Talk:Interracial marriage/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Redirect[edit]

This page was previously gutted and redirected to Miscegenation. An RfD discussion closed as unmerge. -N 02:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Note on Page Organisation[edit]

While Wikipedia convention generally prescribes adding new topics at the foot of a talk page, this page was long and complicated, with topics going all over the map at random. I have taken the liberty of rearranging and grouping the topics by subject matter, which I hope/believe will make it less confusing to readers and make proposed changes easier to consider in the context of all related comments. I would respectfully suggest that future comments be added under the appropriate major subject grouping (e.g. Statistical Issues, Pictures in Article, etc.) Thanks! Rodparkes 06:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

General Comments[edit]

It seems like Wikipedia got rid of its list of famous people who are married interracially. I don't understand why. It was informative and was not meant to be offensive.


Why is the one and only picture depicting interracial relationships in this article an *extremely* racist mammy drawing from the turn of the century? I think this gives an inappropriate first impression of the article.

Les rapports d'Interracial devraient être illégaux.

---Mais pourquoi? J'aime mon mari africain.--Jlkwofie 04:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It was not clear to me if this section was all one person's comments or included unsigned comments, so I have left this section together. In fact parts of it relate to the "Content Issues" and "Pictures in Article" topics below. Rodparkes 06:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Article too biased to the US and black/white marriage?[edit]

I'd like to see more country data, not just the US. For ex. Canada, Brazil, Britain. The US-centric attitude is very unenlightening, and a broader perspective would be helpful.

I agree. When I went to Britain, it looked like black/white couplings for both sexes were more common than here in the US. Rhesusman 0:01 23 June 2005 (UTC)

The article concentrates too much on Black and White. Elaboration needed on other races.

Agreed on the need for elaboration about other races. If anyone has any information or sources that could be used for this please let me know on my talk page and I will work them into the article. ICanAlwaysChangeThisLater 23:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You're totally right, but how about add it in yourself... I would like to see too,—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Expansion into other countries[edit]

Here is a good report on inter-ethnic couples in England and Wales. - 68.33.120.32 00:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


Content Issues[edit]

Merge & the pseudoscientifical concept of "races"[edit]

This article should be merged with miscegenation. I don't know what the best term would be, but if "interracial marriage" is de facto a common expression, it tends to make believe that the human species is effectively divided in various "races", an obvious racist lie. Beside, "white" is not a "race", but a color ! Same goes for "Black", "Yellow" and "Green". In latin languages, the word "métissage" in French or "mestizaje" in Spanish has no pejorative value, quite the reverse. Maybe this should be the appropriate name of the entry, since "miscegenation" seems to be of pejorative sense. Or maybe "trans-ethnic marriages" or something like that would be better... Lapaz

You're reading a bit much into this. "Interracial marriage" is the common name used in English, and we use common names. Ambi 05:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
And obviously races are not merely "make believe", considering the majority of the worlds biologists and physical anthropolgists believe they exist with well documented information to support such belief. Whatever you call it, there is significant physical differences between ethnic groups and populations, so "inter-racial" or "inter-ethnic" are valid terms. 69.157.121.76 14:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
There is greater genetic variety within people groups (so-called "races") than there is between them. The full title of Darwin's book, Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, reveals the utter barbarism of his world view. The holocaust was a logical next step for Hitler, as was the killing of Australian Aborigines for sale to museums as "missing links". And, yes, "interracial marriage" is the most widely used term in my experience. mikekamrath@no-spam-please-gmail.com

"Miscenegation" is actually the derogatory term; "interracial marriage" is neutral terminology (neither approving nor disapprobing). AnonMoos 21:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is "Miscenegation" derogatory? IanMcDonald
Because it is the term traditionally favoured by racist groups who oppose interracial marriage. The prefix "mis-" generally indicates that a word has a negative connotation or indicates something undesirable(mistake, misstep, mislead, misinterpret, misunderstand, etc.) Rodparkes 06:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There are different connotations to "miscegenation". On the one hand it has been used as a 'scientific' concept in the late 19th and early 20th century. One the other hand, the word was actually invented in 1863 by supporters of the Confederacy who wanted to discredit the abolitionist movement by posing as abolitionists who were in favor of white-black race mixing! See the article on miscegenation. Fairlane75 18:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Update[edit]

There seems to be a mistake. You wanted this article merged with miscegenation, right? Well you have proposed the opposite. I'm going to fix it. AucamanTalk 07:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

bad taste![edit]

The paragraph on 'inter-racial' relationship in nature with the example of butterflies is at best made with good intentions but naive and plainly erring, at worst insulting, and most be taken out. It confuses mating between species and mating wihtin same species. Race among human is a phenotype occurence and has no genotype species- differentation consistent with our socially constructed perception of race. While the definition of species is commonly regarded as being the ability to progenete a healty non-sterile offspring, the species-distinction is often quite blurred among insects - there is however no question that the 'race' distinction tagged by skin colour among humans has little bearing on any significant species distribution. Therefore the example is not appropriate.

best regards.

Some serious work needed here.[edit]

This article needs some serious reworking. It lacks demographics, and mostly it lacks positive references to interracial relationship and descriptions of practical life situations of interracial couples. Many things in this article points to strange biases, as e.g. the idea of "marrying up" - which in itself could be an 'interesting' wiki piece from some questionable socio-biological perspective, but should be proportionally shadowed by more pertinent issues and thorough description of actually living couples. Not to mention the outer link in the end to some wiki article called "the silent holocaust [sic!]" which at most can be relevant to some outer-fringe conservative and fundamentalist judaists but hardly to interracial marriages in general, whether between 'gentiles' and jews, or for that matter to all the other multitudes of possible interracial marriages. At least it is a reason to put ones guard up against those who have worked this article up to this point. I call for other inputs.

best regards, JKL


"Marriages between Whites and Asians, and particularly light-skinned North East Asians such as Chinese, are often looked upon as being non-controversial interethnic pairings in the United States and is becoming increasingly common (Lange, 2005). Reasons for this are often cited as being because of the great similarity in skin color, and low instances of ethnic strife between Whites and Asians in the U.S. since World War II."

This paragraph is laughable. Asian American females marrying Caucasian males because their skin colors are similar? This is a result, not a cause. It just so happens that their skin colors are of similar shade. Here are more legitimate reasons for the higher instance of Asian American females marrying Caucasian males. 1. the perceived stereotype that Caucasian males are the most powerful economically and most desirable sexually 2. denigration of the Asian-American male as physically short, geeky, unemotional, prideful, and sexually undesirable

And the term "light-skinned" is ridiculous in and of itself. Chinese are not necessarily "light-skinned", and Filipinos outmarry the most among Asian-Americans. Le Anh-Huy 05:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that it's much more than skin color. But your "more legitimate reasons" are just as laughable. Maybe they just love each other? Some Asians (mostly men) are simply powerless to just leave it at that. It's as if non-Asian males are marrying Asian women just to get back at the "physically short, geeky, unemotional, prideful, sexually undesirable" Asian male (your words, by the way). Now that's ridiculous. For you to imply that every inter-racial non-Asian male / Asian female relationship is a "denigration of the Asian American male" is a stunningly ignorant statement that betrays intense insecurity. I am truly grateful that all Asian men do not share your views. I'm also grateful that I know some very secure, confident and balanced Asian males who have no problem with interracial dating and marriage. And they also have no problem with being attractive to all women. Maybe you might learn something from these kinds of Asian males? I'm not trying to be offensive here, but I think Asian males short-change themselves a lot of the time, and then blame it on non-Asian men. Computer1200 06:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As a black woman, I found the comments of "Computer" to sound strangly familiar. This person called Asian men who question the motives of asian women who date/marry interracially "insecure", basically racist and defective. They ignored the issue of asian women dating interracially at such high rates and simply called it all "love". That is the same cop out black men use to justify their racist preference for light or non-white skin/hair. They too accuse black women of being insecure, racist,and offer typical black female behaviors that "run black men away".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.169.216 (talkcontribs)

Alot of people notice that black men and asian women pursue interracial relationsships in a way that is different from others and even a bit "extreme". It's become the punch line in jokes and TV comedy. No one is against love. But is that really what is motivating black men and asian women? Or are they both discriminating against their own, while being VERY upset when society rejects THEM because of their skin color, eyes, or body type?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.169.216 (talkcontribs)

Fictional Couples Listing[edit]

A listing of fictional couples (many of which are not even fictionally married) adds nothing to the article. It should be removed. I have attempted to do so, but the removal was reverted. It seems to me painfully obvious that a listing of make-believe interracial couples makes little sense in this article, especially where it is placed. A listing of real-life interracial marriages makes sense. Listing TV show characters does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.226.129 (talkcontribs) 22:24, 29 July 2006

I was responsible for the revert - I didn't think such a major unilateral change to a controversial topic was appropriate. But I have to say I tend to agree. Perhaps it could be moved to a separate list? --Lo2u (TC) 22:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You wanted a new page? Voila -- new page. --ABCxyz, 31 July 2006, 13:32 (UTC)

Americans Dating Asian Immigrants[edit]

What the fuck is this nonsense

...

