Talk:Arranged marriage

Top

The second half of the first section seems fairly biased to me. Anyone else thing so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.19.11 (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

bizrate over-emphasis on one religion corrected.

The opening sentence contains a strange error. Maybe it's merely semantics:

Taking a literal reading of the article's opening sentence would seem to define the well-known mass marriages of the Unification Church as somehow as either (a) not being "arranged marriages" or (b) not having a "spiritual purpose".

I doubt if that was the writer's intent.

The language in the entire article generally needs help. Arranged marriages may have spiritual or religious underpinnings of some sort, and I don't see the two terms as being identical. My guess is that the author of the article simply used the wrong word. Perhaps as an alternative could be

• • An arranged marriage is a marriage where the marital partners are chosen by others based on considerations other than the pre-existing mutual attraction of the partners.

Eclecticology

Yes, it was a wrong word, I would have expressed what Eclecticology correctly defines. On a perhaps too romantic point of view, marriage should be the union between two partners essentially based on a sentiment they reciprocally share. The word "spiritual", in my attempt of definition, should have therefore expressed some ideal evolutions of "attraction", like love or other sentimental reasons. But for a general definition of the topic, it is effectively more correct to limit on attraction, the reality being made of many other aspects than ideality.

Sorry for late answer, but here the Wiki is becoming very slow to download -- Gianfranco

I've replaced the definition with mine. As for the Wiki slowness, I've had the same experience. I'm at least glad to know that the problem is not with my own machine. Eclecticology

It should be noted that arranged marriages are also still found in Japan, although much less common than in india. I cannot confirm the source, but I heared that in Japan, about 10 per cent of all weddings is arranged in some way. Aslo, it might be interesting to note the fact that even in the west, agencies that help people find a husband or wife are not uncommon. are these also arranged marriages?

You're missing a few sentences. Marriages can also be arranged between the two partners, by the two partners. So, in a way, all marriages are arranged. Please consider moving the article. 210.55.81.34 22:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually I though "arranged marriage" actually means marriage arranged by people other then the two getting married. Maybe not.... --Macrowiz 03:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

My mother told me about what "arranged marriages" were like in her culture when she was young. Usually the boy and girl were bethrothed to each other before they were even born, and the bride usually entered her future groom's home for the first time when she was no more than three years old. The boy and girl were raised together, usually by the boy's parents. The wedding ceremony itself usually took place whenever they were physically capable of fulfilling their roles. If either of them refused the marriage, they would be frowned upon, but not really disowned, and not punished.

So, as my conclusion, "arranged marriage" means a marriage that is planned out by close family members, usually when the future bride and groom are very young.SilentWind 20:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)SilentWind

Proponent's Views

I think it needs to be explained that many people getting an arranged marriage DO NOT have a problem with it, and this is due to the nature of the culture itself. There are reasons for it, many of which I understand, but I still don't agree with the practice as a whole. Nevertheless, Wikipedia must be NPOV --Macrowiz 20:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but the criticisms must be included too. The way the article stands it's too much of an advertisment than an actual encyclopedia article. -RomeW 00:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This article has changed a lot and I agree with you at this point. There used to be a lot of criticism w/o any positives. I have a feeling we're going in circles. --Macrowiz 23:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I did a complete rewrite... I hope it's much less biased.--Macrowiz 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, I backed up all my claims. I still don't know how to Wikipedia cite. --Macrowiz 05:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Arrange your marriage" and similar websites

What is the difference between websites like this one [1] and regular marriage-oriented dating sites like EHarmony? Rad Racer 20:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arranged marriage and love-shyness

Has anyone heard of any studies about arranged marriage being used to overcome problems related to love-shyness? Rad Racer 20:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A dissenting view

--Tjstrf 19:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)--Tjstrf 19:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Arranged marriage in the way I see it is wrong and is the cancer of New Zealand's society, if not India's society. I don't know what's up with them. This is 2005, not 1605. We've moved on from this. Seriously we have. Who's with me? Scott Gall 05:18, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Other than just another opinion, what is your basis for believing this? It seems to me that your name and therefore your background has more to do with your impressions than anything else. If arranged marriages are truly a cancer then I think all of us would like to hear your thoughts on >50% divorce rates that exist on the side of the debate you are coming from. I guess the saddest thing of all is that people like you hold these views but can offer no examples or if you can then you provide extraordinary cases to substantiate your claims. These outlandish examples exist on both sides so lets keep the article free of non-sense rhetoric. 24.7.141.159 09:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for New Zealand, but in India things are changing pretty fast. Every Indian I know has the final decision on who they marry. They can enlist the help of their parents if they like to keep at least some feel of tradition. --Macrowiz 03:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not with you. In my experience with arranged marriages (all my family and most of my friends have had arranged marriages), things have worked out quite well. Certainly by no means could one apply the adjective "cancerous" to it.

