Jump to content

Talk:Dowry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Nia Dokes.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

serious lack of neutrality

[edit]

The Indian dowry section seems like some propaganda moutpiece from a conservative indian group. What the hell? All it does is spit out retorts from them on topics not even brought up in the article in the first place. That seriously needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm....

[edit]

So maybe all of the peer reviewed sources I have been reading are completely wrong, but my impression is that dowry in India is not only going strong, but is much, much more prevalent than in the late 80's and 90's. I think that the "Dowry in India" section needs to be drastically changed. 128.239.47.89 (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why?

[edit]

Sorry to be so obtuse, but what is (was) the purpose of dowry? What is the logic behind it? Why was it paid? What (social or economic or other) purpose did it serve? As a bribe(to get someone to marry the daughter)? If so, why should a bribe be necessary? Because women have (had) no intrinsic economic value in themselves? Perhaps they have no economic value because they can't own land/operate a business in their own right? Or because they can't inherit? But then, why the opposite custom among Germanic tribes? Different inheritance customs, maybe?

Grendlegrutch 21:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History?

[edit]

History of this odd custom would be great if any experts would like to volunteer.

I'm no expert but as I understand it the dowry was frequently regarded as the daughter's share of the parental inheritance which she received upon leaving her birth family while a son had to wait til the parents' deaths. While she rarely retained control of the money or any lands involved they had to be returned to her when she was widowed, or to her family if she died without heirs of her body. At least a portion of the dowry would commonly be in goods; clothing, jewels, furniture, fabrics, etc. which remained in the woman's possession. This trousseau was meant to help her present herself in a way suitable to a married woman and make her home comfortable.

disputed

[edit]

Some of the claims by Quintessencecat are factually incorrect.


1) It has not been substantiated what one means by "staggering number". India Govt website ncrb.nic.in shows that dowry deaths(more than 65% of which are suicides) are only 0.01% . Add to it the fact that these numbers at ncrb.nic.in are alleged crimes and not proven crimes. And last but not the least there is no proof whatsoever required to report a suicide as dowry death. Courtesy IPC 113B, Every suicide by default within first 7 years of marriage is treated as murder by husband AND Contrary to universal cornerstone of justice "Innocent, until proved guilty" it assumes husband guilty until proven innocent. Despite all of this bias in favor of women, the conviction rate is still below 30%. Thus, the number of accepted dowry murders are well below 0.003%.


2) The second claim that laws punish both women and man equally also is misleading and farce at best. Not a SINGLE women(or her family member) in the 40 years of history of dowry laws in India has ever been punished for giving dowry as against several lacs of men and families which undergo the trauma when a false case is registered on mere verbal/written statement by an unscrupulous individual. Legally speaking there is no proof required on the woman's part to lodge her complaint and the police is mandated to act and arrest, whosoever has been mentioned in unsubstantiated complaint, by default. In many cases kinds under age ten and sometimes even under age 5 have been sent behind bars for "alleged harassment" of an adult women 25-35 years old. Arrests have happened even when there is prima-facie evidence of husbands or family members being innocent. These arrests without any proof are main tools in the hand of unscrupulous women and family members to exhort huge money(running in lacs and millions) from husband once the marriage has broken. it provides seed money.while it hlps a familty too.it s a money goodz or estate gve her parents too brng her husband n marrge.it s cruelty .bcz wmen brth them us...so we hve too clean it up....nd prohibited also india_crusade 11:59, 02 August 2007 (IST)

Would someone be so kind as to go through this article and clean it up? It makes the silliest, most unsubstanciated set of claims I've seen in a Wikipedia article. For example, the claim that the page leads with, "that dowry is a relatively new concept in India," is just ridiculous.

