Talk:Wedding

• Archive of Discussion before March 2006

International wedding traditions

I think this article needs to have more information about weddings around the world. I can provide some information about Indian Hindu weddings. Can anyone guide where that should be added? Aneesha 19:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to put the information there, put it under the "customs" section, the same where French customs are discussed. --Joshuagross 14:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• The section on Chinese weddings is so far too simplified and too generic. The traditions should eventually span many different traditions from within China (eg Cantonese, Hakka, etc) with descriptions of elements like tea ceremony, dress, etc.Ep9206 22:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Too focused on Christian weddings?

The article seems incredibly oriented to Christian western weddings, which are only a small number of weddings. comments like "weddings generally contain some form of vows" is incredibly inaccurate outside of the Christian wedding framework..

I always thought the traditional end-of-wedding music was from Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream. The .ogg sample is the first time I've heard the Widor piece. -- Merphant

Well, this is Wiki, so you know what to do: be bold and add information about other traditions!

Atlant 21:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Someone please, please add sections on Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, and Chinese weddings! --M@rēino 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Western wedding should not be synonymous with Christian wedding. I suggest having Christian wedding be made a separate section with emphasis in the Western wedding section on influences from Christian weddings.Ep9206 22:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Separate Pages

Should different types of weddings be in separate pages? For example a page about chinese weddings, a page about Jewish weddings, and so on... I think there is too much variation to try make some generalised single page covering everything. What do you think?

• That makes plenty of sense. However, this generalized page is a good start until enough material gathers within a subcategory to break it off as its own article.Ep9206 22:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad phrasing

"Wedding ceremonies may contain any number of different elements" is a poor excuse for something. Anything can contain any number of different elements. Can someone put the excused phrasing instead?

• It's not a bad start. However, the article needs more citations though to avoid being its current hodgepodge of POV.Ep9206 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge Wedding anniversary into this page?

• Against, because it would be better merged with the page for Anniversary instead. DFH 19:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• nomerge, because I think it stands on its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
• Oppose different topics --Henrygb 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Against These aren't the same subject and a merge would have a detrimental impact on this article. I think DFH's suggestion of a merge with anniversary is more appropriate, thought he article can probably stand on its own. --Siobhan Hansa 01:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Given four votes against, zero in support, and a month of silence, I am removing the merge tag from the wedding anniversary page. --Masamage 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Role of Clergy?

I notice that there seems to little or no mention of the role that may be performed by a member of the clergy in a wedding. For example, the list of participants omits a member of the clergy who might (depending on the religion/culture in which the wedding is taking place) be actually performing the wedding. This page shouldn't be made more Christian/western centric, but failure to even mention that a member of the clergy might play an active role in the ceremony seems a serious omission. Comments? Rickterp 15:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

References of Christian ritualism and Background

I have been searching for a a little while about what does it actually say in the bible about the act of a wedding and where does a Christian wedding come from. What is necessary to for us to be considered we are married. I have always heard and seen on movies and wedding that i have been to, the priest speak "Do you ________ Take ________ to be your lawfully wedded husband/wife to have and to hold in sickness and in health till death do you part. Where is this coming from? I havent seen this in the Bible. I would like to know what exactly makes a marriage a marriage. In my eyes a Christian Marriage can simply be two people taking a vow to share their life together and for a purpose of serving the lord, a life to grow with Christ. Is a single Vow to do this not constitute as marriage. or must we have a reception and speak the words that i quoted above. Must we say " I DO " in front of at least a few witnesses and a priest pastor, or preacher before we are married. Thank you (Brian) 2:54, November 5 2006

Batik and Kebaya

In the clothing section Batik and Kebaya is noted as traditional for Javanese. With the way it's written and linked it seems ambiguous to me. Is it a batik dyed kebaya, or is there a garment known as a batik and kebaya? Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Civil Union

We had a wedding to enter our civil union. I have changed the opening of the article to reflect that weddings are not the sole domain of marriage. Enzedbrit 20:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

That's messed up. We have pictures of every wedding around the world EXCEPT IN THE UNITED STATES? Colonel Marksman 20:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the people of Connecticut would be surprised to find they aren't part of the United States. -- Siobhan Hansa 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nuptial addition at top of page

Nuptial currently redirects here so this edit] makes sense for those who have come to the page through that route. But the sentence adds an entirely different meaning to the page in a way that might be confusing for some one who has just typed in "Wedding". I was thinking a disambiguation page for nuptial might be more appropriate but it seems like a lot of overhead if we only have two meanings to disambiguate. Other opinions, comments or suggestions? -- Siobhan Hansa 12:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I made the edit because I go through a lot of bird articles these days. I am also not 100% satisfied with it, but as Nuptial redirs and then does not appear on the entire page except once, unmarked, as a synonym with "wedding" proper, I wanted to have at least some dab for those who come there from "nuptial plumage" or sth. Do as you please; as long as there's some indication of the scientific use of "nuptial", I'll be pleased.

