, in that 72.40 and I have radically different ones which neither of us can rightfully claim are accurate for any weddings except for the ones we have been to. It can be difficult to find reliable sources for folk customs, but our vastly different experiences illustrate why it's important to do our best to use the sources we do have since personal impressions are so unreliable. --Icarus (Hi!) 01:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Mainstream" Weddings
As every wedding is unique, I don't see the point of qualifying descriptions with this term (see United States Weddings section). I added quotes as a compromise, but I really don't see the point of using this adjective which is undefined. I think it should be removed or replaced with "many" or "frequently", "often" or some such. Adding "including Jewish Weddings" is rather offensive in my opinion, insinuating that only Christian weddings are mainstream. The U.S. is an incredibly diverse country, and this is part of an article about weddings worldwide, not just the ones seen on soap operas and in Brides Magazine. I really think this should be altered, to simply say, "Many weddings in the U.S...." but I will leave it to another to make an actual change. Njsustain (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Quotes used in this way are generally not appropriate. I certainly understand your frustration with the phrasing. I've tried to streamline it.  Does that work? -- SiobhanHansa 17:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's perfect. I just didn't want to make the change unilaterally. Thank you for the link to scare quotes...it was interesting and informative.Njsustain (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Total Reformat

 * We've mentioned through the old talk page that the Wedding page was less than good. Taking that information and absorbing it into the Traditions page made sense, and then moving it all here to the main term seemed logical. Blame it on a severe case of being bold! Now, the page needs a lot of touch-up work, moving images around, perhaps putting a gallery in near the end, etc. For that matter, I think there are duplicated images now too. Anyhoo, we can continue working on this as time goes on. VigilancePrime (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the only duplicate photo I could find. Now the improvements that need to be made (feel free to add to this list): VigilancePrime (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Expand out "types of weddings", especially those that are not linked.
 * Place photos throughout article in appropriate and contextually-relevant sections.
 * Copyedit and de-linking as necessary.
 * References, references, references...