I agree. I'm pondering ways to clean it up, but I'm thinking it might need a complete overhaul. In the meantime, I've marked it for clean-up. -205.156.188.254 17:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the overhaul. This entry is the absolute worst I have ever come across. The section on India is particularly disturbing, as it makes numerous unsubstantiated claims that strike me as pure misogyny. The overwhelming evidence (supported by many independent sources) shows how utterly misogynistic the whole concept of dowries is in India, with a staggering number of women being tortured and murdered (burned alive, poisoned, forced to commit suicide) by their husbands and in-laws through pure dowry greed. This person's entry makes a bare mention of dowry murder, whilst banging on about how "poor" men are treated. The anti-dowry laws in India in fact punish both sides of a dowry transaction, so the bride's family are equally punishable for even entering into a dowry. Why would women abuse a law that hurts them also? The fact is that many women are victims, both of custom and cruelty. They not only suffer in having to pay a dowry, but they also become slaves in the home of their husbands, subject to abuse and torture, and murdered. If you don't mention any of this in an article about dowries in India, then you are negligent. Further, if you make it seem like the men are the victims, then you are distorting the truth.

Quintessencecat 06:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Quintessencecat[reply]

What I meant to say is that *I* have marked it for clean-up (I forgot to log in before marking it & adding the previous comment). -Rhrad 17:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am not familiar about the case in India. But as for China, the case discussed here is obviously not the general case. In fact, I don't think China or in the tradition Chinese culture, there is a counter-part about this "dowry" system described here. 'Bride price' may be a better fit for China.--Augest 05:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dowry started as a 'streedhan' and not as a way to manage groom with high social status. That was usually ensured through caste system and people perception of social status. I think Dowry page should start with this history.

That should not start the page because India is merely one place that practice dowry, and the introduction should govern the general case. What it should start with is a neutral description of the practice in its most general terms, which would preclude "permit the marriage" and the claims that it was an effort to get daughters off your hands, and above all else the comment about women disliking the practice. Since in Europe a woman was generally guaranteed at least as much from their husband's estate as their dowry, and the dowry could be very useful indeed in setting up house, many, many, many women must have appreciated dowries very much. Goldfritha 22:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahr

[edit]

In Islam, the groom has to pay a sum of money to the bride as part of the marriage terms i.e. the mahr. However, when comparing the definitions of dowry to bride price, it seems that mahr is closer in definition to bride price than to mahr. Or perhaps isn't it better for mahr to have its own page, rather than be redirected to dowry? --Aidfarh 07:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

SOWRY is the reverse of Dowry and given as maintenance to the girl on breaking of marriage . This custom is prevalent from ancient times in all the society and has legal sanction D.O.W.R.Y. Daugthers own wealth released to you S.O.W.R.Y sons own wealth release to you Sowry harassment is also demand for lifestyle from her husband by a wife . The word is new but practice is old

If the mahr is paid to the bride, the closest equivalent term in English is the "morning gift" which was paid to the bride the morning after the wedding night. Goldfritha 00:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, on further research -- what that is is the dower. Just removed a section on Islam to dower. Goldfritha 17:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bride price/dowry in China

[edit]

"A sort of opposite tradition to a dowry is a bride price, paid by bridegroom to family of his bride."

The bride price article says that bride prices were a custom in China as well. Can a society really have both bride prices and dowries? Or is the Chinese practice more of the two families exchanging gifts(in which case it would not really be a dowry or bride price at all)?

As long as I know, the basic procedure of the counter part of so called "dowry"/bride price in tradition Chinese culture is like this: Before the wedding, there is an engagement rite. The groom parents need to give an amount of money or goods to the bride's family. This is reviewed as something like an engagement fee, i.e. the girl is engaged/reserved by the boy (or his family). Then if the girl or her family later cancel the possible marriage before the wedding, the money/goods would be generally returned to the groom's family, otherwise, it will belong to the girl's family. In the wedding, the bride's family would give some goods/money as a gift/assets to the bride, in other words, the bride would bring goods/money with her. This is more viewed as the bride's private savings than something pay to the groom's family. In anyway, this gift to bride is not a must. Although gift with greater value may make the bride feel honorable. It is basically ok for a bride's family to give small-valued gift or even nothing to the bride if the family are poor or due to some other reason. I think the case in China is not what dowry mean in this article. -Augest 05:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It's very same in Thailand. An average man would need more than one year of his saving for this. The amount is determined by both family's wealth. The bride's family usually offer the amount they want and often keep the dowry for themselves or sometimes, spare the portion to the couple. The opposite never happen in Thailand's history. Groom's family never accept dowry from the bride's.

