Talk:Interracial marriage in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kcarter49.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Indian Americans were also the only Asian American group with higher outmarriage for men, whereas all other Asian American groups had higher outmarriage for women.[16]

The source for this sentence actually claims that Indian women marry white men more than Indian men marry white women

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021

Minor spelling error. 'Repaled Before 1888' in the content box should be 'repealed before 1888'.

Belaboring the fact that this article is about America

There has been a sentence in the "Historical background" section for the past two years that refers to the views of "Americans before the Civil War", with the last two words pipe-linked to American Civil War (the fully disambiguated name for the article). Now User:SuperSkaterDude45 has repeatedly changed that to "Americans before the American Civil War", over my objections, ironically justifying this "fix" by citing Wikipedia:NOTBROKEN, then arguing that his crusade is about systemic bias. In fact, it's simply unnecessary changes and clunky prose. This is an article whose named topic is the United States of America. No one reading it would think that "Civil War" would be a reference to the Spanish Civil War or the Russian Civil War. The sentence even specifies that it's about Americans, so it literally goes without saying that the reference is not to a distant war in China or Finland. It's a well-known writing principle that you don't repeat a word in a sentence like this unless you have a point to make about it, and the point that this article is about America is already well established. Was anybody actually confused about what civil war this was referring to? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a completely unnecessary change. It is clear from the context that this is in reference to the American Civil War, and as long as it is linked to the correct article there should be no confusion. I don't see a WP:SYSTEMIC issue here. Jay eyem (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a sufficient time waiting for anyone to support this change. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This article and the “Interracial Marriage” article seem to have a bias.

This article brings in the divorce rates but focuses hugely on Asian men marrying White women, later in the article it states that White/Asian intermarriage was the most common but does not acknowledge that White men and Asian women is the most common of the two. The data used by pew research acknowledges that Hispanic is an ethnicity but it’s also the most intermarriage with White at a much higher rate than all else, however most of those Hispanics would be Mexican Americans which are European/Native mixed and the article does not discuss that. The article “Interracial Marriage” seemed to primarily only expand on specifically Chinese and White women intermarriage and leaves out almost any information on all other intermarriages. The source used for it leads to a paragraph that has almost zero relation to why was written in the article. I have a feeling an Asian man wrote this specifically to make Asian men seem more wanted. Hugh Vlad (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hugh Vlad: I have looked over the article and it does have a strong bias. Rather than pointing fingers or alleging agendas its best to read the sources given, and check them against other sources, preferably secondary.

As an example, I looked at the divorce section you mentioned in both this article and its parent, interracial marriage. Not only do these articles hijack the narrative, they contain copious original resewrch with statements like:

"This study's sample size of White wife/Asian husband marriages was 5 couples and therefore not of a reliable statistical strength to draw any conclusions.[16]"

"The Bratter and King study is not statistically valid for Asian-white pairings, particularly those in which the male is Asian and the female is white,"

In fact, there is nothing in Zhang and van Hook that claims to "contradict" anything, and several secondary sources support Bratter and King, including one that discusses both of these studies.

From page 364

Moving beyond interracial–interethnic communication styles and response to transgressions, Bratter and King (2008) used data from the 2002 National Survey of Familial Growth to examine divorce rates for interracial couples. The study revealed that, overall, interracial couples have higher rates of divorce, particularly for those marrying during the late 1980s. Compared to same-race white-white couples, they found that Black male–White female marriages and Asian male–White female marriages were more prone to divorce. Interestingly, those involving white male-non-white female marriages and Hispanic-non-Hispanic marriages tended toward lower risks of divorce. Researchers continue to focus on understanding these more fragile interracial marriages. While they cannot conclude that race is the cause per se of divorce, it does seem to be associated with higher risk of divorce or separation (Zhang and Van Hook, 2009). One notable finding is that there is a consistent elevated divorce rate for white females in interracial marriages.

From page 99,

For example, interracial couples that consist of White female/Black male and White female/Asian male were more likely to divorce than White/White couples (Bratter & King, 2008). White/Latino marriages were also at a higher risk for marital dissolution than homogenous Latino marriages, with Latino husband/white wife intermarriages at the highest risk (Fu and Wolfganger, 2011).

Again from another source,

Bratter and King (2009) examined whether crossing racial boundaries increases the risk of divorce. They compared the likelihood of divorce for same race couples to interracial couples and found that interracial couples (particularly those who married in the 1980s) have higher rates of divorce. In addition, white female/black male and white female/Asian male marriages were more prone to divorce than were white/white couples. Couples with non-white females/white males and Hispanic/non-Hispanic individuals had lower rates of divorce. Gender appears to play a role, such that white female/non-white male marriages are at a greater risk for divorce.

Thus no published secondary source is coming to the same conclusion as the Wiki. - Hunan201p (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: this article should talk about why these couples have an elevated divorce risk. It's closely tied to discrimination by the sources. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Codification

I am wondering if any of the states where interracial marriage was prohibited until the Supreme Court legalized marriage nationally in Loving have since either codified this or if any have not. Thank you! -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2022

Change “lower racial category” to “Non-white” or “Minority”

or something that does not imply diminished value

“lower” Without context this comes off as generally accepted fact or language; which is wrong. 2601:143:8000:B5C0:119E:1BB1:AF25:4F3 (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)