-Hello, not sure where to put this,... I over heard a classmate bragging on how his roommate falsified information on the origins of the tradition of the throwing of a bouquet. I don't know if the entry on this page is the one referenced or if it is on another page. However the entry on this page is written in flowery language is does seem suspicious. If someone out there knows the true origin of tossing the bouquet and confirm or discredit the entry in this article, it would be nice if it were fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.103.147 (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex Wedding
Now you are really pushing the envelope. To remove a same-sex photo because it shows 'nothing about a wedding' then to include a column and 'Phil and Marlene' and some decorated mustangs. The photo's back in. Remove it and you'd best remove half of those other photos too to keep to your own "standards". Enzedbrit (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you paying attention? The obvious answer would be no. Perhaps instead you intentionally try to sound idiotic. I don't think you're stupid by any means; quite the contrary. But you write diatribes attacking others (and name-calling in many instances), but don't do any research. If you took any time to see what was done, you'd see that the Wedding article was combined with the Wedding Traditions (etc.) article. The photo you are "accusing" me of adding was in that article already. If you look at the histories, the Talk page, and the edit summaries, you'd see that I clearly indicated that it was a rough combine and that the images would need to be sorted through (even asking others to help). Instead, though, you fall back into the blatantly troll-like behaviors of patently (and obviously) false accusations and then threats (though it was very weak, your last statement is phrased as a threat). You are looking stupid, and I don't know if that's intentional or not. An outside observer could think that you are representative of the so-called "gay community", but I think that would be a great disservice to other community members.
 * Regardless, I would like to see this article expanded out significantly, to include a ===Same-gender wedding=== section (perhaps a ==Same-gender wedding== instead, I don't know). In that article, your personal photo - the one which you seem to be pushing on everyone - can be in the article main and in the proper context.
 * What's funny is that all the work I put in to merging these together has the ultimate future benefit (and even intent!) of putting in a context in which your photo, to which you are so obsessively attached, would be appropriate, and instead of being thankful that I am working to include your gratuitious make-out session in an encyclopedia, you again level your personal attacks at me. You're like a two-year-old in a Toys R Us; you simply cannot be happy with anything. 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Civil Partnership
I realise that civil partnership is a recognised term. However, it is an institution. One enters into a civil partnership. The article is about weddings, not the institution, in the same way that the article is not about marriage or civil unions. A same-sex wedding can be for marriage, civil union or civil partnership. If you wish to include civil partnerships, it would be best to say that a wedding represents the start of a marriage or civil union/partnership and include it as one of the institutions. Enzedbrit (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually most people in the UK regard Civil Partnership as a same-sex wedding in all but name. I only reverted because I assumed it was someone with an anti-gay agenda vandalising the article.  It appears I was wrong and so I apologise for that.  Justin talk 13:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, although I don't personally see how a civil partnership could be regarded as a wedding. I mean, after the wedding's over, they still have the civil partnership.  If anything, wouldn't people say, in contrast to a wedding, that they're having a civil partnership ceremony? Enzedbrit (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all weddings are recognized by a legal institution, just as not all government institutions, hence the legality of such, are recognized. A wedding is any union between two people who consider their union to be a marriage, regardless of what the "state" or church or anyone else thinks of it. To deny that it is a celebration of a wedding is extremely insulting, and to wish to exclude it from the article is to push your personal opinion rather than facts into the content of the article. Whatever the topic, Wikipedia articles are based on facts, not opinions, and in this case, the facts about how some people celebrate their weddings has as much right to be here as those of people whose "marriages" are authorized by the state.Njsustain (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, again, wedding isn't a legal institution. A wedding is the event, the party, the celebration by which someone enters a marriage or civil-whatever.  That's my point.  I'm arguing that same-sex marriages, civil-unions or partnerships are institutions - something that people enter into.  The wedding is just how we enter them.  I don't think that there's a single law which states what a wedding is, but I don't know all the world laws. In this particular discussion, nobody is denying that same-sex couples entering into such an institution are having a wedding. Enzedbrit (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Overly Overt Consumerism
Is it just me, or does it seem like certain chunks of this article are thinly veiled advertisements for assorted segments of the wedding industry? For example, the title of the "alternate wedding gown" section reads like the subtitle of a fashion product line: "Nontraditional gowns: The new way to experience tradition of a wedding"

Similarly, how 'bout the push on behalf of the diamond cartels? "The ring gains even greater symbolism with the inclusion of a precious stone." Hint hint. Wink wink. Buy more! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.97.96 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree also. Just because so much of wedding practices currently are based on consumerism, the wedding-industrial complex, and extracting funds and gifts from your "guests" that doesn't mean the article should focus on that. It should be based on etiquette (partially), but mainly on standing traditions and customs, not how best to one-up other people. Njsustain (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we just chuck this and start over?
This article is a wreck. There is a great deal of fluff; it doesn't deal with different cultures at all well; and it doesn't address exactly what a wedding is about in the first place. Can we come up with some framework that is workable? Mangoe (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that might be a good idea. It's hard to see how the current content can be built into a good article. Did you have any ideas for a framework? -- SiobhanHansa 16:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree. There's a problem in every other paragraph. I can see some brave efforts by several people to get it to hang together, but it is still very choppy. In addition to the above, it violates NPOV repeatedly (e.g. the condescendingly opinionated gifts section). Deoxyribonucleic acid trip (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Start over is the last resort. Reorganizing with existing text is often a good way to refactor something without starting over. Tb (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Mormon Wedding Customs
As an "exmo" or Ex-Mormon myself, I believe that there should be more to the section for Mormon wedding customs. While there is nothing that can exclude one human from another, in that they are both human and marriage ceremonies are symbolic of the same act throughout cultures and history, each deserves its dues.

The Mormon traditions are recorded so far very loosely on their page describing the open house tradition. Instead of one wedding page, I'd like to see more informative research done on weddings themselves. World cultures should be mentioned, but not be the bulk of the article, and have their own articles within Wikipedia.

