Talk:Marriage in the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

External reviews

I presume you all have a "welcome" page and are familiar with Wikipedia basics. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a "how to" guide. Please use formal language, the third person, not "you." Quotes should be from a reliable source and stated in a reliable manner: "Men polled said they didn't like marriage because..."(ref). While we are a tertiary source, we are supposed to be authoritative and reliable. BTW, we really shouldn't be quoting other tertiary sources, like textbooks, but we can overlook that for non-controversial stuff. See WP:RS. We are not trying to tell people how to stay married or how to select a partner, but rather who stayed married, who didn't and the academic (polled) reasons why (for example). Sample should be large enough to be credible, not a "University of Pennsylvania" class. A polled class is not credible and should probably be deleted.
This should be written like your professor would write it, not like a student! Student7 (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I certainly agree with this, and thank you for your edits. I expect the students to review them and improve their contributions based on them. Few other comments:
"Society puts a high value on marriage" - not value, importance. Value suggests a value judgement (pro or against), which is not the case. And of course such claims need citations. Also, how is it US specific? Remember, this is a page about "marriage in the USA", not marriage in general. Only the "In the U.S., polygamy and polyandry are typically viewed as strange and uncommon..." sentence seems to deal with USA - and it is uncited.
"A university has developed a framework for marriage in seven domains". What is "a framework for marriage"? This needs clarification, indeed.
A bunch of links are broken (Nielsen, Abrams) - they lead to a generic ebsco login page, not to the article page. While those links may work at Pitt, they don't work outside it. Please make the links accessible to people editing from outside the university. For example, Nielsen should link to here. Other references are missing information on author, publisher and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Remember, this is not a political argument page. We should not be "advancing" a political cause. However, the material, if correctly and npov worded, may have that affect! That is okay.
But they can't be bald statements. "Homosexuals are more attractive than heterosexuals." Such a statement would need to be worded, "A study by X, suggests that homosexuals are..." or whatever. The more bald and controversial it is, the more it needs careful wording. Objectivity is the key here. While it doesn't work well on religious issues (and maybe this is one!  :(, it tends to work, in the long run on political issues. That is, conservatives and liberals arrive, not at a common ground, but at an understanding of the other's opinions, both of which are stated.
It is, for example, true that adopted children of homosexuals are as normal as heterosexuals. But this needs more work, better stated, referenced.
One of the more believable statements is about homosexual men being more at risk for HIV than lesbians. Because it admits a problem, it is easier to accept the statement about lesbians. (Obviously the whole subsection can't be written in this defensive a manner, but just wanted to point that out). Student7 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

References review

I've added a number of requests for missing information to the existing references. What makes the following websites reliable? www.costofwedding.com , ww.outcast-films.com , greencardmarriage.org , usaimmigrationsupport.comI see several reliable journal references linked through the ebscohost website; please replace those links with a more generic link (Pitt subscribes to ebscohost, but many others don't, and will get just a useless longin page). Just google for the journal article, and link to pages with content you can see outside Pitt network. For example, for the marriage article, this would be better: [1]. Finally, Loving v. Virginia ref is very unclear. Is it a journal article? Please clarify this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

History section review

Since I was asked to provide a feedback on that section: I think it is maturing well. 1) Issues to be addressed: not enough blue links, on the other hand, an entire sentence should not be a single link (reduce the blue in it to few words). 2) Century should not be capitalized. 3) "By the 1940s marriage between whites and persons of color" - this implies that things might have been fine before 1940s. I'd also like to see a comment about marriage between persons of color - ex. where marriages between Asians and African Americans acceptable back then? 4) Not enough references, I see many unreferenced sentences. Every sentence should have a reference. I'd also suggest using reference ranges of no more than two pages, instead of ~10. which will be much easier once we move from from end-of-para ref to end-of-sentence ref. 5) The marriage models does not flow very logically from the history by date; perhaps reverse the order? 6) Missing any mention of gay marriage. 6) There are numerous more sources that can be consulted to expand this section further; I do expect this section to grow several-fold (in other words, I expect everybody to contribute several pages of text, not ~ half...): a quick Google Book search suggests there is plenty of material to use. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sociology of Marriage - University of Pittsburgh

To Do List

To Do:

  • Maria will expand on the History of Civil Marriage.
  • Dave will expand on the Demography section.
  • Kazzandra will expand on the Sociology section.
  • Eric will create a section on civil unions/homosexual marriage ceremonies. This section will follow the section called "Wedding ceremonies."
  • Brianna will expand on "Green Card" Marriages.
  • Each group member picked which section they would like to be most responsible for. Resources for the sections listed above will be added below this list. Also, if one person finds something that may be beneficial to another member, please let that person know about the resource.