Theeraphat 24Apr2006

Yes, it is possible for a culture to have both bride price and dowry. In archaic Greece, bride price was serious, but by classical times, the bride price was token and the dowry serious business. Whether that applies to China. . . . 22:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


dowry & trousseau

[edit]

I'm not an English language native speaker, not even a French Language native speaker, but if dowry is dote in Spanish, dot in French; and trosseau is ajuar in Spanish, trousseau in French; dowry and trosseau are not exactly the same thing; dowry is the tradition you talked about in the article and trousseau is the set of cloths, furniture and other things which the wife usually contributes with in the marriage. I know it is just a matter of nuances, and maybe in English they can be considered synonymous words.

I don't see anything on the OED about "trosseau" being part of the etmology. Can someone clarify?
[a. AF. dowarie fem. = OF. douaire masc., dower, dowry: cf. med.L. doāria fem. (1273 in Du Cange), beside doārium, dōdārium, dōtārium, neut.: see DOWER.] (source: OED)

(tyger 20:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Anyway, for more information if you speak Spanish: es: Ajuar

I believe - please correct me if I'm mistaken - that the trosseau is different from a dowry. The dowry is the parents' gift to the groom, but the trosseau is their gift to the bride (the hope chest), to ensure that she isn't a financial burden while the couple gets their marriage underway. That's how my great grama spoke of it. --SHLAMA 05:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the dowry and trosseau both go to the newly-weds' household, I don't think they can be distinguished as such. The trosseau consists of clothing and similar things, such as sheets, while the dowry consists of land, money, livestock, etc. Goldfritha 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that it is common for Indian family to continue giving dowry to the groom's family. There may be few exceptions, but I'm sure we are not talking of exceptions here.

One story that I have heard about the trousseau is that in certain societies it was the custom that all daughters should be married before the sons could get married, so the sons were motivated to give gifts to their sisters to encourage them to get married. 65.14.60.2 05:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

[edit]

sorry, i thought this article was about Islamic law. very sorry. --Striver 04:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baha'i dowry

[edit]

Baha'i dowry is given toto bride from the groom so that she will have financial resources of her own. It is only required in countries where dowries are common (not the United States) and women find it difficult to aquire their own wealth from their efforts.

In which case it is not dowry as traditionally used. Dower is closer, I suspect. Goldfritha 23:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dowry in England

[edit]

Hopefully you'll find this relevant. In England during the Anglo-Saxon period (roughly 5th to 11th century) the 'dower' was called a morgengifu or morning gift which was paid by the prospective husband to his bride. The laws of AEthelbert show that this could be a very substantial amount in either money or land and certainly paid to the bride herself and not her family. This is kept by the woman throughout her life to keep, give away, sell or bequeath as she chooses. In the event of divorce - certainly not an uncommon practice at this time although how common is disputable - the woman will keep the morgengifu along with any children unless she is at fault through 'dishonesty' - explication of this is of course difficult. The idea of a dowry in England at this time is unheard of as a bride-price, and the practice whereby if a woman is kidnapped her bride-price must be paid - was in fact wergild or manpayment, paid in compensation to the woman, and not in fact as a dowry for her to pay a future potential suitor.

You incorrectly assume that the comment about the kidnapped woman was referring to Anglo-Saxon England. Goldfritha 23:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I did not assume that anyone else was referring to Anglo-Saxon England, I was merely pointing out practices in Anglo-Saxon England in the hope of providing an interesting contrast.

Muslim non-dowry

[edit]

By definition, dowry goes from the bride's family to the couple. Therefore, since the Muslims do not do that, they do not practice dowry.