76.181.75.55 (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Temple weddings are eternal" is a bit heavy handed as an unqualified statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.176.221 (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think for the purpose of the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia the Mormon section should be kept intact because it does a fine job towing the line between informative and respectful. The author chose not to intimately address their "sacred not secret," temple rituals that must precede any sealing, perhaps noting the delicate nature of Mormon comfort while recognizing the tangential nature of the former doesn't merit mention. I agree that the "Temple weddings are eternal," is heavy handed, however I think remedy may best be served by qualifying the statement by predicating their view as evolving out of Mormon doctrine related to the family. 24.125.42.5 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Zatara.Forever

African Weddings
Come on people are you seriously saying we know nothing about weddings in Africa except for the practices of polygamous pygmies, who, it can be argued based on the information here, don't actually have weddings accompanying marriages? Remember, they don't have to be strictly indiginous practices, because most of those traditions have been destroyed. Just what is practiced, currently, in Africa. I'm deleting the whole section until someone can do it justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.142.134 (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Wedding Customs
I can't know for sure, but the problem I am about to bring up probably affects other sections (religions/cultures) as well. The section on Jewish wedding cultures has been misconstrued as a place to discuss events and traditions practiced at a Jewish wedding. That is not what this section is about, nor what the article is about. There is no "best man" in Jewish wedding tradition. This is not to belittle the non-Orthodox (or perhaps, the non-Ultra Orthodox) branches of Judaism by invalidating their choices for wedding schematics -- it is simply to reveal things done at weddings either because of Jewish law or tradition. Even if something is practiced more widely than just in Jewish weddings (such as in the Molly Ringwald wedding movie, in which a glass was smashed because the participants "thought it was a nice idea" weather or not they were Jewish), if the tradition began in Jewish culture, it belongs in this section. The fact that some Jewish brides give their husbands rings does not mean it is a Jewish tradition or part of Jewish culture. One cannot deny that it has its origins in other religions/cultures and is currently practiced by those who have some reason to distance themselves from Jewish tradition. The same goes for best men and probably many other things that go on at weddings. Again, this is not to invalidate the feelings of those who practice these things at their weddings -- but rather to substantiate the purpose of this article. If there is debate as to how the ketubah is supposed to be written or displaid, that is both proper fodder for discussion as well as content for inclusion. The current trend of having a dual-ring ceremony and the like should be included in a neighboring paragraph.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 17:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fact that jewish brides give their husbands rings IS part of Jewish culture. It is just not part of ORTHODOX culture. You have extensively documented the theology here (even though there is a whole other page for it) and removed any useful information about actual practice. Do you really think that "the bride and groom will include Yom Kippur prayers in their mincha (afternoon prayers)" is not POV? How many Reform, Reconstructionist, and even Conservative Jews SAY afternoon prayers?FiveRings (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so I've created a section under the "cultural" heading with the general information. And specified that the section under religious practice is only Orthodox practice. However, this section is still extraordinarily bloated compared with other sections in the religious subheading. I note that the main articles referenced by the other sections above it are Quaker wedding and Hindu wedding, while the Jewish section references Jewish views of marriage. Therein lies the problem. We need another main page titled Jewish wedding so that practice and philosophy (or, more importantly, "wedding" and "marriage") can be addressed separately. As it is now, the section is way too big. FiveRings (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You mistake Jews for Judaism. It is clearly NPOV to quote classical, Jewish texts when citing Jewish tradition -- note that about 95% of my citations are from classical texts of Jewish law written hundreds of years ago.  If you or someone you know does not pray, what does that have to do with Judaism at large?  In other articles, the debate arose as to the origin of current branches of Judaism, and it was the Conservative claim that Orthodoxy is the splinter group.  While Orthodoxy clearly contends that it is vice versa, it doesn't really matter for this article, because it is listing Jewish wedding traditions -- these traditions have existed from the Talmud and were later codified in the Shulchan Aruch.  For one to come and claim that the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch are no longer applicable -- well, that already happened about a little over 2008 years ago.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the problem here is the definition of "tradition" and "custom". Is English your first language? FiveRings (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is.
 * 2) Definitions are difficult to nail down because we are not defining the same words. The richness of Jewish culture is not one that is spelled out in English -- it is rather written in Hebrew and Aramaic.  Most Jews neither speak nor understand Hebrew or Aramaic, and so may find it difficult to adhere to Jewish law or follow Jewish custom.  The recent advent of English translation may do a wonderful job of fulfilling the needs of the masses but also does a good job of perverting both the content as well as intent of certain words, phrases and ideas presented in the original text.  It is for this reason that while using the words tradition and custom, we may really be actually speaking of customs and traditions, as well as rules and laws.  Additionally, the English word "custom" is vastly different from the word that it supposedly translates: minhag.  A minhag is not merely a custom.  It often refers to something much stronger than a custom: perhaps a ritual.  If a certain act, prescibed by Biblical of Rabbinic law has always been done in a specific manner, yet that manner was codified as preferred rather than mandatory, that "manner" would be a minhag -- not law, yet at the same time, quite nearly indispensible from the perspective of those who are interested in performing Jewish law the way it has been performed for centuries.  This is clearly not conveyed in the simple Engish word custom.