Americans Dating Asian Immigrants

Relationships between immigrant Asian-Indian men and American women must be nurtured. Although Asian-Indian men in the US have traditionally gone back to India to find a wife, this is not always the case today. These types of relationships although small are increasing due to increased US business dealings in India. In a particular case, Veronica had trouble adjusting to her marriage to a recent immigrant from India. Pierre Coda told her to try to have her husband express his feelings more openly with her and to learn more about Indian culture.[12]

Between Americans and immigrant Japanese, relationships are not always as fruitful as they seemed. According to Pierre Coda, Jake a Californian and Kotoyo a recently immigrated Japanese did not have an easy time in a relationship. They had language barriers which impeded their intimacy. Coda claims that in Japan many women from the countryside are forced into arranged marriages and end up unhappy. On the contrary, Coda claims many Japanese women end up unwed due to lack of initiative of Japanese men. Due to a lack of romance in the homeland, Coda claims many Japanese women travel overseas for excitement. Coda suggests men to be more aggressive in their declaration of romantic feelings for Japanese immigrant women since they are not used to the culture or the language and may think negatively of their physical appearence.[13]


who says it must be nurtured?

Isn't this supposed to be just information about the subject and not some asian guy's lament on not attracting american women. Whatever I'm taking it out.

keep it so it can be used later in Whineypedia Kransky 10:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I was drinking water when I read this and almost choked laughing. We really do need to start a Whineypedia, I already have a few choice quotes for it. Noclevername 00:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Asian should atleast be broken down into South, West Asian and Chinese, East asians[edit]

The concept of race is bogus. However, if such a concept is at all brought into play then nobody can deny that it is primarily related to phenotype. In that respect I would suggest that South asians ( Indian, Bangaladeshi, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Iranian etc...) should be grouped separately from so called mongoloid asians (Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Korean and other east asians etc). I am not exactly aware of any statistics but it is probably true that at least some persons show racial preference in their sexual choice, in that case also the choice co-relates with phenotype. Other race related issues are also similar. For example a Korean born and brought up in Japan and who speaks Japanese fluently will not be readily distinguished from a Japanese. Same can hardly be said for a Pakistani with similar background. In this respect it is completely bogus to treat groups as different as Chinese and Indians in the same footing. Even it is an important question what is the degree of intermarriage between South Asian and other asians. How to group middle eastern people is more shuttle, I would go for another Semitic race but they can also be placed with South asians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.172.29 (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Statistical Issues[edit]

Effect of white/black immigrant marriages on US statistics[edit]

"The 1990 Census reports that 17.6% of black marriages occur with whites. Yet, it is found that black men are 2.5 times more likely to be married to a white woman than a black woman to a white man."

For those even small numbers where a black woman is married to a white man, you will find that these marriages are occurring from immigrant black communities (black from Africa and elsewhere). In other words, there is a significant number of marriages are that being counted as "black/white" as a result of this unnoticed trend.

This is interesting because for some reason white males are more likely to marry an African immigrant woman than marry to an African American woman. '''' I am sure the number of black immigrant woman/white is small but it still significant to the subject because it points not only to a trend but also to an interesting characteristic of interracial marriages.''''

What do you guys think? Shiferaw 16:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From my perspective this has less to do with the caucasian men and more to do with African-American (U.S. born) women, who for a variety of reasons generally tend to limit their dating pool to only African-American men. I'm no social scientist, but I think there is definitly a strong trend among African-American women to not date or marry outside of their group. I think recent films about interracial relationships reinforce that the Black Woman/White Man coupling is the new "forbidden fruit". And negative stereotypes perpetrated in the media about African American women, stereotypes that African immigrant women are not usually subject to, are probably not a help, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.114.76 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Explanation needed[edit]

I do not quite understand the second sentence in the following quote: "In the 2000 Census, 239,477 BM-WF and 95,831 WM-BF marriages were recorded, again showing the 2.5-1 ratio. But despite this, slightly more white men are married than white women, showing that white women are not as likely to marry interracially.". It seems like a very important point, so could somebody please add an explanation.

Ford 2003[edit]

The article says:

From a recent poll of 1,314 Americans of all races, it was noted that 3 in 10 people are against black-white marriage, but are far more willing to accept white-Hispanic or white-Asian marriages (Ford 2003).

What is "Ford 2003"? An reference is required here. -- Dominus 14:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC) A google search suggests the reference is to a poll that was printed in Ford magazine, but I have not been able to find a reliable source.195.73.22.130 14:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


I am Very confused (with a capital V) by the statistics of this piece. I believe they should put in a table or something to make is easier to read!

pointless demographic statistics.[edit]

Apparently someone disliked when I removed the demographics from the article. The statistics in question refer to numbers of mixed race persons in the United States. This has nothing to do with Interracial Marriage, which is the topic of this article. The statistics in question should be put in the Multiracial article, along with the picture of Kate Beckinsale which is useful for illustrating multiracial ethnicity but not for illustrating interracial marriage. If anyone has an argument opposed to this rather than just telling me to look at the talk page which does not seem have discussion over the statistics in question, let me know. Otherwise I'm taking it out again. Jvbishop 12:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The demographics demonstrate the prevalence of interacial marriages. It should be left in. 69.107.85.4 20:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
They do not demonstrate the prevalence of interracial marriages. They demonstrate the prevalence of interracial people. Jvbishop 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, they represent the number of interracial people born, not the number of mixed marriages. Lots of married people don't have children, and lots of unmarried people get knocked up (pardon the slang).Rglong 23:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

51% more absolute #s of Asian-Am Females than Males?[edit]

I couldn't find out where the author got this information, and I checked the 2000 census data, and the male-female ratio is about 94:100, which is certainly not 51% more. Someone want to fix it and/or verify data?

  • I found this whole section extremely confusing. Only the black-white section was really clear, because there's actually a set of hard numbers to demonstrate what the ratios actually mean. Also, I think there's a problem with the whole use of the term "Asian" which has become universal, but refers to two distinct racial groups. Just based on people I encounter, it would seem there are a fair number of interracial marriages involving East Asian ethnic groups , but (at least from what I've seen) far fewer involving South Asian ethnic groups. I don't even know what statistics exist which distinguish between them, but I strongly suspect the groups show very different patterns, and averaging them together gives a misleading picture. Fan-1967 03:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Since this article is about interracial marriage rather than inter-ethnic marriage, specific ethnic outmarriage rates should be combined with their racial group when comparing the statistics. If User:Fan-1967 wants to create an inter-ethnic marriage article, a discussion on specific ethnic groups would be welcome there.--Dark Tichondrias 17:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You are clueless. "Asian" isn't a single ethnicity nor race. No way in hell a Chinese American is going to think he is in the same ethnic group as a Indian American or an Iranian American. Iranians and Indians are Indo-European. --JakeLM 14:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Asian is a single race. Of course, Iranians aren't Asian, but Indians are Asian. Chinese may not be ethnically similar to Indians, but Indians are surely not ethnically similar to Iranians. Indo-European is a language family which not all Indians speak.----DarkTea 17:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the whole section about the asian female marrying other races is apprently an asian women because there are several paragraphs that point only to the positive traits of asian women and ignore all other possible marriages.