KazzandraT (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I am the Wikipedia online ambassador for your class. The above plan looks good. Don't forget to use references that are secondary sources. All the best! Bejinhan talks 03:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

References

References:

KazzandraT (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Ditzion, Sidney. Marriage, Morals, and Sex in America. New York: Bookman Associates, 1953. Print.
  • Edwards, John N., and David H. Demo. Marriage and Family in Transition. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 1991. Print.
  • Allan, Graham. The Sociology of the Family: A Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1999. Print.

Mookielynn18 (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Bed28 (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Cahill, Sean. Same-sex Marriage in the United States: Focus on the Facts. Lanham: Lexington, 2004. Print.
  • Dailey, Timothy J. "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk." Family Research Council 238 (2001).

Eaj15 (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Davidjk43 (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Davidjk43

This looks like a good start, guys. Seems like found a number of reliable sources, that's great. Note that you don't need to use html tags like br, see Help:HTML in wikitext. Retarding the biblenews1 site, it does not sound reliable; it however cites a the reliable US census sources. You should verify the information on that website, locate the original, reliable US census sources, and cite then, not the "biblenews1". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


Reviews

Hey guys! As I was reading the "College Dating" wiki page I thought of something that might be helpful for us. I thought there to-do list was awesome. I thought it really outlined exactly what they wanted to say. I think maybe expanding ours into more bullets and more points might be helpful to us in the future. I thought I could help do this if people wanted to get together for a little and just outline each section better. I think this will help us when we are doing the final part of our page. It will help us stay on track for our final goal. Mookielynn18 (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that's a good idea. Also, the wiki page "Grounds for divorce" had sections on the wiki page itself that although they didn't add any information underneath it, it helped outline what information would eventually be on the page. I really like that idea! We should also try to add some relevant pictures.
KazzandraT (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


Hey guys, I also read the College Dating wiki page and what I realized that is that there information is very interesting, but I feel like you are just hearing facts spewed at you. I suggested putting a link to a case study on their topic on their page so it seemed more realistic. I think we should also find some real life case studies to fortify our information. Bed28 (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I read a couple different pages and all I can really think to add to our page from other ones is mainly expanding our to do list a little more like you guys suggested. The to do lists on college dating and joint custody have a few sentences describing what will go under each section and are more detailed so we could update our list for what is still to come I think. Other than that, since some topics are pretty related to ours, we could mention them in sections they fit into (ex. grounds for divorce) or possibly share some references or something.
Eaj15 (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys with all of this discussion I also decided to look at the college dating page and I agree with some of you on different things. I think that this outline is extremely helpful to the group as well as other people in taking in the message. Yet I also believe that as Eric said this does seem like a lot, maybe too much, information to be taking in especially when it is in outline form. I believe the info on this could be used to show how relationships start and perspectives are formed within people before they graduate and go into the “real world.” I also took a look at the grounds for divorce page and I believe if we use information on how it may affect the children negatively/positively we can use that to maybe draw conclusions with divorce rates or the lack there of. Davidjk43 (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)davidjk43

Hey guys just wanted to let you know I found a good scholarly article on the demographics of men and whether or not they return to marriage. If you wanna look at it here is the link. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/146180> Let me know if you have any trouble viewing it. 130.49.148.112 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Davidjk43

Hey guys found two more scholarly articles on demographics <http://jei.sagepub.com/content/12/1/56.short> <http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/15/2/290.short> The first is on changing demographics of modern family and the second is on race differences in the changing family in the 1980s. If you guys have any ideas on how I may be able to use them/add them to the demographics page please let me know what you think on any of them. Davidjk43 (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Davidjk43

I read over the Demographics section and it terribly needs to be edited, and a sentence or two need to be reworded. Eaj15 (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring

Like many articles, this one "just grew." The current framework seems a bit odd since it was "done by committee" (like most maturing articles!). It needs restructuring IMO. Some subsections are wrongly named. Others need to be regrouped. It would seems to me, for example, when LGBT marriage is mentioned, that all other applicable material should be in the same subsection (just a for instance), rather than having the info scattered since it all seems to relate. That just came to mind and there are others as well, like "models" which don't seem like "history" to me, but rather current. Student7 (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Could you give more examples as to what should be restructured and renamed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, "law" is separate from "same sex unions" but covers that topic as well. "Same sex unions" also covers religion, so hard to restructure.
BTW, same sex material is becoming a bit WP:UNDUE weight. Again, not anyone's fault. It's just that it seems out of proportion in length considering that maybe 2% of the population is affected. Compared to different-sex unions, it has maybe 60-70% of the space? (just guessing). Again, just commenting generally, not suggesting cuts. Student7 (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Deadline for Good Article Nomination

Hey, We have till Monday to edit our article so it is ready to go to be evaluated. Please do your best to try and edit over the weekend.