 * How many Reform, Reconstructionist, and even Conservative Jews SAY afternoon prayers?
 * 3) Probably not too many -- why is that? Is it because Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative  Jews have abandoned, whether purposefully or inadvertantly, the time-honored rules, regulations, laws, customs and traditions of Judaism as codified in the Torah, Talmud, Maimonidies' Mishneh Torah, Shulchan Aruch, Tur and Mishna Brurah?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you picked up on the difference between custom and minhag, because that was the next phase of my argument. You are documenting jewish law. Not jewish practice. This is problematic in two ways - first, the majority of jews don't follow the law as you have documented it. It therefore becomes a question of whether we can call this "custom". I say we can't. The second, more important, issue, however, is that documenting jewish law requires dozens, if not hundreds, of paragraphs of information. (Why stop at which prayers the bride says? Why not include the color of her underwear? It is, after all, also minhag). In this case too we look at custom. Specifically, the custom of the other sections in the article. In the religious subheading, entries are one or two short paragraphs, with a reference to a main article. This is what we should do here. FiveRings (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Two quick comments. First, the name and structure of the Jewish section is problematic. It should be written as paragraphs, not bullets. More importantly, it would be better to have an overall Jewish section because this is a general article about weddings. So it shouldn't be limited to Orthodox. In the Jewish section, explain the basic laws, beliefs & practices. Perhaps it would help to differentiate between the early rabbinical, medieval / early modern, and then modern eras. Within the modern era, describe the differences between the movements. Use the Orthodox label only for differences that emerge since the 18th century. But don't give undue weight to intra-Jewish disputes. Second, make sure the info is based on reliable sources -- it's best per WP policy to rely on secondary sources. (Not our own readings of the classic texts.) There are plenty of solid and even-handed treatments of Jewish weddings in historical, anthropological, and religious studies literature, in addition to self-descriptions by the major movements and their popular manuals, etc. thanks very much. HG | Talk 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say there are few if any laws governing any religion other than Judaism. There is no kiyum, lechatchilah, bi'dieved, ikar mitzvah, chumrah, kulah, mehadrin, safek, d'oraisah, d'rabbanan, ge'zaeirah, takanah or anything similar in other religions.  Most of what is listed in the article is not me'akeiv -- in other words, the wedding is still halachically valid even without it.  I would say that translates into what most people would call a "custom."  Judaism is different from all other religions in that regulatory legislation is multi-faceted, multi-layered and all encompassing.  If a Christian fails to procure a Christmas tree, what happens to him?  Has he forsaken the Lord?  No -- the tree has nothing to do with his intrinsic beliefs -- it was started a hundred or so years ago.  If it's dried out -- is it invalid?  If he uses a synthetic tree -- does it make a difference?  That's just how other religions work, for the most part.  They are faith based, not practice based.  If the Mishnah Brurah states that we are noheig -- that is a word that denotes a minhag.  There is no similar construct that exists, so fitting Jewish law and custom into the format of the other religions and cultures will never work.  Scottish people may like to have their wedding a certain way, but in the end of the day, they are just as married as if they utilized a Chilean-style wedding.  And HG -- what is the problem with the sources cited -- do you claim they are unreliable?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 14:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. So the wedding is still halachically valid without them, and most Jews don't do them, but it is still critical to document them here? (Xmas trees are an adopted pagan "custom", communion wafers would be a better comparison - and there are lots of "synthetic" substitutions in Judiasm). But all of this doesn't speak to the Wikipedia minhag of breaking out a new article when a section gets too big. I'm proposing this now. FiveRings (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Jewish wedding
I propose splitting out much of Wedding and Jewish views of marriage into a new page titled Jewish wedding (now a redirect). Compare to Hindu wedding and Quaker wedding. FiveRings (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's a wonderful idea. There should, however, be no information left here, other than a sentence or two about the complexity of Jewish wedding law and custom, leading to the natural solution of including all details on the dedicated page.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 17:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A good idea. At the same time I would also suggest changing title to Jewish marriage, which currently exists as a redirect.Ewawer (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a distinction between a marriage, the ongoing contract, and a wedding, the event that normally marks the start of that contract. While there is a lot of cross over we should be careful not to mix them up. -- SiobhanHansa 00:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was intending to describe the ceremony and surrounding events. Thus, Jewish Wedding. I agree this is different from Jewish Marriage. (I'll do the move in a few days if nobody objects) FiveRings (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologise for the confusion - I meant that "Jewish views of marriage" be renamed "Jewish marriage". The other name "Jewish wedding" is appropriate. I also have doubts about the present content of "Orthodox Jewish customs" - there is too much non-encyclopedic content. But that can be sorted out after the re-organization.Ewawer (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification, and I agree, both with the rename, and with the comment about content and timing. FiveRings (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion.  -- SiobhanHansa 13:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jewish wedding is now split out of this page. It needs major work to separate universal practice from only-orthodox practice, and to bring in sections from Jewish views of marriage. I suggest a glossary of terms. FiveRings (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Melltith
There's an old Welsh custom called Melltith, a page for it exists but is orphaned. I'm not sure of the proper format to add it and I have no citations, but it seems logical to link it from here.El Deej (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Economic aspect
I recently edited the Wedding section to reflect the source more closely. I have some doubts about using the source and would appreciate other editors' opinions.