Not with you either. I respect the process as a long-standing tradition that allows the parents, who are more experienced, and not "in love," to have a more decisive input on their children's future. Plus, when you consider the crazy divorce statistics we have here in America, it seems like a refreshing alternative. (Also added sub-heading, this section definitely had nothing to do with love-shyness) --Tjstrf 00:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Scott. This is infact 2006 now and it's still going on. People like to come up with the 'wonderful' 50% divorce ratio in the west. Let me tell you something. You should be proud you live in a part of the country that is willing to admit that marrages end. In India, divorce is considered a sin of the lowest possible kind. Have you heard of wife-beatings and abuse in the India? take a look at those stats sometime, it may open your eyes a bit.

(In reference to a since deleted highly inflammatory comment by User: Subhash Rose) Thanks for the totally unprovoked and blatently racist assault on half of the users of this website, it really helps make our point about how arranged marriages are a reasonable idea when its supporters act like idiotic 12 year olds! --Tjstrf 15:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

what does acting like a 12 year old have to do with whether or not arranged marriages are a good idea?

In retrospect I do realise what I wrote sounds quite fanatical "let me tell you something"! I am indian. No, I don't represent all Indians, and I am not racist in anyway, shape or form. I am talking about a way of thinking, race doesnt even come into this argument. Do some research, find out more about this issue and think for yourself. Arranged marriage is a violation of democracy - the freedom to choose your spouse. I can't see any substantial arguments to the contrary so far, apart from "the ones i know of worked out well"

The reason why I got so pissed off at the defamatory tirade above was because I have seen way to many instances of topics like this used to justify hate crimes against Hindus in Europe. I mean, let's look at classical Jewish society (just as another example from a different culture). In ancient Israel, as well as in medeival Europe, arranged marriages were not uncommon among Jewish families. Even today, some Ashkenazy families arrange their marriages with Ashkenazy families (one of my professors, and Ashkenazi, just married another Ashkenazi on the wishes of his dying mother). Now granted, this was largely due to prejudice against Jews in old days and all that. But it did work out well. This has led to selective breeding over the couse of many millenia. That's worked out okay, right? The fact is, most of the really brainy types in the west tend to be Ashkenazy Jews (the greatest scientists, doctors, humanitarians, artists and philosophers in the west in the last 100 years or so have been Ashkenazim, you have to admire that). Look at this article for support

(http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/7/29/20293/9910). How can you deny us Hindus the right to plan our own gene pool in this manner? Don't we have a fundamental right to determine our genetic future, instead of it being dictated by this occidental bestiality called "love"? This fiction, invented by the French during the middle ages to justify having incestuous sex with their sisters? Please. Arranged marriages without consent are un-democratic, true. I am opposed to those. However, most arranged marriages in India today are done with the consent of both the bride and groom. It is an informed decision made by families where the bride and groom respect their heritage and the decision of their families and choose to follow them. It is understood, however, that the bride and groom have the last word in this issue. If either one does not like the match, then the marriage cannot be allowed. What you're talking about are "FORCED" marriages, which is an entirely different thing altogether, and is a serious felony in Indian law. People who equate arranged marriages (as an idea) with forced marriages are trying to pursue an agenda of libel and defamation of Indian society. That is typically the domain of white-trash rednecks who lot their jobs to outsourcing, and commie leftists with a racialist agenda against Hindus. Even the damn terrorists don't go this far! Forced marriages do happen, and it's regrettable when they do. There is a separate wikipedia article on that. Go troll there, bhaiya!--User: Subhash Bose