The article for property from the groom to the bride is dower. And the link is in the lede. Goldfritha 19:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to start an RV war over this, but Muslims are of the opinion that they do in fact practice dowry, with the gender roles reversed. Rearden Metal 05:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the gender roles are reversed, it's called dower. Which is another article. Goldfritha 21:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason why people keep trying to add the Islamic (reverse gender roles) definition of dowry to this article. Simply put, it belongs here! Dictionary.com supports this usage too: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dowry "Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary - Dowry (mohar; i.e., price paid for a wife, Gen. 34:12; Ex. 22:17; 1 Sam. 18:25), a nuptial present; some gift, as a sum of money, which the bridegroom offers to the father of his bride as a satisfaction before he can receive her. Jacob had no dowry to give for his wife, but he gave his services (Gen. 29:18; 30:20; 34:12)." Rearden Metal 18:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To which the problems are:
  1. You cite one reference, while six others agree that dowry is what the bride bringsg
  2. The reference you cite is specialized and may indicate only the meaning for a special purpose
  3. Most important, what the Muslims practice is the groom giving the bride property, while the definition you cite is the groom giving the bride's family property -- in other words, the practice of brideprice. Which the Muslims do not practice Goldfritha 18:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Dowry in South Africa?

[edit]

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0368-4016(192504)24%3A95%3C213%3ATTTOSA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S

check out this link, it seems to be saying that in south africa the dowry is paid by the husbands family to the wifes

Yes, it appears to. The term has not always been used with the precision we could wish for -- but it's describing bride price. Goldfritha 23:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tradition in North America

[edit]

This article is sorely lacking on information about dowry tradition in the United States that existed and still does in some areas. Nodekeeper 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Indian Dowry practices?

[edit]

Why was most of the information in this section removed as OR? While one could make the argument that it was over pro-bride, the current version reads as completely pro-groom.

Unless someone can come up with a good reason for keeping it out, I'm going to restore the material. It jives with other articles I've read about the practice in India (which I'll try to find references for). The view needs to be a bit more balanced. Ggugvunt 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geocities?

[edit]

I noticed that a significant portion of the article on the practice of dowries in India used a geocities website entitled 'Indian Fascism' (http://www.geocities.com/indiafas/) as the sole support. Aren't there better, or in the very least, unbiased, academic sites or papers that could be used as support?

User:nightcavern (UTC)

you're correct Nightcavern - that geocities site is not a reliable source and is not good enough as a reference for wikipedia (there is a detailed description on WP:RS about why sites like that one are not acceptable) The content you removed needs a better source but as far as I can see there's nothing exceptional about what it is claiming so a source should be easily found--Cailil talk 18:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging article correctly

[edit]

Can someone tag at least the part about dowries in India as innappropriate tone or at least non-international perspective? I came here to learn more about dowry killings and they are referred to only as "dowry deaths" and the only citation is an Indian men's rights group with no alternative viewpoints.

Also I'm not sure why men's rights and radical feminism belong in the "see also" section, but I could be wrong Tnmonaghan (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a section on dowry reform / criticism of dowry

[edit]

As dowries are controversial or even illegal in many parts of the world, perhaps the article should discuss this. Kaldari (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing dowry with bride price

[edit]

This article is about dowry, but it had and continues to have sections about countries which practice bride price- the reverse of dowry. It appears that there is a confusion among the editors who wrote that sections. The sections about the African countries actually describe bride price, the Kenya section says "Research has indicated that a decline in the amounts men were willing to pay came as women's value as agricultural labourers declined"- men pay a bride price not a dowry! or "The common term for the arrangement in southern Africa is lobolo" - lobolo is not dowry- it's a Southern African custom where the man gives the family of his future wife goods before marriage, it's bride price. The article also had sections about Thailand and Cambodia describing their bride price customs. I'm moving the Africa section to the bride price article.5.12.76.126 (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Custom and Horses? Sorry no way--post contact influence.

[edit]

--did the custom exist prior to contact with Spaniards who brought the ponies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.43.105 (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam

[edit]

I'm removing Vietnam, because the country has a tradition of bride price not dowry. This article again confuses the two. It says:

"In Vietnam, the dowry was considered bride wealth, remaining under her actual control, rather than being given to her father and passed down as an inheritance to sons. In some instances, where a bride's parents were given the dowry, they then gave part of the dowry to the bride. Although this reflected the relatively high status that Vietnamese women held in their culture, and enabled them to have a certain degree of independence, the practise was condemned by Christian missionaries as a form of wife-buying."