The source is a brochure released by the Alliance Trust, a UK financial firm. They provide little information about why they come to the conclusions they do and have come up with an estimated cost that appears to be based solely on someone's idea of what a wedding should involve rather than any research into what people actually spend. The only figures that seem to be well sourced are the ones about marriage rates. The Alliance Trust has a vested interest in trying to get people to save (that's what they do - provide saving schemes) and this brochure seems to be targeted at younger people who might be enticed into thinking they need to save with the company now so they don't have to delay their big decision. But it isn't clear how the Alliance Trust comes to the conclusion that people are putting off marriage in order to save for it rather than, for instance, spending more because they are older (and richer) when they do get married.

I like the idea of covering these sorts of issues in the article - but I think if this is the best source we can provide we should not bother for now. -- SiobhanHansa 11:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I haven't heard anything that shores up the source as a good reference for the claim I've deleted it. If we can find better sourcing perhaps we could write a better section on the economics of marriage at a later date. -- SiobhanHansa 01:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Outdoor wedding section used to promote non-neutral POV
An editor is trying to use the site to promote his/her point of view and commercial service. The recently added text is non-encyclopedic, non-neutral POV, unsourced, AND irrelevant. As the other editor obviously has a different opinion, could another person please comment so that we can reach the concensus (or not) that this section should be deleted? Njsustain (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

