|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mail-order bride article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This entry needs a heavy rewrite
It's riddled with bias, negative comments, allegations and somewhat bigoted. The introduction is largely one-sided. Not enough citations. No mention of laws regarding international marriage brokerage in other countries. The history section is shockingly underdeveloped. For example: In 1619, when the Jamestown Colony had a need for more women, the Virginia Company of London sent shipments of mail-order brides from England in return for tobacco. More information can be found in Women's Life and Work in the Southern Colonies by Julia Spruill and other books about women in the Jamestown colony. There are similar history books about international marriage brokerage around the world including Europe, Australia, Japan, China, South America and so on as well. Particularly the Victorian-era marriage industry in western countries. I'm frustrated, because I don't have the skills to rewrite this entry (I'm still struggling to understand Wikipedia's editorial policies and how some editing functions work). I hope this entry will be flagged for the attention of a skilled Wikipedia editor who would be willing to spend time rewriting and editing this. Thank you. 0zero9nine (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- The article is certainly open to any new information that comes from a credible, dependable source. But I disagree with this statement: "It's riddled with bias, negative comments, allegations and somewhat bigoted." Not true. On the contrary, the article is referencing highly credible sources and fleshing out ideas that are relevant for the subject. If you have other information to source and include feel free to do so. "Negative comments?" Where? Off-hand "negative comments" are not allowed in a Wikipedia article. But to simply land in the article and completely dismiss it as "biased" because you are not comfortable with some of the content is not productive. Also: do not think that the content that is included from credible sources may be removed simply because you feel it is "biased" or "bigoted." That is your opinion. Wikipedia content is not judged based on whether someone thinks it is "biased," but rather the origin of the information in reliable sources. Read more here: WP:NOR. Thank you. Computer1200 (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The construction of a source as "reliable" is as much a matter of opinion as anything else, and that's doubly true for non-academic sources. Even Wikipedia's guidelines for reliability acknowledge as much by pointing to subjective criteria such as "reputation". It's hard to conceive of an assessment of a source's reliability trumping an assessment of its appropriateness. Filling this article with xenophobic, alarmist material from modern "reliable" sources makes about as much sense as filling the article on civil rights with racist material from Southern newspapers in the 1960s (which were, of course, considered to be "reliable"), or filling the article on Adam Smith with Marxist polemics.
The article in question has an obvious ideological bias. The fact that the bias in question is common enough to be reflected in mainstream periodicals does not legitimize it. When an extreme and controversial claim or characterization is made, citing a newspaper article is not sufficient....or at least it shouldn't be. The number of academic sources in this article is appallingly low. My recommendation would be to start fresh and actually work from peer-reviewed scholarship on the history of the mail order bride phenomenon, filling in the gaps with popular sources, rather than cobbling together a biased mess out of popular periodicals and online articles, which is what we have here. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but--again--just because you do not like the content that comes from reliable journalistic sources does not mean that Wikipedia does not allow those sources. Wikipedia is governed by rules dictating what sources are reliable, not whether you think it is "biased." If Wiki was based on people's judgments of biased, it would be impossible because everyone has different opinions of bias. "xenophobic?" "alarmist?" I disagree. But of course, you will have your opinion. As mentioned above, "do not think that the content that is included from credible sources may be removed simply because you feel it is "biased" or "bigoted." That is your opinion. Wikipedia content is not judged based on whether someone thinks it is "biased," but rather the origin of the information in reliable sources. Read more here: WP:NOR" If you want to ban all mainstream periodical publications that meet Wiki standards because you think they are biased, then you need to talk to Wiki staff -- not post it here in the discussion. Because reliable sources will *always* be allowed -- regardless of personal opinion, or whether you think a reliable source is biased.
- As the article now stands, it is mutilated from what it was before, long, wordy, with much of the content referencing no citation at all whatsoever. Those will come out first. Do not make large changes until you discuss here.Computer1200 (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I have updated the article by removing a huge load of redundant information, and consolidating the article in three major categories, following the introduction: history, legal issues, mail order brides situations & stories, and then country-specific information. Please include anything that is specific to a country in this last section only, or the article will get very messy quickly. Add all stories of mail-order brides that are more narrative in nature (with appropriate citation) in the Mail order bride situations and stories section and indicate the country and/or region.
Also, there were a number of issues with proper referencing of sources. Please remember that all material posted must reference a Wikipedia approved source of information. See Wikipedia's rules for citations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources It is not allowed to post information that does not reference a reliable source that can be verified.