Maybe instead of a dab, it could be un-italicized, moved to the end of the intro section, with a half-sentence about the etymology of "nuptial" or so... the term's from Latin nuptiae, "wedding", and a see-also link to Ancient Roman marriage might even be added. Dysmorodrepanis 12:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Expenses section

We've had some off things going in here and I'm not sure about the usefulness of the section from an encyclopedic persective as we current;y have it. I just reverted someone trying to compare "typical" Indian wedding costs (what was considered typical was unspecified) with average American wedding costs - (an average which is itself suspect coming from the wedding industry and providing few details on methodology). While it would be great to compare wedding costs across cultures and countries, I don't think we do our audience any favors when we fail to be rigorous and thoughtful about the information or the how to present it well. I haven't seen any sources provided that would really let us talk about costs in an encyclopedic fashion rather than a magazine-ish we-don't-really-care-if-it's-not-that-accurate, but-don't-these-figures-make-your-eyes-open-wide sort of way. Does anyone know of less suspect research into wedding costs? Academic, economic research maybe? Perhaps we could stick to things we can be more certain of - government published figures on the sector for instance. -- SiobhanHansa 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Weddings are sexist :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.240.79 (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Picture

I removed the picture of the gay wedding, since I believe that there probably aren't many people who look at this article expecting to see a picture of two men kissing eachother. --White Requiem (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The intention is to show the diversity that exists under the common concept of a wedding. It seems to do that pretty well. I think the article is better off with it. -- SiobhanHansa 01:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As the subject of the wedding photograph in question, I really don't think that anyone is any position to remove a photo based on the assumption that people don't want to see "two men kissing each other". Don't forget, White Requiem, that gay and lesbian people are subjected to seeing straight men and women kissing each other every day of our lives and we do so without protest, fuss or the need to remove such photographs from the Internet. Enzedbrit (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Further, as it is not pornography, illicit, violating or anything illegal, there is no reason why it should be censored from Wikipedia, let alone the Internet.Enzedbrit (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

-By inserting a picture of two men kissing, you are stirring up a hornets nest unnecessarily. Stick to images which are not so controversial or it will hurt the neutrality of this article. Respect the fact that a great majority of Americans and Canadians (they are the only countries I can speak for, however I'm sure others share the same opinion) Do not believe in Gay marriage and would really rather not view a picture of two men kissing. Find a better picture of, perhaps, two men walking down the aisle together or leave the picture out completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.36.68 (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

- Agreed, don't need to have gay kissing picture... it was pretty nasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.169.205 (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The real issue isn't that it was a male-male couple, but that the photo had nothing to do with a wedding. It was, as termed by all, "two men kissing". There was little, if anything, to make apparent that it was a wedding at all. A photo of two men or two women being married, walking together out of a chapel, or similar may be fine, but this article is about the wedding and not kissing, and thus the photo was not appropriate to the article at hand. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at the preceding comments. It is largely a matter of censorship. And though it doesn't demonstrate a wedding ceremony per se, it was taken during a gay wedding. The photo's title is something like gaywedding4; not twomenkissing4.jpg. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The preceeding comments are bad arguments in favor of a good decision. The arguments they make are not valid, but their aim is valid, per my comment above. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Though it isn't apparent that it's a wedding photo, it is still a wedding photo. The couple always/normally kisses like that at a wedding, so I would say it is an apt picture. Granted, the examples you gave would be better. However, until someone puts one of those in, I think this one should stay, to ensure that people don't try to censor WP. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a photograph of a wedding. It is a same-sex wedding. Anyone who wants it removed is nothing but a nasty, bigoted homophobe who hates gay people and wants the world to be pure and straight (and white and Christian and American and middle class). The photo stays. 121.72.70.111 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)