The dowry is not given to the bride's parents/father - that is the bride price!! The dowry is given to the family of the groom.188.25.159.225 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mahr and dowry, Qur'an and Muslim matrimonial website as source for content

[edit]

Wiki user Mhakcm is welcome to contribute, but his or her edits without reliable sources, and edit warring behavior is disruptive. This user has done this before, here and here.

Self interpretations of Qur'an, as well as religious blogs and opinion websites are not reliable unbiased sources. For example, the nikah.com cited by user Mhakcm, claims to be The No.1 Muslim Matrimonial Service Provider - commercial websites are not reliable source; the opinion page there is not peer reviewed, does not represent scholarly consensus. Please follow wikipedia five pillars, policies on content and for lede. LukeNancy (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


reply to above

[edit]

I am not edit warring as you suggest, but there are major inaccuracies or at least a picture which distorts the truth and reality of the situation and by removing my comments all you are doing is allowing such distortions to remain. Please note that each time you have reverted I have simply not 'undone' but tried to find by searching Google articles that support what I had written and even amended wording and corrected what I had written in the past to make it more neutral and also kept points that are opposing views that I know have no real basis other than prejudice of the authors. It seems however that your views are so influenced by inaccurate western interpretations that you are willing to allow your own self prejudices to alter the focus of your attempted objective analysis, without actually analysing my changes each time but simply see it as hostile to you, and thereby perpetuate wrong understanding on various points which sadly would take pages here to show what I meant and what you have misunderstood, for which sadly I do not have the time. BTW the other examples that you give by here and here are things which in the first one were not know to me to be changes attributed to me if you look at it you will see what I mean and in the second it is similar to your present situation where an experienced editor does not want his/her article altered and any contrary statement found to support other view point even if not in webpage but in book will object to it as a whole and revert the whole thing rather than read and edit a sentence etc. that they disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhakcm (talk • contribs) 08:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Information

[edit]
New info: Indian woman and baby burned alive for dowry, police say I put this information here because I noticed the article made no mention of this. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/48/24/92/PDF/10035.pdf
    Triggered by \bhalshs\.archives-ouvertes\.fr on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Kaldari (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy, neutrality and recent edits

[edit]

I am starting this discussion because I think this article has very serious problems, in regard to factual accuracy, neutrality and general structure. There have been several recent edits by user:LukeNancy, edits which I think were rather unjustified, especially this edit [1]. However, I have not revered these edits, the only thing I've done was change the POV wording of "claim" to a neutral tone (see WP:CLAIM).

While the previous lede did have some problems, I think there is also a problem with the current formulation of "This fund [the dowry] provides an element of financial security in widowhood or against a negligent husband, and may eventually go to provide for her sons and daughters." There are several problems with this:

  • this is presented as unqualified truth, there are no caveats at all in the lede: while this may indeed be the purpose of dowry in theory, the lede implies that dowry is always used this way in practice; eg that every woman who has brought a dowry into a marriage will always get to use it if her husband dies, or if he is negligent. This obvious is not always the case and I believe this must be addressed in the lede.
  • the exact purpose of the dowry (how exactly it is supposed to be used) varies between different societies, ethnic groups etc. There is too much of a generalization in the lede.
  • problems with the source: the paragraph is referenced to a source from 40 years ago. While the source is certainly reliable, the customs surrounding dowry have evolved a lot in recent decades; I believe a more recent source is preferable; multiple sources would also be a good idea. 2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A229 (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Goody source is reliable and fine for this article. I have revised the wording a bit to address part of your concern.
Please note that this is an encyclopedic article, not a current events article, nor an article for WP:SOAP. It is not a means to advocate or push shifting topical agendas of regional or ethnic groups; if you shift through edits over last few years - you will see attempts of this, and wiki editors other than me correcting such attempts. We also can't do WP:OR, we can only summarize what WP:V reliable sources publish.
For guidelines on lead, see WP:LEAD. The lede is not a place for lengthy personal opinions on "the exact purpose of the dowry as it varies in different societies, ethnic groups, etc." LukeNancy (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Great Britain?