Pictures in Article[edit]

How come all of the pictures in the article must all be of a black male or black person with others? It is almost as if you are sending the message that when others marry blacks, then it is an issue. I do agree with the hispanic (non-Mexican) type with regualr blacks not being mixed, as two of them with their own is a mixed marriage anyway. Where is the Italian, Greek and other presumed 'whites' marrying striahgt(turer) whites? That is mixing also.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.234.192.23 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

Deleting Pictures[edit]

Please do not remove pictures without discussion and consensus. --Ramsey2006 20:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the pictures should not be used as illustrations. The picture of "Asian black" interracial marriage should not be used. The original uploader labeled the woman as an "Asian", but did not add her ancestry needed to prove that she was really Asian. The 2000 US Census requires ancestry to determine if someone's really Asian. Second, the picture of same race marriage is between a person of "Mexican" and "Iranian" ancestry. Mexican ancestry does not correspond to a 2000 US Census race, so it cannot be determined if the two people in the photo were both white.--DarkTea 02:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
i'm a little confused by your logic. okay, so. you say that the woman might not be asian, because they don't specify her asian ancestery. fair enough. but, you don't ask for the man's ancestery, and his is not listed, either. Colorfulharp233 02:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I never stated a requirement for the black man in the "black-Asian" photo, because the US Census defines blacks differently. Whereas all other racial definitions use original ancestry, the black racial definition uses the term "black racial groups of Africa". Since he was clearly black in color, I interpreted him to meet the US census racial definition.--DarkTea 00:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Dark Tea, if the original uploader identifies her as Asian, and she is referred to as Asian in the photo caption, then what is the problem? The caption agrees with the information provided by the photographer who uploaded the photo, who, according to WP:AGF, should be assumed to have acted in good faith. If she were identified as Asian by the original uploader, with a more specific description given in the photo caption, then I could understand the concern. In the case of the Iranian - Mexican photo, the caption was actually written by the photographer who uploaded the photo, so again I fail to see the issue here. Again, if we were talking about somebody taking a randomly uploaded photo and making unwarranted assumptions in composing the captions, then I could understand the objection, but that does not appear to me to be the case here in either of these instances. Nobody appears to be making any assumptions here beyond assuming good faith on behalf of the photographers who originally uploaded the photos, in accordance with wikipedia policy. As for any issues reguarding the US Census, I don't even see a connection between the US Census and this wikipedia article titled Interracial marriage in the first place. Perhaps there is a separate article titled US Census that would be more appropiate for these concerns. --Ramsey2006 05:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
She would have to be Mexican of European, North African, or Middle Eastern descent to be white by the US Census standards. If she were mixed with the Indian, then they would not be in a same race marriage. Since she has not proven that she's not mixed with the Indian and has not proven her white ancestry, her race is undetermined, making the picture a poor representative of same-race marriage.--DarkTea 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if we assume good faith, the uploader could not have known she was Asian unless she stated that her ancestry is from the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian Subcontinent by the 2000 US Census definition. I cannot assume the uploader asked for her ancestry, so I cannot assume she's a real Asian.--DarkTea 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Neither you nor I have met the couples in real life. Neither you not I am in any position to second guess the photographer who took the picture of either couple and was actually there. And once again, the 2000 US Census is totally irrelevant to the whole issue. (I'm also a bit confused why you seem to want the picture of the Iranian/Mexican couple to be a white/white couple, but that's another issue. I thought that this was the Interracial Marriage page.) --Ramsey2006 00:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Mactographer is the one who originally added it as an illustration of white-white marriage. I just want her to be categorized according to the 2000 US Census racial definitions, since their racial or interracial marriage is under the jurisdiction of the 2000 US Census marriage tallies.--DarkTea 02:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Any statements that were made should be in the history for the page, and you should be able to link to them. What I see now is the caption in the current version, and everything seems perfectly in order to me at this point. I don't really feel the need to inspect her Census form. It's not a prerequisite for including the photo. (Geeze! Am I ever glad that I didn't upload our own picture. I had no idea the level of scrutiny that they get.) --Ramsey2006 03:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know this is English Wikipedia and not US government Wikipedia, what the US government may or may not think regarding the "race" of a person is totally irrelevant. What the US government census may require is irrelevant, Wikipedia is not answerable to the US state in this regard and US state policies and guidelines do not apply to Wikipedia. Who cares if the US state doesn't recognise "Mexican" as a "race", this is not an argument relevant to the article or the discussion. Wikipedia needs to have a global perspective, there is also no requirement to "prove" the ancestry of people who appear in images, this is not a police state. Indeed "race" is a social construct, so ancestry is practically irrelevant. Alun 06:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The interracial numbers in the United States are counted using the 2000 US Census definitions for race, so the illustrations must use the same definitions to adequately represent the content of the US interracial section.--DarkTea 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No, they don't. Wikipedia is not a project of the US government. --Ramsey2006 00:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Must, this is Wikipedia, this is not the world according to you. We reach agreement through consensus. No one demands that we provide the names and "race" of the subjects of pictures on wikipedia. Not only do you not have the right to demand that this person "prove" their "race", but you don't have the right to make up new rules just because you don't like a particular picture. I notice you have a lot of wikipedia rules plastered all over your user page, none refers to the the US census being the font of all knowledge. If the uploader of this image claims that this person is Asian, then why should anyone dispute it? You have given no good reason. Alun 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If the numbers of interracial marriage for the US do not come from the United States Census Bureau, where do you think they come from?--DarkTea 02:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
We're not talking about numbers. We're talking about pictures. I don't have the article page in front of me, but if any statistics are claimed in the article, the source of those statistics should be cited, so that readers can look up the definitions used in compiling the statistics. Statistics from the 2000 US Census are perfectly acceptable to use in the article, but not without citing the source. Statistics from other sources that might use different definitions would be acceptable, also, so long as they come from reliable sources which are cited. Common everyday definitions and usages of terms are also quite legitimate for use. Unless you have some specific reason to doubt the couples pictured are interracial couples, or to doubt the integrity of the photographers, I believe that we should assume good faith (WP:AGF) on the part of the photographers who uploaded the photos. There is no need for the photographers to submit the individuals pictured for you to interrogate to determine whether or not you consider them to be real Asians. --Ramsey2006 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I doubt the photographers inquired about the individuals' ancestry since it would seem rude. I do not have faith that they took the necessary step to categorize the individuals' race by the 2000 US Census racial definitions. The woman does not appear to be a real Asian until it is proven.--DarkTea 03:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you noticed that you are the only editor here who is at all concerned (I'm inclined to say obsessed) with how people filled out their 2000 US Census forms? You deleted 3 pictures from the article. They can't all be bogus. (By the way, in your edit summary, you said that she is not Asian, yet. I can't resist asking, when will she be asian?) --Ramsey2006 03:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
She'll be a real Asian for censal purposes when she states that her ancestry is from the Far East, Southeast Asia or the Indian Subcontinent.--DarkTea 05:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, until she fills out a Census form for you, I suggest that you hold from adding the photo to the US Census page. --Ramsey2006 06:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean I'm not really Welsh because I haven't filled out a US census form? By the way, just how do you know that she didn't fill out the US census form and claim to be Asian? Likewise I could fill out a census form and claim to be Martian if I wanted. In the UK census of 2001 390,000 people in England and Wales claimed their religion was "Jedi Knight".[1] This is how reliable census data are. Alun 07:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • United States penny, obverse, 2002.pngUnited States penny, obverse, 2002.png My Two Cents:LOLOL! That cracked me up, Alun! --Mactographer 19:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The UK census is unreliable, but the US census is reliable. The UK Census didn't provide a firm parameter for its "ethnicities" (races), making its data unreliable and subject to interpretation. On the other hand, the US 2000 Census provided clear definitions which makes its data read the same way by everyone. I do not know what the 2000 US censal definition is for a "Welsh", but according to the 2000 US Census an Asian is someone with origins in the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. The US 2000 conceives at least 5 races in the world and allows respondents to write in "some other race". Since the only part of the world without a race is indigenous Australians, they would have to be divided an infinite number of times to have an infinite number of censal races. It is most likely that the 2000 US Census only had in mind five races, but added in the write in category for the jokers. You could conceivably write in "Martian", but your censal race would be clear by definition even if you choose to not bubble it in.--DarkTea 19:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The UK census is unreliable, but the US census is reliable.
This is just opinion, it's totally unacceptable for you to make new rules for wikipedia just because of your opinions.Alun 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This was my topic sentence whose conclusion I defended in the paragraph's body. I believe I have shown the UK Census to be unreliable, but the reasonings were in the body.--DarkTea 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, the US 2000 Census provided clear definitions which makes its data read the same way by everyone.
Not true, there are multiple problems with the US census, especially with regards to people of mixed origins. Furthermore how can you claim that the US census is more reliable? Were you there when every single individual filled out their form? Alun 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The definitions given by the US Census bureau are as clear as black and white. The filling out of the censal form, however, may be botched by ignorance of the definitions.--DarkTea 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The US 2000 conceives at least 5 races in the world and allows respondents to write in "some other race"
Quite, and most people probably think it's just stupid and chose something that more or less approximates to what they think might be their "race", I have absolutely no idea what my "race" would be and refuse to answer such stupid questions, indeed I have never been asked what my "race" is except once on an American website (NY Times of all places) and I found it quite offensive, probably because here in Europe we do not classify people by "race" because it is meaningless. To give these data more importance than they deserve displays a lack of objectivity on your part. You have no evidence or proof that the person in the picture is not Asian, if you do then you should present it. If you think that the uploader of the picture is a liar then you should state this. If you do not think that person is a liar then you have no reason to dispute use of the image. Alun 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
An argument from ignorance should not be used to argue for her inclusion because it comprises a logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on the uploader to prove she's Asian. To the best of my ability, I can tell you your 2000 censal race, if you first tell me your original origins.--DarkTea 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