OK, great, whatever you say. I support arranged marriages, though obviously not forced marriages, but you really aren't helping the view by going off on little mini-rants in which you use blatent stereotypes. If you are angry about the stereotype from the imperialist era literature of Hindus as a bunch of "wifeburning heathens" and do not wish to be viewed as such, then you should show the same courtesy in your reference to those of other nationalities. As is, you have called the French incestuous, Americans rednecks, (among other things) and claimed that the liberals hate Hindus. All this without anyone making a single comment about India anywhere in this page, except for one inhabitant of India who said that the people he knew all wed people of their own choosing. If you wish to keep acting this way, I suppose you have that right since this is the internet, but you are merely going to promote negative views of both arranged marriage and Indian people as a whole. That will be all.--Tjstrf 07:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, why would one user's behavior promote negative views on "arranged marriages" or on Indian people as a whole? You seem to be opposed to generalizing, and I agree with you on that, so aren't you doing the same by saying that Subhash's views and attitude represents more than a billion people? Even the prime minister of India cannot adequately represent the whole country's views.

Where did I refer to ALL Americans as rednecks????? Only the inbred deep-south trailer-trash morons, and it's these people who typically troll the internet searching for ways to defame minorities. Also, if you read newspapers and WIKIPEDIA articles, you will know that the American Academia is predominantly Liberal, and has intensely anti-Hindu, as well as anti-semetic segments. Read the wikipedia articles on Wendy Doniger and Michael "Nazi" Witzel, if you don't believe me, or the virulently racist publications of Mearsheimer and Walt (http://www.adl.org/Israel/mearsheimer_walt.asp). These people are intolerant of all cultures but their own warped reality, and will resort to any low-life tactic to defame all of us of the old world. This is a real problem, people, and you are not helping matters any in this talk page.--[User:Subhash bose]]

You were being blatently racist, and speaking in some of the broadest generalizations possible. Learn to present your opinion in a sane and nonoffensive matter. I am dropping this now, because anything I said to you past this point would be crossing the lines of civil discussion. --Tjstrf 19:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nein. I was being defensively nationalist, as is my right. Racism is a western ideology. As for the large scale tirades on arranged marriages, they are entirely without merit and are touted by REAL racists who are frightful of the increasing successes of Indian Hindu minoroities in the west and are resorting to increasingly desperate tactics of ritual defamation. The fact is, any evidence that lends support to the "undemocratic" nature of arranged marriages is anecdotal at best, and usually traced to urban or rural legends. These racists are clouding the REAL problem of FORCED marriages as part of a sociopolitical agenda of hate. A properly and discerningly arranged marriage lasts a lifetime. The (western) alternative ie a "love marriage" is a pile of bunk. There is no scientific or anthropological evidence to support that an emotion like "romantic love" even exists. The very notion was invented in Medeival Europe. Ask any historical anthropologist worth his salt and (s)he'll tell you that the idea originated during feudal times. Don't get pissed because a brown "mud-blood" like me can refute the lies of "pure blooded white Aryans (so-called)" like our New-Zealander or whoever.--User:Subhash Bose

It is a great illusion to believe in this concept of "arranged marriage" and "forced marriage", as two separate concepts. The reality is that there is a definite grey area between the two. By growing up in a culture where pre marital relationships are frowned upon, the "choice" of having an arranged marriage is an illusion. It is simply a by-product of a culture imposing its thought pattern on a younger generation, and wiping out any interpersonal independence. I really can't take any of Subash's point seriously, since they sound quite fanatical...cue inteligent debate please!!!

I can say the exact same thing about "Western marriages", that they are the product of a culture imposing it's thought pattern on successive generations. Arranged marriages were quite common in the west (Royalty and Nobility in England, France, Holy Roman Empire etc., even common folk got married not because of any "love" but because there were practical and familial reasons to do so). I can't take any of your points seriously, since they are racialist and biased towards the "white miracle" myth. How's THAT for an intelligent debate, or does "intelligence" not apply to non-whites in your mind? --User:Subhash Bose

I am indian. Look up wikipedia for "generalisation" It is clear that you do not wish to debate, simply to flame.

You look up wikipedia for "self-hatred" my pseudosecularist friend. It is clear that you are ignorant of the ground realities of Hindu society and too busy swallowing any old crap tha the liberal media spews out of it's lie-machines. You may be an Indian, but you are no more Hindu than Noam Chomsky is Jewish.[[[User:Subhash bose|Netaji]] 01:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)]

Correct. I am not Hindu. I'm sorry that that you feel so strongly about this issue and cannot see the other side. Best of luck to you.