[edit]

I think dowries are considered the husband's property in Great Britain, at least among royalty and nobility. It's hard to find information about this custom however. Maybe someone here can enlighten us.--Nameshmame (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of the world today

[edit]

I changed

"Dowries continue to be expected, and demanded as a condition to accept a marriage proposal, in some parts of the world, mainly in South Asian, Middle Eastern and North African countries."
to
Dowries continue to be expected, and demanded as a condition to accept a marriage proposal, in some parts of the world, mainly in parts of Asia, North Africa and the Balkans..


It is more inclusive and reflects the article better. The original lede left out Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Bosnia, Serbia. 2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:50C:313D (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

[edit]

The section on Afghanistan reads:

"Dowry is called Jehez in Afghanistan,[105] and is separate from Mahr, sherbaha, and bride price (locally called walwar, toyana, or qalyn). It is a major social issue[106][107]"


It seems to me that Afghanistan primarily practices Mahr and bride price, rather than dowry, although dowry exists too. One of the sources used to support the claim "It [dowry] is a major social issue", is in fact describing bride price, not dowry (the press often mistakenly uses "dowry" instead of "bride price"). This is the source: [2]. In fact it appears that the major social issue in Afghanistan is bride price, not dowry - parents are paid to marry their daughters, and so they sell them into marriage: [3] [4]

I removed "It is a major social issue[106][107]" because it is not properly sourced; also "major" is quite POV and a strong word: such wording is appropriate for India - where numerous reliable sources classify dowry as one of India's principal social problems; but I don't think it is appropriate for Afghanistan. 2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:50C:313D (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit, because UNDP is a reliable source. On page 176, while discussing marriages in Afghanistan, it states, "According to local tradition, every marriage requires two exchanges - Dowry brought by the bride to husband's home; Mahr, the price the groom's family must pay for the girl's hand in marriage." The second source Afghanistan Times confirms this. Please do not delete WP:RS sourced content, or add WP:OR or personal opinions to this article. LukeNancy (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

[edit]

I added to the lede a short mention of violence against women - I added this:

"In some parts of the world, disputes related to dowry sometimes result in acts of violence against women, including killings and acid attacks."

I know this is a sensitive issue, but I think that at least a brief mention of it should be in the lede: afterall, the lede is supposed to summarize the article; and there is a distinct section on this topic in the article. If you think it shouldn't be mentioned in the lede, please discuss this here on talk.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:50C:851C (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dowry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dowry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dowry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nia Dokes Peer Review

[edit]

The topic on dowries is very broad in terms of I had no idea that dowries were being practiced in so many different countries. Also, within the article that I am contributing to where I mention Pakistan and their usage of the dowry has made really think in terms of how the dowry is a part of their culture. The statistics within the article are well used and the usage of grammar is really good. Nia Dokes (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dowry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of dowry in Judaism, Christianity, Israel, or the Bible in the article

[edit]

How is it that there is no mention in the article of dowry or dowries related to Judaism, Christianity, Israel, or in the Bible? Misty MH (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dowry in nepal

[edit]

background history of dowry in nepal 2400:1A00:B050:AA0:91F1:5785:B993:2F5A (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

[edit]

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dowry

[edit]

Dowry 150.107.205.50 (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dowry

[edit]

system 150.107.205.50 (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Countries with highest dowry rate

[edit]

Which countries are found to be leading the crime rate of dowry? 27.131.213.149 (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia

[edit]

Huh? Why there is no dowry system in indonesia. Anyone who knows dowry systen in indonesia can added content here in this lage. There is no mention of indonesia in this page. 2404:8000:1027:85F6:71F4:4162:9854:8BB6 (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exaggeration, undue weight, and double standard against Bangladesh?

[edit]

Usually something that affects zero to 2 people every 100,000 inhabitants is not called a “growing and serious problem”. For example the murder rate in the USA is 6 to 3 times higher. But Wikipedia doesn’t say that the US has a “serious and growing problem” with murders. 67.83.101.225 (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical quote

[edit]

“when women are treated as property. Brides unable to pay the high "price" to marry are punished”

You don’t punish property, unless you are pretty stupid. It’s people who are punished. 67.83.101.225 (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dowry&oldid=1222364907"