United States penny, obverse, 2002.pngUnited States penny, obverse, 2002.png My Two Cents: Whoa! I had no idea all this was going on over here on the talk page! I knew that Dark Tea didn't like one or more of my photos for some reason, and that she called the lady in photo number #1 (as seen in the gallery below) "fat" and claimed I used that photo to "disparage" the concept of Black/White marriages. (I thought that was a bit presumptuous, and told her so on her talk page.) And oddly enough, while deleting the afore mentioned photo, Dark Tea also added this photo from my collection and labeled it as a "Asian and White couple." Why she did that? I don't have a clue! Both of these people (also seen in the gallery below at the #4 position) are as lily white as I am.

But I had no idea all this dialog was going on. Sorry not to clear the air sooner.

Here’s the scoop ... I just thought I had uploaded some nice photos that helped to illustrate the concept of “Interracial marriage.” That’s it gang! No ulterior motives. I thought all these wedding photos were of the best from the day of their individual weddings and helped to cast a positive light on all the parties involved AND on the concept of Interracial marriage.

For the record, to the best of my knowledge, the following is true:

Image #1: Was of an American Black man and an American White woman. (I have no idea of their heritages beyond that, they didn’t tell me, I didn’t ask.)
Image #2: Was a Nigerian groom (who I’m pretty sure was born there because he spoke with a heavy accent and had family dressed in native costume for the reception and wedding photos) and a bride of Filipino heritage. (I don’t know if she was born in the Philippines.)
Image #3: Was of (as was described to me by the parties involved) a Mexican-American bride and an Iranian or Iranian decent groom. (I have no idea if the bride had any Anglo-Saxon blood in her.)
Image #4: Both white or of Anglo-Saxon heritage. (I never added this photo, but had to remove it for obvious reasons.)

If consensus dictates that one or more of these photos should be removed for whatever reason, I’m not going to fight it. In good faith, I think all the couples involved look relatively nice and/or attractive, if not drop dead model gorgeous and MOST certainly were not included to "disparage" ANYONE or the content or concept of the article.

In as good faith as I can muster, -- Mactographer 20:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

They're fine. But there should be more diversity, such as same-sex interracial marriages. I'd be happy to supply one of my fiance and me after we get married.Rglong 23:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I put the single pre-existing sentence about interracial same-sex marriages into a separate section, and added a couple of sentences about the two notable interracial couples who, as plaintiffs in Goodridge, fought for and won the right to marry. The links go to the GLAD webpages that include photos of the two couples. It would be nice if we could obtain GFDL images of the two couples in question. --Ramsey2006 16:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the discussion makes it quite clear that only those pictures where it is known what the races are should be pictured. Otherwise it only spreads steriotypes. Why perpetuate a belief that blacks must look a certain way, (or whites/asians) for that matter. Also reduces emphasis somewhat in the article on blacks. Verwoerd (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It is somewhat odd that there are five pictures, with three of them featuring a black male and the other two a black female. It suggests some sort of bias, although I'm not going to try to presume what it is. Meanwhile, there are no pictures of "white male/asian female" couples, despite the fact that it is the most common type of relationship according to the article, by a factor of nearly 2 to 1.
Honestly, this is why I think people say the statistics may be a bit skewed. For some reason, black/non-black interracial photos seem a lot easier to come by, even on a basis where you are ot looking for an interracial couple in particular. If the percentages are as low as they claim, how is it we have so much access to couples like these without even trying?Americanbeauty415 (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusing race with nationality or ethnicity[edit]

Race is a very broad and fluid concept, largely defined by social norms and other people's opinions of you. That's not the same as being of a specific culture or nationality. For example, African means you are from Africa. Black means you have dark skin. African is a nationality or an ethnic descent. Black is a race. Most people when they speak of race are talking about race as a social construct based on superficial observations of things like skin tone and facial features - not about what countries people's ancestors actually originated from.

So all this squabbling I think is largely due to this confusion. "Mexican" is a nationality. It means you are from Mexico. You can only say that about a brown person if you actually know where they or their ancestors are from. Otherwise all you know about someone who "looks Mexican" is that they are BROWN. Brown is a race. Latino can possibly describe a race, Hispanic is more problematic but it's still better than describing someone's race as "Mexican" - again, unless you specifically know they are from the country of Mexico, but even then you would be talking about their nationality, not their race. I could move to Mexico and be officially a "Mexican", even though I'm white as friggin' Casper.

We don't need to delve into what country or culture anyone comes from, and census statistics are meaningless. When you see a black person and a white person, or a brown person and an asian person, or whatever combination, walking down the street holding hands, you know they are an interracial couple.

It sounds like the original uploader just wanted to illustrate interracial couples, and did so just fine. Everyone else is just a little confused and overthinking the issue.Rglong 23:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Kate Beckinsale?[edit]

I'm confused. Kate’s a nice looking lady and all, but how does her photo illustrate the concept of “Interracial Marriage?” I guess she’s “technically” an interracial baby, but her presence seems oddly out of place to me on this page. But I won’t take it upon myself to delete it. Just posing the question.

--Mactographer 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally[edit]

They did a good job concerning neutrality. Not sure if I can do that-my parents are a European-descent man and Asian woman--69.234.216.104 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Jknight98

Examples of illegality of interracial marriage[edit]

I have restored the examples of countries where interracial marriages were previously illegal, for these reasons:

  • The last editor deleted them arguing that nearly every modern state prevented it in the past, but gave no evidence of this.
  • It's usually helpful to have examples of anything described; they don't have to form a comprehensive list.
  • The three countries mentioned all had political systems (apartheid, Nazism, slavery) based on racism, so were particularly strong in their opposition to interracial marriage.

What do others think? And are there still any states that ban or legally restrict interracial marriage? Rodparkes 11:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Interracial couples[edit]

There needs to be an article on interracial couples, because not all interracial couples are married. Muntuwandi 21:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Wouldn't mentioning interracial couples who are not married make interracial relationships look bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.200.106 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This article should be 100% reedited[edit]

I don't even think the data given here is true. I am especially concerned about the parts were the author of this article seem to be focusing too much on one race. It seems like most of this article is to show how Africans/African Americans don't marry out of their race. While it is true that African American women (for what I know) are probably one of the most endogamous group, it seems to me that the statistics are either made up or just way too old (the earliest you have here is 1992 or something like that). Besides, it seems to me that if the author wants to get into the reasons why black women don't marry out of their race that much, it would be good to mention the status of the black women in many societies and during the ante-slavery, slavery and post-slavery era, because I, a black woman (who is most likely to marry the man she loves, black, white, asian, native american, hispanic...), I felt a little outraged by the way that chapter was approached. Either you are thorough or you don't talk so much about the subject to begin with. Too many paragraphs in this article are about African descent people, TOO MANY. What about all the other beautiful races we have out there? What about other countries? Interracial marriage isn't a USA phenomenon. I don't even think America is the melting pot in terms of marriages compared to other countries like Canada, South American, European or even African countries. PLEASE do something about this (in my opinion) erroneous, biased article to restore the credibility of Wikipedia (that I respect so much... so far). Also, like someone mentioned above, bring back the list of known interracial couples, like in any other wiki articles. I apologize for misinterpretations, generalizations or not going deeper into my various points. Nbmarushka 07:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bring some statistics that show black women marrying outside their race, or black men not prefering whites over members of their own race. In fact, black women just do not, anywhere, have relationships with members of other races. The same is true for asian men. That's based on raw data. Verwoerd (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
They do, but less frequently than black men and Asian (as in Chinese/Japanese etc) women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinUK (talkcontribs) 22:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Weird there's no Asian-White photo[edit]