If you're a mlechha, then you are in no position to comment on Hindu marriage customs, unless you have a scholarly background on the subject (and even then it is suspect) or have done some kind of factual research from impartial non-partisan sources (so leftist media like New York Times and cheap Bollywood crap doesn't count). I'm sorry you hate hindus so much that you have nothing better to do than troll wikipedia gainst us. Please find another outlet for hatemongering and flaming. May I suggest stormfront.org?[[[User:Subhash bose|Netaji]] 13:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)]

What is a mlechha? I dont hate anyone, nor have I flamed or hatemongered. You assume that I am leftwing, you assume I am hindu, you assume I am a 'mlecha', and you assume that I have done no research, you assume that I read the new york times and you assume that I watch bollywood. I guess you've got me figured out. Why bother with debate, why doesnt everyone on wikipedia just listen to you?

'Mlechcha' means gentile (non-Hindu). The fact is, most mlechchas who 'criticize' arranged marriages do so not because they care about 'free will' or 'democracy' or any of the usual liberal talking points , but, in fact are anti-Hindu racist hatemongers with an explicit intent of defaming the Hindu ethos . They do so largely to justify ethnic cleansings against Hindus that have taken place in recent years {, and who but a useless liberal from a bastardized meaningless quasi-multiculturalist hippie dump would endorse mass-murder (proof, the most horrendous crimes against humanity have been committed by socialists in the last century )? So clean up your own damn backyards before you try clean up ours.(Pusyamitra Sunga 06:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC))

hmmm...

For an illustration of how arranged and forced marriage are different, consider the following situation: You wish to acquire a new car, but, because of your own inexperience with cars, and because you do not wish to be suckered into a bad deal due to a persuasive salesman or nonessential features of the car, you tell one of your friends who has a greater amount of experience with cars to find and recommend one for you, maybe even allowing him to purchase the car in your name. This would be the car equivalent of an arranged marriage, and offers the same advantages. Arranged marriage is a deputization of the marriage decision of your own will. --Tjstrf 19:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What about never being allowed to buy/drive a car as a young adult? surely this affects your decision. Besides, who is this friend with greater experience? Parents have only their own experiences - they haven't married and searched for spouses in their son/daughters generation before or have much experience with it. I agree forced marriage is an entity, but when you start to look at "coaxed" marriages, this fine dividing line dissapears.

Neutrality

I find it odd that absolutely no talk of the criticisms of these marriages- they must exist- is present in the article. I added the neutrality tag since this sounds more like an advertisment for the marriages than an actual article discussing the practice. -RomeW

Added the "Unreferrenced" tag to this, because there are no references either.-RomeW

Actually I've read through the article a few times and it describes "the practice" quite well. Also, since this tends to be a cultural phenomenon, I doubt you'll find or even need a scientific study to substantiate any of the practices in here. For many people this is a norm so asking for references is like asking for references regarding the sky being blue. Being that this is the English wikipedia, I can completely understand why these concepts would be foreign to you but neither of these tags should be on there. I vote for them to be removed unless you can provide a worthwhile counterpoint. 24.7.141.159 09:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've rarely ventured (and have never made edits) outside of English Wikipedia, so I know this area quite well. According to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Why sources should be cited, even articles written from memory or your own knowledge you should be able to track down sources, meaning that since this is a wide-spread practice, there should be a lot written on it (and there is). Furthermore, statistics such as "some cite a divorce rate of only 1 in 25 (in arranged marriages) as opposed to 1 in 2 for the average "love marriage" in western culture" DO need a reference, because without it that's just a random number. If that statistic is true, back it up.