Computer1200 (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Les filles du roi (Canada, historical)
Odd to see no mention of les filles du roi, the "king's daughters" who were the original group to have immigrated solely for the purpose of marriage and colonisation of what was New France centuries ago. Even Uncyclopedia gives this key bit of Canadian heritage at least a line in the history section. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I like how this article cleverly says "their customers" in order to sway the easily swayed reader to think that because people like myself who have decided to try international marriage (without a dating agency but with a website) are only disputing the Mail order bride label as derogatory because we are biased there for unable to sort fact from fiction when in fact the people who chosen not to are actually the ones in the dark because they have only hearsay and biased media to rely on as their source of information as opposed to actually getting to know them, visiting them and then seeing how misinformed the media is about this issue. Not that all of the hearsay is wrong but it's grossly misrepresented and over generalized. Any one who has taken to the time to really get to know the women overseas without prejudice can clearly see how grossly misinformed most people are about this issue. They also generalized because of their is an international boarder (different countries) between two websites and two people it (the female human being) is a mail order bride but if there is no boarder (same country)and they're "advertising themselves for marriage they are not. The women are labeled as commodities and the men are reduced to johns just for crossing boarders in dating even if they are truly in love in a mutually respectful relationship. Does that in any way make sense or seem humane? I understand where the label came from and in the past maybe mostly only sleezebags did it but I would think that modern humans would advance with modern times. Only a few decades ago online dating was considered ridiculous and now its common place. Let's grow with the times people. You see "the customers" have first hand information where as the public has second, third or maybe even forth and fifth hand information and that's why we "johns" see it as deroagatory because we can see the affect it has in the women being labeled and mistreated due to the labeling. Ultimately, people who are negatively labeled are also undervalued and under protected and become prime targets (both men and women) for just the sort of characters that fit the stereotypes that you assume all do. When I first started international dating I had no idea that it was considered to be mail order briding because i only saw human beings not commodities, to me it was just another dating website with lots of attractive women. It was only later after losing a 15 year friendship over the matter that I realized that I was considered to be a mail order john for doing so and it was then that I could see the ignorance surrounding the issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's "border" not boarder. Furthermore, the label doesn't target everyone crossing international lines; Martha Stewart Haskell likely isn't a mail-order bride, and the war bride and war children of a soldier actually stationed abroad are also in a different position from someone seeking a spouse in a country to which they have no other discernible tie. In some cases, these relationships are a means to family-class status and jumping the queue ahead of independent immigrants (with much-needed qualifications) by persons who would likely otherwise not even qualify for a non-working tourist visa. There are also huge disparities in age (sometimes the two are an entire generation apart) and wealth (some of the countries involved actually have "remittances" - money sent back to relatives by overseas workers and emigrants - as a significant percentage of GDP). To dismiss the risks of romance scams or spousal abuse just because one relationship happened to work out is naïve - we have WP:OR to keep this sort of anecdotal evidence from being used to make blind generalisations. K7L (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Since you could not resist a personal attack it seems you take my comments personal. All of the things you focus on are shallow and materialistic. Most of these people just look at each other as people and that might be a strange thing to a lot of people that age (between adults)is invisible or material wealth is invisible but that's why so many people go this direction, to escape the judgmentalism and shallow criteria for choosing a mate. You obviously think there is only one way to do things in the world and that's your way as though you are the person that determines who can be with whom (did I get it right?). Sorry dude but you are not God and what is legally done between consenting adults is not your business and just because it's international doesn't make it your business no matter how much you don't approve of something. You can discuss it all day, pass judgement, jump up and down, but what goes on between two legal adults legally is a private matter
As always there are those that will take advantage of any thing that they can and use it for the wrong reasons, but your fear mongering is simply your way of projecting your own fears and labeling people that don't deserve to be labeled. You're doing more harm than good but you can't see that because you haven't taken time to get to know the people you are doing harm to. It's not the scammers that you're harming because scammers don't care, it's the genuine people that you're harming because they (especially innocent women) are the ones that get mistreated as a result of labeling, generalizing and misinformation. Labeling, generalizing and misinformation is actually getting women killed because it sets up a situation where no one cares about their situation and believe that they deserve it because they're all believed to be scammers. You've obviously never talked to anyone who has been labeled this way unfairly and seen the pain and damage that it causes. (feel free to correct my spelling, grammar or anything else. I actually appreciate it because unlike you I make mistakes from time to time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Au contraire, pretending scams and abuse don't exist when both sometimes happen is the sort of ignorance that gets women killed. K7L (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005
The article mentions the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005; however this act is only of use for women that wish to marry a man from the USA. Which acts exist for other countries ? Can this be mentioned ? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- It has been pointed out that there is a discrepancy between how international adoptions are regarded ("saving a child") and how international marriages are regarded ("buying a wife").
Really? One might want to look at the current political situation where Vladimir Putin's Russia has ended all international adoption to United States of America families using one child's death as an unfortunate pretext. There have been a few other high-profile incidents, including a US church-backed group in post-quake Haïti caught trying to remove "orphans" via the Dominican Republic while the parents were very much alive and a group "l'Arche de Zoë" which was caught in a similar scandal in Africa. Not all nations allow their spawn to be taken through international adoption. Prospective adoptive parents get a free pass to a point (for instance, a blind eye is turned to the pattern of them not wanting older kids, problem kids, siblings placed together but being willing to spend thousands to go abroad for the "cute widdle baybee") but any sign of fraud on the part of an adoption agency is pilloried in the media. K7L (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)