Aren't Asian-White marriages the most common interracial marriages in the US? Why isn't there a photo? --Naus (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Although you're probably right (that's most of what I've seen), all interracial marriages are pretty rare in the US. If you wold like a link to some photos of White-Asian couples, try these: http://www.haolehubbyclub.com/hhcphoto.htm http://www.haolehubbyclub.com/honeyphoto.htm I don't know if they are copyright or not. You might want to ask the owners of the website.--69.234.200.106 (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Then add one, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry. Then add one, dear Henry, dear Henry, add one.
(and please add comments to the bottom of the page)Kransky (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
And here's another link! http://www.flickr.com/photos/kennly-ifc/2059350733/ White-Asian couple photos are on flickr too! Surely one picture won't be copyrighted! By the way, MY NAME'S NOT HENRY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.204.104 (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is a white-Asian photo: http://flickr.com/photos/jason_hutchens/1664141/

Also them with a kid: http://flickr.com/photos/jason_hutchens/2528102958/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.212.123 (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-edit needed[edit]

Under "statistics" I expect exactly that - statistics. Not commentry about the history, reasons, legality or other background details about interracial marriage that gets in the way of reading the information. Just the facts, ma'am...

The best and most recent data comes from "Table FG4. Married Couple Family Groups, by Presence of Own Children/1 In Specific Age Groups, and Age, Earnings, Education, and Race and Hispanic Origin/2 of Both Spouses: 2006", found at the website of the US Census. It is better to rely on a primary source than a secondary source (like www.asian-nation.com).

I suggest by using this table it is considerably easier to compare trends, rather than rely on prose.

Married Couples in the United States in 2006
White Wife Black Wife Asian Wife Other Wife
White Husband 50,224,000 117,000 530,000 483,000
Black Husband 286,000 3,965,000 34,000 45,000
Asian Husband 174,000 6,000 2,493,000 13,000
Other Husband 535,000 23,000 41,000 558,000

Kransky (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for putting the data in table format. Under Wikipedia's policies, however, your commentary concerning the inferences that may be drawn from the data is considered "original research" and must be removed unless it can be cited to a reliable source. For the time being, I will leave it in the article with a tag questioning whether it is original research. If you can find a source that draws the same conclusions, please add it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed the anodyne comment which I wrote (summating somebody else's more speculative research) that mentioned whites have a lower rate of intermarriage due to their population size. It was clearly original research. However the three dot points containing inferences from the statistics is neither Original research nor subjective synthesis WP:SYN. It is merely citing statistics and calculating proportions from a reliable primary source. Please also see Wikipedia:These are not original research. Kransky (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Whites and intermarriage[edit]

I will re-edit somebody's reason why white have the lowest rate of intermarriage, being This is to be expected statistically, since whites comprise the largest proportion of the population, and intermarry with racial groups that comprise a smaller proportion of the population. In fact, since whites comprise more than 50% of the population, it is impossible for any other outcome to occur. Thus, this is not by any means a statistical indicator of discrimination. It would be falacious to rely on this statistical assumption since it ignores marriage rates generally. Kransky (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why were these statistics removed?[edit]

Why was the following removed:

"*No type of interracial marriage occurs as often as it would if people choose their partners randomly. The type of interracial marriage that occurs most commonly, compared to the interracial marriages that would occur if people choose their mates randomly, is white male and Asian female, which occurs 40% as often as it would given given random distribution of partners and the above data for number of marriages. The second most common type, black male and Asian female, occurs 30% as often as it would given a random distribution. This is can be inferred from the table of statistics provided, like the other bullet points. For example, to calculate the number of white male - Asian female marriages that would occur if race and marriage were uncorrelated, we simply multiply the number of total marriages by the probability of a marriage including an Asian female and the probability of a marriage including a white male (and multiply by 2, since there are two ways such a marriage can be ordered: WM-AAF, AAF-WM). Since there are 59,527,000 total marriages, and two people participate in every marriage, there are 2*59,527,000 = 119,054,000 marriage participants. 3,098,000 of the these marriage participants are Asian females; 51,354,000 are white males. Thus, the total number of white male - Asian female marriages that would occur if marriage and race were uncorrelated is

2 *total number of marriages * probability of having a female Asian participant * probability of having a white male participant = 2 * 59,527,000 * (3,098,000 / 119,054,000) * (51,354,000/ 119,054,000) = 1,336,000 marriages.