White dress origins: questionable source
Though I have not read the cited source, it seems irrelevant that "the girls of the royal court" wore white would make the color a symbol of extravagance. I have read many places that the reason it was extravagant is that a white dress could only be worn once or for very limited purposes, and to buy or make a dress for just that usage would therefore show how rich you were... most people just wore the nicest clothes they had, even in the early 20th century, and would not buy a dress just to get married. Could someone show the exact quote from the reference in question, to explain how it fits in to this article? I really don't see the connection and think that part should be removed.Njsustain (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. "... what made white--pure white without any silver threads--so appealing at this time?  Quite simply, white was the color girls were supposed to wear at the court.  It was also hard to keep clean, and cleanliness was becoming more valued as a sign of privilege (and later became associated with good hygiene and fighting germs).  More important, the queen herself, and the era she lived in, valued the ideal of female sexual purity and associated this trait with the color white.  In Western culture, there were only two kinds of women, good ones (mothers and virgins) and evil ones (whores).  The Victorians had their own twinning of women, the pure versus the "fallen" (their term for a prostitute)."  pg. 31 like it is cited on the page.Griswaldo (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks: I don't think that it is a 100% direct statement that people were picking that color because it was the colors girls were supposed to wear to court. I think it's a bit overstating it to put it that way in the article. I think just saying it was a popular color at the time would be enough. I'll try to write something based on the source material.Njsustain (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * People chose the color after Victoria's wedding mostly simply because of the very fact that Victoria wore white. That can be cited to almost any history book that mentions the birth of the white wedding.  I was simply trying to correct an incorrect statement about white not symbolizing virginity to Victorians because it did.Griswaldo (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Long sections of topics with separate aritcles
Several sections, such as Jewish Weddings, Mormon Weddings, and several country-specific sections, are very long, and needn't be as they have their own articles. This makes the Wedding article much too long with needless detail. We should start cutting back on these. They should have a few key points, and those interested can go to the specific article. Njsustain (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Split worldwide customs

 * I suggest that the whole Wedding customs around the world can be forked to a separate article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know this is really old, but for what it's worth, I agree. 24.77.246.98 (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the page title, but I agree on split; too much of the article is focused on worldwide customs. I fixed the link in split section to point here to perhaps get more discussion with a blue link. —Ost (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's a no-brainer, IMHO. The subject is notable in its own right, already long (not necessarily well-developed yet, though), and if kept in "Wedding" then neither article will be able to develop fully because of space limitations. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree as well.Griswaldo (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to split this out now, but I wonder if the long term solution is not to have individual entries about weddings in each country. Either way this is a good start.Griswaldo (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Marriage rededication ceremony?
I was looking for an article on this topic. The ceremonies are fairly popular, at least here in the USA, but WP does not seem to have any information on them. Borock (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I should start working on the article. Borock (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure they are popular? I'm not convinced that they are very popular, but if you have good sources I'd be very interested to see what you come up with.  Are you planning a separate entry?  I would definitely suggest doing so.  Post a link when you get started.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I was planning on starting a new article. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Borock (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here it is: Wedding vow renewal ceremony. It's just a start but I think it established the notability of the topic. Borock (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing Section on Marthoma weddings
Mar Thoma Church is a relatively small sect of St Thomas Christians in the Indian state of Kerala. Having an entire section dedicated to their weddings is irrelevant when there are no sections for myriad other sects of Christianity. So, I have removed it. 61.14.17.120 (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Too many pictures
Pictures were dumped into this article with no organization, many have nothing to do with the section that they are in it. Reorganize. Hafspajen (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Same opinion, some adverting perhaps--Musamies (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It is reorganized NOW. That was 18 May 2014. Hafspajen (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC) OK, removed two more, that has to do more with the history. And the rest is not too much now. It was much more of a chaos before. Hafspajen (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Barcelona wedding
I think this picture is out of place in a section about wedding music; it is only relevant to wedding clothes so should be omitted rather than put where it is.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can remove it. The problem is that the lead section is crowded. Hafspajen (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Wedding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120814003503/http://www.rhymingspeeches.com:80/bridespeech/ to http://www.rhymingspeeches.com/bridespeech
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.holyspiritchurch.com/weddingarr.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A Hindu wedding ritual.jpg

Sourced info needed
We need sourced info about same-sex weddings and we also need to stick to topic - weddings not marriage. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Honor Attendants
It appears that there may be some confusion about the term. Are all participants in a wedding considered "honor attendants"? It would appear from the article's text that this is only referring to the sister(s) of the groom and the brother(s) of the bride. Indeed this appears to be a sex related issue as the bride's attendants are female and the groom's attendants are male. - --KitchM (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)