As far as neutrality is concerned, just gleaming several sites online points to a wide derision of the practice at least in the West: Marriage at First Sight (Washington Post), Procrastination: Arranged Marrages (Blog), The Sad Reality Of Arranged Marriages (Chowk.com)Blunkett Defends Marriage Comments- this last one contains a few references to Western derision even if the article's not necessarily a critique of the practice. Only the Post's article and (possibly) the Chowk.com article are authoritative, but the fact remains that this isn't something that's universally accepted, especially in the West, and this issue needs to be addressed. There's no reason to have a "Proponents' Views" section without an "Opponents' Views" section, as a "Proponents' Views" section indicates that there *are* opponents. In fact, just reading the articles (especially the Chowk article), a refutation of the divorce argument surfaces- that the reason why divorce rates are so low is because women in South Asian societies either do not enjoy those rights politically or are so discouraged from enjoying those rights culturally that they essentially don't have those rights. You may not agree, which is understandable, but since Wikipedia is supposed to entail *all* sides of an arguement- even if it's not something you agree with- criticism of the practice needs to be included. -RomeW 21:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a born/raised American with Indian acestory which doesn't give me any more authority than anyone else here but it does provide me with unique insight into both worlds. I don't think any cultural phenomenon can ever be honestly termed as "universally accepted." I agree that there should be a presentation of both views. However, that moves this article from just describing the practice to passing judgement on it. Maybe the "view" section should be renamed into just a "debate" or "western perspective" or whatever you deem appropriate. The link to Zack Ajmal's blog entry is great because he can provide the Pakistani/Muslim perspective on arranged marriage. As far as the sources, there is a *LOT* written on it and I agree with you. However, most of the best works on this are not in English but in Urdu, Arabic, Chinese, etc. Once I find more time, I'd like to work with you and possibly involve Zack Ajmal is trying to get as much information as we can into the article and then we can clean it up. Thanks for the long response, it's appreciated. 24.7.141.159 16:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the statistic as it has no sources. Even if it is true, divorce is actively discouraged in many countries despite being legal. The low divorce rate could be due to that, not just arranged marriage (As RomeW said). If you can support it, please be my guest. --Macrowiz 05:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As for sources and references, PROQUEST is your friend. If I could do it, anyone can (provided a library/university computer).--Macrowiz 05:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please evaluate for neutral tag removal. And someone finish the references!!! --Macrowiz 05:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Once I have time I might write the section criticizing the practice, using the sources I found. There seems to be enough out there to at least make a section, if not a whole new article. -RomeW 09:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia articles usually have the two sections separated, but this issue seemes into intertwined like a long argument. From a NPOV perspective, I did see some psychological surveys showing that women in arranged marriage are not as happy as those in love marriages due to an unequal division of labor. I should add them when I also have time. --68.73.56.57 18:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC) --Macrowiz 18:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign in)

What's up with the "Love or Logic" section? It's basically a giant segment saying arrangened marriages have no flaws, and barely cited (and when it is, it's all anecdotal), not to mention slightly sketchy (it lauds low divorce rates and then uses the phrase "difficult to leave" later on. I think that might be a hint as to why the rates are so low, but whatever). I think it needs a rewrite, or better yet, just excision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.137.3 (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Improved definition

I extended the definition to Muslims. Here (and especially among Muslims living in the UK & USA) an arranged marriage usually means that husband and wife got to known during meetings initially arranged by their parents. These have the open intention of finding a spouse. If there is mutual attraction then there are further meetings in the presence of members of both family. These marriages only happen if there is considerable mutual attraction. Rajab 14:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-arranged arranged marriages

I've heard that in many cases where communities that encourage and/or require arranged marriages form immigrant communities in countries that don't culturally encourage it, what often happens is that a young man and a young woman from within the culture will meet and fall in love without their parents input, but then later tell their parents about it. The parents will then contact each other and go through the motions of making it look like an arranged marriage for the sake of tradition. This is different from the types of arragned marriage already described in the article because the parents don't have input in the initial choice of partner. It's not really arranged marriage, but I've heard that this happens a lot in cultures that prefer arranged marriages. Has anyone else heard of this? Should it go in the article? Rhesusman 21:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I can't speak for all cultures where arranged marriages take place. I can speak for India, where what you described happens a lot. Indians have combined traditional values with modern democratic principles by reconciling with the fact that observance is more important than actual belief. Though you shouldn't talk about any of the "love" stuff. That's not very NPOV. What should be said that a couple interacts, they choose to get married, and have their parents discuss the details. Most arranged marriages are consentual like that. Perhaps this should go in the article, though some background info should be linked or something.[[[User:Subhash bose|Netaji]] 08:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)]

Definitions of "traditional", "modern", etc

I find the definitions of "traditional arranged marriage", "modern arranged marriage" extremely non-NPOV. "Traditional"... in which culture or ethnic group? According to whom? "Modern"? There are A LOT of ethnic groups who sometimes practice at least one form of arranged marriages (sometimes jews and gypsies, arabs, persians, also some indigenous peoples like mixtecs come to my mind). I propose deleting this "traditional/modern/m. with courtship" non-sense and substitute it with a list of ethnic groups that practice it (at least partially) and how it is done in their culture. And yes, I've heard also that some people who've been engaged since childhood find it not that bad, and also claim that it's more succesful than marriage by love, but I feel the article needs more links to both disenting pages and blogs/homepages/articles by people who got into these marriages and found them OK.