The actual number of WM-AAF marriages is 530,000. 530,000 / 1,336,000 = .4. Thus, WM-AAF marriages occur 40% as often as they would if marriage and race were uncorrelated. This result can be derived by an elementary statistical analysis of the verifiable data provided in the table. It is no different than any of the other bullet points listed under the table.Comparing the number of inter-racial marriages that occur to the number that would occur if marriage and race were uncorrelated is the only way to get past how population sizes affect marriage statistics, and look at how the incidence of marriage truly compares to the incidence that would occur in a discrimination (defined broadly as correlation with race - that is a discrimination between alternatives by choosing one more frequently than the other because of a bias/fancy towards some characteristics) free society. These statistics are of vital importance.Can someone give me a reason why this should not be listed? Morphling89 (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Morphling89 (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It took me a while to understand what you were trying to say. I think that adding the percentage of people of gender X of race A who marry race [A|B|C] is enough information. Remember that these statistics are incomplete (we are ignoring other partnering options, and marriage rate generally. If you want a clearer picture of intermarriage rates including the number of single males/females of each race would be more worthwhile. The calculations you cite above are incorrect (where did 119 million marriages come from? how did you arrive at the oddly round figures of 30% and 40% being the extent to which certain pairings are more common than "random distribution"). Does anybody else have a view? Kransky (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The difference between is that your inference may be "original research" and the other bullet points aren't. Please see Wikipedia:These are not original research#Obvious deductions:
Any simple mathematical calculation that the reader can be expected to quickly reproduce for her/himself. For example, if given the population and the size of a specific area, then the population density of that area may be included. More complex calculations, for instance involving statistics algebra or calculus, should not be attempted because they require skills that not all readers possess, and involve a large number of steps that introduce the possibility of errors.
Dividing the number of interracial marriages by the total number of marriages is a "simple mathematical calculation that the reader can be expected to quickly reproduce for her/himself." A calculation of the sort described above, which took three paragraphs to explain, is probably a "More complex calculation" that, according to the essay, should not be attempted.
Please note that Wikipedia:These are not original research is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and need not be followed. However, the ideas it presents make good sense.
Also, your logic is faulty. Your calculations don't involve "random distributions" at all, at least not the way that phrase is used in statistics. Instead, you are describing the rate at which interracial marriages have taken place relative to all marriages. A truly random distribution would consider all marriage-eligible adults, not just those people who are married.
Finally, the statistics you calculate have nothing at all to do with "the incidence that would occur in a discrimination free society". Even in a society free from race-based discrimination, people would have preferences (for short or tall partners, partners with light or dark skin, partners with small or large breasts, or simply for partners that look like them) that might result in percentages of interracial marriage that bear little relationship to the percentages of racial composition in the population. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand my calculations. First of all, 119 million is not the number of marriages but the total number of people participating in marriages. Second of all, you stated that I said that certain pairings are 30% or 40% more likely to occur than the in a random distribution. But this is not what I said at all! In fact, I said that no inter-racial marriage pair exceeds that predicted in a random distribution. I was comparing the ratio of how marriages occur in real life to how they would occur if there was no correlation between marriage and race (in other words, if no one displayed a preference for a certain race). Also, of course the calculation does not yield exactly 40%. It actually 0.396610403, if you want to be incredibly exact. But I was using 3 significant digits when using my rounding, because being any more exact would, in my view, give too confident a view of the uncertainty involved (one should only use the digits one is sure of +1. This is also a principle of statistics). After all, 0.396610403 is very close to .4. I might as well ask you how you got the nice statistics of 1.0% in your own bullet points, when the actual answer was probably something like .98546390(you get the point). Morphling89 (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As for the claim that this calculation is "too complicated", this is grossly unfair. It did not take "three paragraphs" to arrive at my conclusion. Most of that post was simply addressing issues with why the post was deleted, giving reasons that the statistics should be included, and explaining in detail beforehand exactly what I was doing, in the hope that this simple calculation would be easy enough to follow. The actual calculation is contained in one line - a total of three multiplications, and one division! I do not take it, that multiplication and division are assumed to be beyond people! It would be something different if I were working through a long theoretical or logical proof, but this is not the case. I am not using theoretical algebra or theoretical statistics, or any kind of advanced math whatsoever. The numbers I posted are directly and easily inferred from the provided data. Morphling89 (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As for your argument that I should use total population statistics, this is flawed. First of all, those statistics are not provided in the table so using them would not rely on verifiable data. Second, different races tend to seek marriage at different rates (whites, for example, tend to marry more in general). Third, age distribution affects marriage rates. African Americans, on average, are younger. Thus, more African Americans are below the marriage age, and we would expect less marriage compared to the population. Third, it is an unfortunate fact that approx. 10% of 25-29 yr old African Americans are incarcerated (2002), which decreases the availability of marriage-age black bachelors beyond what one might expect from population statistics alone. For all these reasons and more, it would be faulty to use population statistics. Actual marriage statistics are a far better and more accurate measure (although by no means perfect, although no single statistic is a perfect indicator of anything) by which to judge discrimination. Morphling89 (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, your comment about how there would still be discrimination in a race free world, while insightful, has no relevance to my statistics. I don't even understand why you brought that up. Note that I said "discrimination" as a whole, and not racial discrimination. Indeed, the reason that some inter-racial relationships are more common compared to what would be expected if people had no racial preferences may not be because some relationships are stifled by racial prejudices, but rather that certain people may prefer traits associated, or stereotypically associated, with a certain race. For example, Asian American men are shorter, on average, than either black or white men. This might cause someone to discriminate against them in terms of dating/marriage. This might not be because the person dislikes Asians, but rather because the person discriminates against short people, something correlated with Asian men. In short, my statistics do compare to what relationships would be like in a world without racial hatred and prejudice - but rather compare to a world in which people do not discriminate based on race or racial traits (a world where marriage is not correlated to race). Thus, how close relationships tend to be to what would statistically occur in a world without any' discrimination depends upon: a) how close the races are in a geographical/cultural sense, b) how the traits of each race compare to cultural "preferences, c) racial prejudices. These are the three evident factors that can cause people to deviate from random partner-choosing behavior. If you want to figure out how inter-racial relationships would occur if only the third factor was null, you would have to determine the relative weight of each factor. This is statistically involved, difficult to calculate accurately, and requires expertise in the subject, and is a different question entirely. But the fact that inter-racial dating and co-habitation occur at significantly higher frequencies than marriage may be a sign of racial prejudice, or a desire to stick together culturally in marriage. Morphling89 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Morphling, you are providing a lot of analysis (much of which is very difficult to read) without looking at the big picture. The statistics illustrate the choices made by married persons, not all persons, so incarceration rates or other reasons for being excluded from the marriage market are irrelevant. Adding in another layer of analysis (like indirect factors such as height) is unnecessary - the statistics are intended to show what happens. They are not intended to identify causal factors.
I hope you spend NYE tonight involved in more fun activities. Kransky (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason I brought up incarceration rates was not because it was relevant to my analysis. You and I both agree that it is not. We also agree on why it is not relevant. It is not relevant because I used data from the table you provided, which illustrates the choices made by married persons. Morphling89 (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
So why did I bring up incarceration, you ask? Because our good Malik Shabazz commented that I should use population statistics as a whole, rather than the statistics you provided. And incarceration rates is one of several reasons why this approach is fallacious. Morphling89 (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, the discussion of factors such as height were a response to Malik's comments about how there would still be discrimination even if there was no racial discrimination. It has nothing to do with my calculations, or your table, whatsoever.
In short, everything beyond the first two paragraphs, which explain exactly how my calculations were misunderstood, and why they are not OR, is a response to specific arguments you, and especially Malik, have made, and have no relevance to the calculations I made. Morphling89 (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there still a dispute here, or have I managed to resolve the confusion about the calculation. I hope that you and Malik now understand how I used the data provided in the table to infer, and compare against, the probabilities. Morphling89 (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Malik did not tell you to use population statistics as a whole. He just commented that you were comparing apples and oranges together. I am still unconvinced, and think there should be greater consultation. Could you suggest some language that is much shorter, clearer and more focussed than what you have already provided? And don't give me 12 hours to explain myself again. Kransky (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I will try my best to do what you ask. I fear my previous posts have apparently done nothing but inflame this dispute. As for the Malik, comment, here it is:
"Instead, you are describing the rate at which interracial marriages have taken place relative to all marriages. A truly random distribution would consider all marriage-eligible adults, not just those people who are married."
This seemed to suggest, at least in my opinion, that I should not use the numbers of married adults, but rather marriage-age adults, in order to achieve a truly random distribution. This is why I brought up the problems with such an attempt. As for clearer language, here is a first attempt. The problem I have with making the language clearer is that by removing jargon, one can often make the meaning of a statement less precise. Please comment if you can think of any way to improve clarity:
"Based on the above data, all types of interracial marriages occur less often than they would if people did not have racial preferences in their spouses." - statement 1
"The relationship that deviates the least from this ideal is white male and Asian female, followed by black male and Asian female." - statement 2
What do you think? Personally, I am worried that statement 1 will be confused as comparing to a world without racism - something different entirely. Morphling89 (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
You really are keen about this subject!
Statement 1 is still uncomprehendable. Do you mean "There are differences in the rate that married men and women in each racial category pick partners from other races"? If so you are stating the obvious and it would be pointless to include it. If you mean "These statistics demonstrate married men and women pick partners according to racial preferences", then it would be totally unacceptable, since many people pick their partners ignoring their race. If you want to claim race is a factor, this section on statistics is the wrong place to mention or debate it.
For statement 2, again it does not seem clear. What is this (highly POV) word "ideal" suppose to mean? If you mean "trend", then are you comparing the marriage trends of males or females?
This is New Years Eve, and I seriously but respectfully suggest that you log-off the computer, head to the parties, meet up with ladies of all ethnicities, and have fun. Kransky (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
What is says is a statistical fact: interracial marriages occur less often than they would if no-one had racial preferences in their partners (and by racial preferences, I mean that they tend to choose members of a given race as partners more/less often than members of an another race - this does not necessarily imply racism). Perhaps I would make the meaning clearer if I changed it to:
"Based on the above data, all types of interracial marriages occur less often than they would if no one had racial preferences in their spouses." - statement 1
This statement is significant, because ALL types of interracial marriage occur less than they would in a world without preferences (and conversely, all types of in-marriage occur more often).
By ideal, I meant a theoretical state, existing only in the imagination, and hoped that it would be clear by the context of the previous statement that the ideal referred to the state in which people did not have preferences. However, if ideal is not a neutral enough word, the word state could be used instead.
"The relationship that deviates the least from this state is white male and Asian female, followed by black male and Asian female." - statement 2
or, if state is not clear from the context of the sentence it is following:
"The relationship that deviates the least from the state in which no one has racial preferences is white male and Asian female, followed by black male and Asian female." - statement 2
As for your other comment, we obviously live in different time zones. I still have 2 hours before any festivities start over here, and in the mean time, the only thing I'm missing out on is getting compsci homework done. And that shouldn't take too long, in my experience. In any case, this is getting off track considerably. :) Morphling89 (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you still don't seem to understand what I am saying, and both sentences are syntactically incorrect and almost incomprehendable. For sentence 1 you are still mistaking correlation with causality, and as I said, making arguments about causal relationships is not the right place in the "statistics" section. If your sentence 1 really means "Interracial marriages would occur less often if people did not select their partners on the basis of race", then it is unacceptable because you are assuming people have racial preferences, when instead selection could be made due to other issues. The wording of sentence 2 likewise assumes racial preferences are in play.
The word I think is most appropriate word to use is "outcome". So are you happy with this comprimise sentence:
  • There is a notable disparity in the rates of exogamy by Asian males and females. Only 15% of Asian/white marriages involve an Asian male and white female, and only 15% Asian/black marriages involve an Asian male and a black female.
Lets get this debate finished - I am on holidays !Kransky (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine. But, with all due respect, I know the difference between correlation and causality. I thought that my posts made clear that 'racial preferences' meant a statistical deviation towards/against marriage with a race - not necessarily that race itself was causing the deviation. Morphling89 (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Morphling, I'm not sure if this is what you were trying to say, because I lost track through all that, seeing as no one really signed their name to their post. But were you trying to get across that a certain amount of the percentages can be attributed certain individuals seeking to date a certain race that isn't their own. For instance, asian women who seek to date only white males, etc..Americanbeauty415 (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's the point I was trying to make: We have data on the number of asian/blacks/whites/hispanics who engage in marriages. Therefore, we can find out the number of each time of interracial marriage that would occur if marriage and race were not correlated (for statisticians this means that marriage and race are independant). By comparing the number of each type of interracial marriage that ACTUALLY occurs to the number that would occur if marriage and race were not correlated, you can show which types of interracial marriages are most relatively accepted or common. If there are less actual interracial marriages compared to the uncorrelated state then some factor(s) (cultural differences, racism, perceptions of beauty, social segregation, ect.) must be responsible for this (since there is a very large sample size). Thus, this type of statistical analysis can shed a great deal of light on what interracial marriages are most accepted or common, and to what degree different types of marriages are discouraged or accepted. One way to state this fact is:
"These statistics show that marriag is negatively correlated with having a partner of a different race. However, the negative correlation is stronger for some types of interracial marriages. For example, marriage between Asian American males and African American females show the largest negative correlation, while marriage between Asian American females and white males show the smallest negative correlation" Morphling89 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Turkic peoples[edit]

why all info about us are deleted? :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.55.238 (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Cities for interracial couples[edit]

Should there be a section on the article where cities or states have a majority of interracial couples? Agtax 22:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Unless you include this for all countries it would taint the article to have an American focus. Kransky (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

unsourced[edit]

The majority of the article has not a single source. They are dead or simply not there75.6.156.213 (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Most of this information does not have sources at all. As such, unsourced marerials should be deleted after a few months. EgraS (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Current Interracial Statistcs[edit]

Do anyone know the recorded or current numbers of interracial marriages from last year or this year? The statistics on the article are back in 2006. Agtax 01:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Seretse Khama[edit]

Is this case given just too much prominance here? It was 60 years ago, and bound up in issues of international politics. It's also very unusual historically, and I doubt many people in Britain have ever heard of it. Yet it takes up the bulk of the British section, which gives the impression that it's of some fundamental importance in discussing mixed race marriage in Britain. Indisciplined (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

US Census white statistic[edit]

User:Kontar has made this edit where they have interchanged the term white for European, but this does not accurately represent the data. The interracial relationship data comes from the US Census which includes Middle Easterners as part of the white race. When the white interracial marriage statistic includes Middle Easterners as whites, it is inaccurate for User:Kontar to change the term "white" to "European".----DarkTea© 04:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Dark Tea. Not only is the term "white" specifically defined by the U.S. census bureau to include non-European ancestry, but it is not as common of a term as white. When was the last time you heard somone described as European American in the news? Kman543210 (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
What about the term Caucasian American? Don't that come in all categories among White Americans? Agtax 04:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Most of the data is NOT from the US census. Please check the references. Also, the US Census does not reflect a world-wide view of the subject, which is a problem with this article in general. I have left the specific charts that reflect the census numbers as "white," "black," etc. to remain consistent with the source material. The issue is not just "white." The issue is consistent ethnic classification across the board. Also, from a scientific standpoint, Middle Easterners are included in the anthropological classification as "of European descent." --Kontar (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Classification[edit]

Would not it be better not calling it today "interracial" in the explanation, that may have slipped through the writers fingers, but "ethnically different"? It was and is discrimination and in terms of science not correct speaking of humans of different ethnical origin as "races". Is there any specialist who could with references change accordingly the explanation, not using the term ? Thank you.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.141.80 (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree in using Caucasian, but all ethnic groups are derived from a region which environmentally "creates" their ethnic differences. The Caucus mountains is not the only area which has produced people who would be considered to have their characteristics. In general, European peoples are similar in ethnic physical traits as well as cultural and regional association. Caucasian is simply not inclusive enough. Also, "Caucasian" is inconsistent with "Asian," "African," and "Native American." If you use "White people" you would have to use "Yellow people" to describe those of Asian descent to remain consistent, which is of course not physically accurate, regionally relevant, or even culturally descriptive. "white" is not a scientific classification. Nor is it consistent with the other descriptions (ie. Asian). The article is about ethnic relations and classification. "White" is a color, not a geographic ethnicity. Encyclopedic entries are meant to be accurate, not popular. --Kontar (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The US Census has a write-in response section and a corresponding code listing which standardizes the placement of various write-in responses into their appropriate race. The US Census ancestry code listing number 924 considers "Caucasian" to be a synonym for the white race. You could change the "White American" term to "Caucasian American".----DarkTea© 04:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. I'll do that. Agtax 04:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Although changing "white" to "caucasian" rather than "European" would be more technically correct, it still is not as common in use as simply the term "white", although "caucasian" is definitely more in use than "European American". Also, white Hispanics coming migrating from other countries may not identify as European American but still would identify as white. I agree that the terms African American, Asian, and white seems inconsistent in terms of convention, but the more common terms should be used, not stuffy language. "Black" and "African American" seem to be in equal use and both acceptable. Personally, for consistency, I think the term "black" should be used throughout the article so as not to be U.S.-centric (I noticed this was changed recently too in areas as well as Asian to Asian American). Kman543210 (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
"Caucasian" is discredited in the field of biological anthropology, as are the sister terms "Negroid" for people of African descent and "Mongoloid" for people of Asian descent. The reason why it is important to make the distinction of "American" is because the data is not relevant outside of the US in many places of this article. Again, "equal use" and "acceptable" is an American cultural bias, and not a scientifically relevant and accurate criteria. "Black" and "White" are anthropologically inaccurate and scientifically discarded. --Kontar (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Jumping in, here—for the most part, race is not scientific, rather it's a social paradigm. So in a way, it actually is based on popularity. The terms "black" and "white" are widely understood to refer to people of African descent and people of European descent respectively, both inside and outside the US. They are used everyday in both formal and informal settings, and by everyone, including the general public, the media, politicians, researchers, writers, and so forth. An encyclopedia should use the most familiar terminology. Indeed, "black" and "white" are used all over Wikipedia to refer to race. "African American" is sometimes used also, but "European American" is rather rare. I have never heard the term "Caucasian American" in my life.
Hopefully, the average reader understands that any reference to "black" and "white" in the section titled "United States" refers only to blacks and whites in the United States... 71.179.255.126 (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I can revert Caucasian American and African American to White American and Black American, if its okay with the other users. Agtax 22:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Judaism[edit]

This article really needs a section on religious attitudes to these relationships. For example, many Jewish people feel that marrying a non-Jewish person contributes to the eventual erasing of their people from history - something you could argue that many non-Jewish nations have been trying to do for millenia. Many secular Jews are adopting orthodox lifestyles and raising their children in an orthodox way simply to reduce the chances of them marrying outside the faith?--MartinUK (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Consequences for mixed-race children[edit]

This article largely ignores a fundamental question - how do people feel about growing up mixed race? Anecdotally it appears that mixed relationships are more likely to fail, which can mean these children growing up with limited access to part of their heritage. Even Barack Obama has attributed his past drug use to the lingering questions of who he was.--MartinUK (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Not all mixed relationships fail because of their kids. A relationship can work if they didn't have children, whether they're mixed or not. Agtax 11:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The people of mixed race are covered in the multiracial article. This article is about interracial marriages.-----DarkTea© 03:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Marriage Squeeze[edit]