I see the definitions accurately convey the reality of arranged marriage: the different degrees vary greatly even within a culture. This is especially true for some eastern cultures that have been westernized. In dealing with westernization, different groups have gotten rid of arranged marriage to a different extent. It isn't an all-or-none thing, which is something people definately need to understand.--Macrowiz 02:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Read this excellent article:

Netting, Nancy S. Two-Lives, One Partner: Indo-Canadian Youth between Love and Arranged Marriages. Journal of :Comparative Family Studies. Calgary: Winter 2006.Vol.37, Iss. 1; pg. 129, 18 pgs

If you go to a library and look up this Proquest document ID you should get it:977552121

It defines 3 types: Rebels (suggestion only), Negotiators (modern AM), Traditionalists

While I like the definitions illustrating the grey area surrounding arranged marriage, they are now in my opinion ORIGINAL RESEARCH (Wikipedia:No_original_research) and I HIGHLY RECOMMEND that they either be backed up with citations or changed to the ones in Netting above. If you agree, you can change them yourself, or say so here and I will do it. I would like some consensus before doing so. --Macrowiz 15:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of low divorce rate paragraph

I removed the paragraph because of following reasons:

1. It was largely about Hindu arranged marriages.
2. It was having a strong POV, with illusory correlation. What does arranged marriage have to do with divorce rate is not established. In India, even love marriages have lower divorce rates as compared to western counterparts. This has to do with social reasons, like women not wanting to divorce as they fear that society will not accept them, etc.
3. It lacked references for tall claims.

Please discuss here before adding again. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia:No original research. --Macrowiz 06:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what was removed, because I still see that the article fails to mention that the lower divorce rate is a byproduct of the social pressure, and the fact that if you did NOT choose your partner yourself...how are you going to divorce that person yourself? Thewhitesamurai 03:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Change wording re "children"

The English language is seriously deficient in having only the one word in normal speech for two concepts. The definitions of arranged marriage at the beginning of the article go on and on about "children", and this sounds worrying to me. I am sure that in most cases it means progeny, ie sons and daughters, but it can also be read as minors, ie little kids. (Which, as we know, was historically, and may still be, the case in some places.) Can anyone think of an elegant way of rewording this?

BTW I came to this article from one on George V of the United Kingdom, where I changed a sentence that said that DESPITE his arranged marriage, he managed to be happy. I could have changed it to BECAUSE of this, but thought that would be just poking fun at people who have never really thought about the issue, so I rewrote the sentence as NPOV and added the link here. I suspect there are LOTS of other articles with this sort of casual thoughtlessness (not malice). Editors with more time than me may care to look for them and remove the POV re arranged marriages. THe "What links here" on the left-hand menu is a good starting place. Good luck. BrainyBabe 18:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've checked all articles currently linked to this one and have corrected two of them (Omiai and Charlotte von Rothschild). I'm not sure what should be done with Forced child marriage though. It's currently linked to Arranged marriage which sounds wrong but I don't know if we should relink it to Child marriage or do something else. Do you know if there are cases of such marriages that are not forced - i.e. the marriage would be programmed while the spouse is a child but would happen only at adulthood with the right to say no given to him/her? BernardM 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about this subject, so can't comment directly re your question. You might want to read the (sometimes heated) talk pages at arranged marriage. I would support you redirecting the search term "forced child marriage" (for which no page exists) to forced marriage rather than arranged marriage. More research and writing is needed. BrainyBabe 15:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Forced marriage not so rare

I have been researching arranged marriage for a college assignment. I do not presume to know enough to have strong opinion on the subject itself. However my research did show that forced marriages are not as rare as the wiki article implies. Please see the new york times magazine article "The Bride Price" by Barry Bearak from July 2006. This article discusses the selling of young girls in marriage to older men for money. I decided to post this on the discussion before editing anything - comments anyone? ~ Samantha —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.23.201.8 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Opponent's Views

I would like to propose the addition of another paragraph to the section on opponents' views. It would say something to the effect that:

One argument against arranged marriage it has been traditionally associated in the past with dowry and bride price. It has been argued that love marriage may better promote the accumulation of wealth and societal growth than arranged marriage. (link to article)

Any comments are welcomed by this newby, as is assistance in developing the link for proper wikipedia formatting. Regards to all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trilobitealive (talk • contribs) 00:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC). Sorry I've not yet developed any consistance in signing. Trilobitealive 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this would be better put in another existing section, perhaps Economic principle in arranged marriage? Here is a semifinal draft:

Arranged marriage has been traditionally associated in the past with dowry and bride price. Economists have argued that arranged marriage is less apt to promote the accumulation of wealth and societal growth than love marriage. That last attempt was obviously NOT the correct way to cite a reference...back to the sandbox! Trilobitealive

It works, though I'm uncertain still about the style. I put it in the article. Trilobitealive 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the fact that in arranged marriages people have little time to know each other up front and they may have conflicting personalities. What about the fact that many people get deceived in arranged marriages where a significant shortcoming is hidden, such as the guy (or girl) is HIV Positive or has another health defect, or some things are hidden which are significant to some, such as that the person smokes. Even proponents of arranged marriage (such as myself) have to admit that there are shortcomings.

Correct Gender Bias

This article has several instances of gender bias. I am going to use the section on "International Marriage" to highlight a few:

"The parents of the man may be happier/feel secure knowing that their son is to marry a person of their own country and culture rather than one "corrupted" by Western influences" - It is incorrect to assume that it is always a man in the "wealthy" country who marries a woman from a "poorer" (I recommend using the word developing) country. There are several instances of the reverse happening. The sentence also implies that it is the woman who is more likely to get "corrupted" by Western influence.

"The parents of the girl hope that their daughter enjoys a higher standard of living" - I don't think this sentence deserves place under this section. It doesn't make a difference to the parent whether this is an "international" marriage or not - most parents want their children to enjoy a higher standard of living. Again, this sentence assumes that it is the woman who migrates.

"Limited choice — The man is constrained in not being able to choose a person of his liking outside his home country" - What about the choice of the woman? Isn't is constrained similarly?

The section consistently implies that only a man is capable of giving a woman a higher living standard and that it is always the woman who migrates. Also, if you're going to use the word "girl," might as well use the word "boy" and not man. Otherwise, please replace "girl" with woman. Titania 06 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of unsourced biased views

Aside from the apparent gender differentiation, the tone and jargon used in this article indicate a general bias against arranged marriages. The subject matter is varied and extensive, requiring more generic topic paragraphs. Then the arguments can be explained in greater detail with subsequent paragraphs. This form facilitate the inclusion of varying styles and practices of arranged marriages, while fostering neutrality.

Example for tone:

• "An arranged marriage is a marriage that is established before involving oneself in a lengthy courtship,"

This statement can be incorrect in differing situations. It insinuate that the marriage can only take place before lengthy courtships. It does not define what a marriage is, requiring the reader to have existing knowledge of marriages. "Involving oneself", suggests free will, which may not be the case in some arranged marriages. My suggestion is as follows:

• "An arranged marriage is a recognized social union between two principle members, based on the deliberation of independent persons."

Once the definition has been explained, further expansion on the issues and trivialities of marriages can be expressed without bias. It is necessary to note that marriages are recognized unions, as ones that are not, can be considered null by the society.

Subjectivity of certain phrases which are not localized can be interpreted to encompass the norms of arranged marriages.

Examples for subjectivity:

• "Many parents, and children likewise, feel pressure from the community to conform, and in certain cultures a "love marriage" or even a non-married relationship is considered a failure on the part of the parents to maintain control over their child."

Although this may be true of the family dynamics of post-classic eras in "Western" societies. This does not always hold true for many South Asian societies. The religious beliefs do not always emphasize control over others but harmony within the community. This is especially true of Hindu and other Mon-Khmer communities practicing early Buddhism.

• "Several cultures deem the son or daughter less likely to find a suitable partner if they are past a certain age, and consider it folly to try to marry them off at that stage."

This statement is correct in some degree but is indicative of a general view and can be further localized to a more appropriate scope. In Japanese culture, Miai are used by all generations as a form of courtship leading to arranged marriages. Although as the person ages and becomes a less desirable candidate, it is not uncommon to see people in their late 50s still searching out prospective partners.