I feel like the last part of the Marriage squeeze section might need some modification, since it fails to make (the enormous) distinction between the rate of marriage of Black males to Asian females and Black females to Asian males (the first occurring almost 6 times as often as the other). Also, the paragraph in not properly integrated with the rest of the section, which generally focuses on a lack of potential marriage partners for black females (due to a variety of factors, including incineration rates, race relations, ect). I agree that the article should be referenced, but it should also be mentioned that (specifically) it is marriages between Asian men and Black women that are abnormally low. Marriage rates for Black men and Asian women, in contrast, are abnormally high, and could therefore be mentioned as contributing to a lack of available single African American men. In fact, if you look at the statistics, Black men engage in all forms of intermarriage in far higher rates than Black women - this is significant and should be mentioned as a contributing factor to the marriage squeeze. Therefore, I propose a modification of the last segment to reflect these facts, and present a more accurate and nuanced view of the effect of intermarriage on the marriage squeeze. Please comment on these proposed changes, and any objections, questions or suggestions regarding them! 140.247.249.146 (talk) 06:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Part of that section sounds pretty biased and it has nothing to do with the article. Agtax 22:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you referring to the marriage squeeze section of the interracial marriage article, or to the changes that I feel are appropriate to the marriage squeeze section? 140.247.254.171 (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The marriage sqeeze section. I cited that it said that black men are more likely to be a victims of homicide. That sounds kind of biased and has nothing to do with the article. Its right at the end of the marriage squeeze section. Agtax 22:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that's probably in there because it may contribute to the explanation of why "between the ages of 25 – 29, when for every two African-American men, there are nearly three African-American women." I guess it might be questionable if homicide is a significant factor contributing to this gap between the numbers of African American men and women. Actually, I looked through the citation for the homicide statement and that link only mentions the 2-3 disparity thing, it doesn't mention homicide as a major contributing factor. It does mention incarceration though. So maybe that homicide part should be deleted. Morphling89 (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Interracial marriage between black men and asian women is extremely rare(34,000). Even relations with white women are somewhat rare(about 300,000). In addition asian women avoid black men(according to the Columbia study on the Asian fetish page YVNP (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
But still, interracial marriage represents the minority of all marriages. I'm pretty sure its on the rise. Agtax 06:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Within that minority black male/asian female is an even smaller minority —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talkcontribs) 04:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually the lowest of them all is Asian male/black female.
YVNP: You are wrong. That is a common misconception. Interracial marriage between black men and Asian women is very high. The reason it is small numerically is because of the relatively small percentages of the population that are black and Asian. Consider that African Americans account for 7% of marriages and Asians for 4.9%. Therefore one would expect that approximately .049*.07= .0034 (.34%) of marriages occur between blacks and Asians, so half of that, .17% between black men and Asian women. In fact, the number of marriages between Asian females and black males (34,000) is approximately .055%, which, I admit, is only 1/3 of what one would expect. However, for all other interracial marriages, except for white male and Asian females, this ratio is lower. Take, for example, the interracial marriage of white women and black men. Sure this happens often, but that's because there are a lot of white people out there. Caucasians account for 86% of marriages between whites, Asians, and blacks, while blacks account for 7%. So we might expect that white-black marriages account for .86*.07= .06 (6%) of all marriages, so 3% of marriages should be between white women and black men. However, only 286,000, or .48%. This is only .48/3= 1/6. So this only occurs 1/6 as often as we would expect, while marriages between Asian women and black males occur 1/3 as often. 140.247.240.157 (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
That is true but it can be explained as the product of a smaller sample. This is similar to the rule of extreme scores. Higher results are less likely to happen when the sample size increases —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talkcontribs) 13:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This is using national marriage data. A sample as large as the whole Asian American and African American populations, or intermarriage numbers in the tens of thousands are all large enough to be considered statistically relevant, especially since this is not a survey of a part of the population but census data regarding the entirety of the population. 140.247.248.180 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible need to split the article[edit]

The recent exponentional growth of this article raises the notion that we may want to consider splitting this article's content, in order to manage article size. One possible way to go about this would be to create two seperate articles for the topic of interracial marriage prior to the landmark Loving vs Virginia case, and after.

The nature of and the reaction to interracial marriage has changed so substantially over the last few decades, in particular, that it may be warranted to dedicate two separate articles to. It would provide a solution to our current article size problems. Thoughts? 84.196.66.167 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not divide the article by region instead? We could have this as the main article and have the larger sections (such as Asia, Europe and the United States) linking to their own main articles, with a brief summary for each section. What do you think? Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

While race and culture are not synonyms, I think that interracial marriage and Intercultural marriage overlap enough that they could be one article. The intercultural article only contains information about the United States, so I think it makes sense to roll it into this one. Thoughts? SU Linguist (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this makes sense. I wrote some comments below about interfaith marriage in Egypt, saying that the (one way) ban on interfaith marriage in Egypt basically functions similarly to bans on interracial marriage and play the same role. Culture and race can't really be separated, because they are assumed to be related. If interracial marriage was not assumed to be an intercultural marriage, it would not be a taboo. --Aghniyya (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Legality of interracial marriage confusion[edit]

The second paragraph of the "legality of interracial marriages" section is irrelevant to this topic. The laws and customs in Arab countries that revoke civil rights of women are aimed towards marrying individuals from outside the social group or the religion regardless of the race. For example: these laws prohibit a Muslim woman from marring a Christian man even if they are members of same race. But the same laws would allow a member of an African race to marry a woman of Caucasian race if they are both Muslims.

This paragraph contains serious mixing between race, social group and religion. Assuming that the three entities are always coinciding is a racial assumption in itself. So, I think this paragraph should be deleted or moved to another article related to religious and social freedom in the Middle East if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glow2 (talkcontribs) 10:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, "race, social group and religion" are often synonymous in practice, because religion is so often a part of ethnic identity and thereby "race". For example, the only difference between a Croat and a Serb is religion (Catholic v. Orthodox), and this has racial resonances (i.e., for a Croat, the Serbs and all countries to the East practice a sort of "Oriental despotism"). Likewise, Pakistan was created on the basis of Islam. Pakistan's national language Urdu is justified on the basis of Islam (i.e., every Muslim in South Asian "should" speak Urdu). I can say as a westerner who has lived in an Islamic country (Egypt), I was excluded essentially on the basis of my race/ethnicity. The proof? I wouldn't have been able to marry a Christian there either. By converting, I would have also had to give up my ethnic/racial identity as well and would have become an Egyptian. For example, I would have needed to take a new name. It's true that this is somewhat different than the situation in the US (a white or black man cannot give up his racial identity), but it's quite homologous. It's just that "racial" characteristics (like the Egyptian "mentality") are assumed to be related to religion and ethnic identity rather than birth. So in a sense, our idea of race is quite marginal in Egypt (or non-existent?), but religion/ethnicity plays the same role. --Aghniyya (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess the obvious example is anti-Semitism, where religion is inseparable from "race". --Aghniyya (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary; comparative sociologists (notably Amparo Gonzalez-Ferrer) found that these cultural/social aspects of Islam have a quantifiable impact both on the prevalence as well as on the make-up of intercultural and interracial marriages. Not only within the Islamic world, but indeed abroad. This renders the topic directly relevant to the article. I should know, frankly -- I'm one of relatively few who have been born from a union between a non-Muslim man and a Muslim woman. Malik047 (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Difficulties of Intercultural Marriages Section[edit]

Why is it that there are 4 items highlighting potential difficulties of an intercultural marriage, yet no discussion of the potential benefits... such as increased global perspective, greater tolerance for differences of opinion and ideas, greater possibilities for exchange that may prevent "stale marriage syndrome", etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.125.132 (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Likely because the examples you cite lean towards the subjective. The internal and external challenges interracial pairs face due to their makeup, by contrast, are more substantial and consequently also more quantifiable and readily accessible for use in social studies. This is underlined by the research conducted by Jenifer L. Bratter and Rosalind B. King for example, who found interracial couples typically have higher divorce rates than same-race marriages, even today.[2] With this being a consistent and recognizable pattern, sociologists have solid ground from which to examine cause and consequence in detail, resulting in a greater volume of peer-reviewed information within the literature which the article can reference.
Secondly, it would be awkward for the article's narrative to cast a private decision of two consenting individuals as something of a "tool" to achieve a "greater end" with. The narrative is best left to citing the condition and the perspective of the involved parties as a result, as sociologists observe and record these in the field. Malik047 (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)