My opinion follows: I write from experience as my reasons, for undertaking an arrange marriage, are rooted in tradition, ethnic pride and nationalism. I have dated many, from differing background while residing in Canada, but found that the exclusionary frame of mind, exhibited in courtship, can be very detrimental to a relationship. During courtship one ascertains compatibility by discriminating the partners faults and having ones own interests in mind. When I married, I now have a life-partner and a companion. I take offense to the very subjective term "not so bad after all", for I married out of my own volition. Because of personal beliefs and religious views, the claim of domestic violence because of incompatibility, is unfounded in the majority of countries with arranged marriages being the norm, as I have experienced. Once again this is my opinion. This article is in dire need of a full rewrite.

Matchmakers

Um, should matchmakers be included in this article, sometimes marriages are not arranged by family members, but by matchmakers. In ancient China, a matchmaker is used as the go-between of the involved persons and their families (also why Disney's Mulan is so WRONG when they had the guy lurking outside Mulan's residence). Today, while the individuals have more choices, some might still use the service of a matchmaker. Like, in the future, I want to use one when I feel like looking for a husband, to weed out the losers so I'll waste less time dating those that just won't work.

Courtship and "other" immoral practices"

This page contains the sentence "...accepted courtship and other immoral practices". Since courtship is a happy, exciting and essential process in most cultures many people would find it offensive to describe courtship as 'immoral'. This is a baised and non-neutral comment and should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.228.105 (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the biased, non-neutral sentence with a MOVIE as it's source! Courtship has a wide range of meanings in many cultures, most of which have nothing to do with immoral practices in any culture. In Western cultures, "courtship" is seen as an arcahic form, and actually has some parallels with arranged marriage practices, esp the involvement of familiy, and consent of hte parents. I assume the editor adding the phrase really meant "dating", not courtship, particularly the casual, non-commital form of dating as practiced by some, tho not all, Westerners. Since this is an English website using primarily British and American definitions and connotations, it is extremely misleading to use "courtship" in this sense. And please, a MOVIE as a sources? Almost makes me chalk this one up as sneaky vandalism! - BillCJ 17:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not prohibit references to film. In some cases, I believe film can be used to record cultural circumstance in an immersive way which is comparable to written anthropology. Jpritikin 17:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Cultural POV

I appreciate the effort that has gone into writing the existing content, but I can't help but feel a lot of it is culturally based and may not be universal across all the different times and places that arranged marriges have been practiced. Perhaps references to the points that have been made will at least make it clear the basis of the assertion and to what culture it refers. 205.211.160.1 00:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• • To that extent I added some citation needed tags and marked the page as not representing a world view or all opions. Please discuss if you disagree or ideas for cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Common in the Southern US?

This states that arranged marriages are common in the Southern US, but no documentation is provided. I'm 52 and lived in the US South most of my life and never heard of one in this part of the US (I have heard of them in New Mexico, which isn't mentioned, when I was in college). Is there any documentation for this assertion or should it be deleted? CsikosLo (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In many marriages?

The following sentence is wrong.

"In many arranged marriages, one potential spouse may reside in a wealthy country and the other in a poorer country. For example, the man may be an American of Indian ancestry and the woman may be an Indian living in India who will move to America after the marriage."

Take for example India. There are billion people, the number of arranged marriages that happen within India far outrun the number of arranged marriages with people outside of India. Thus, to say 'many arranged marriages' is wrong. I recommend replacing the sentence as:

"In some arranged marriages, "

The problem with saying many is it implies that arranged marriage is designed to benefit people who want to immigrate to other countries.

TwakTwik (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Lead-In Wording and Grammar

It initially was: "Such marriages are numerous in the Middle East and parts of Africa and Asia." I then changed to: "Such marriages are not uncommon in the Middle East, parts of Africa, and Asia." which is logically more appropriate, and omits the extra 'and', as well as adding commas where necessary.

I didn't bother to check the rest of the article, but Just noticed that when I was looking up the subject and happened across the page. This page could benefit from some editing no doubt. B.Soto (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of the word immoral

"One spouse may retain traditional values while the other spouse has accepted immoral practices". What does immoral mean? What does traditional mean? Is it something to do with sexuality? 67.160.36.123 (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Jeb