Bed28 (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Preeeliminary review

Since I see a lot of work has been done over the past few days, here are few issues from a quick overview about issues that need to be addressed before GA (a more detailed review will follow within a few days).

  • per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, lead should be a comprehensive summary (abstract) of the rest of the article, and should not contain new information. It does not seem to me like your lead is either.
  • the titles of various sections are improperly capitalized, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)
  • Demography section should be expanded, or the expansion needed tag needs to be removed if it has been done already
  • reference density is insufficient. Every sentence should be referenced, unless it is truly obvious (per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue).
  • there are multiple problems with references. Some of them are tagged; other references are bare (missing all information) or unused. Please ensure that information is provided (author, title, publisher, date, and such) for all of them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Further comments:
  • There are outstanding citation needed tags
  • Wedding ceremonies section should link to Weddings in the United States, consider using {{main|Weddings in the United States}}
  • The first para of Sociology with stats should probably be moved to Demographics section
  • Sociology section should be retitled sociology of marriage and link to sociology of marriage article through main; you may want to see if that article has anything that could be used to expand this section
  • What was the exact name of the Northwestern University course, who taught it, what was the reception and is it still being taught?
  • Residential patterns is too short for a section. Either expand it or merge with another section.
  • I'd suggest moving the sociology section to before the law; for example the law discusses legality of polygamy but it is defined only later, in the sociology section
  • I'd like to see the discussion of legality of polygamy expanded into at least one decent paragraph; similarly the anti-miscegenation laws should have a longer paragraph then two sentences, too.
  • Same-sex marriage section should probably follow the law section, as it seems to flow from it more logically then the wedding ceremonies. Those could follow the sociology section. Green card marriages section is another one that seems to follow law, followed by divorce.
  • We need to have a section (doesn't have to be long, nor should it require much work) summarizing the three relevant issues in see also (cohabitation, civil unions, and domestic partnership). You should be able to do with copying the lead from those articles(assuming it is well written and comprehensive), and referencing it (which again shouldn't be a problem IF those articles are properly referenced). This section should briefly tell the readers what those three terms mean, what are the trends, and it should probably be the last section in the article.
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
So I copied most of the lead from domestic partnerships and referenced the page as you said, but am I taking you too literally or is that ok, because it sounds like plagiarism and I just want to clarify. Eaj15 (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia is acceptable due to the free license it uses, although one should provide attribution, preferably in the edit summary. Noting on talk what source you used like above is fine, too. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Marriage in the United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 17:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I will be reviewing this article against the GA criteria soon.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

To start out, I will list some preliminary issues in need of fixing before I tackle the main article body:

  • If you look at this link, you will see three wikilinks need to be redirected to their correct article (Attachment, Jack Baker, and Church)
  • The references section is a mess. Refs 1, 2, 6, 11, 24, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 37 need to be formatting correctly (see Template: web cite)
  • Refs 6, 17, 29, 31, 37 are missing either their year, page number, author, publisher, or other important information (I see your professor has marked some of what is needed)
  • As has already been indicated on the article talk page, the current lead is unacceptable. It needs to be a summarization of the main article body, and not have information that is not found below it.

I know your submission date was today, but would you like a few days to address everything on the talkpage before I continue this review? Please let me know here. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 18:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just a note that I've informed students that Good Articles reviews have been posted for some articles and they should reply to them ASAP. Thank you for taking up this review! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Re the message on my talkpage, I'm fine waiting a few days for the issues on the listed article talkpage to get looked at. I'll plan on coming back Friday for a full article review unless someone says differently. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 05:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Re the message about ref 6: I made one small edit to it, but I'm not really sure what the problem was (other than the book title being incorrect). Does it still look incorrect? Ruby 2010/2013 05:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine waiting til Monday. Hope you guys have a productive weekend. Best regards, Ruby 2010/2013 21:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Further comments

Full prose review will begin now (my comments in bold):

Lead:

  • "This article covers..." Not proper for a Wikipedia article. Just summarize what the article says (look at other articles for examples, like Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States)  Done
  • Wikilink green cards in lead  Done
  • "Some marriages are happy, but some are unhappy and full of problems, so they end in divorce." It's best to delete this, or rephrase it (not encyclopedic)  Done
  • For such a long article the lead should be larger (another paragraph or two is needed)  Done

History:

  • ""People wanted a spouse who did not pry too deeply. The ideal mate, wrote U.S. President John Adams in his diary, was willing 'to palliate faults and mistakes, to put the best construction upon words and actions, and to forgive injuries.' "[4]" Where does the quote begin and end?  Done
  • This is what it says now: The ideal mate, wrote U.S. President John Adams in his diary, was willing 'to palliate faults and mistakes, to put the best construction upon words and actions, and to forgive injuries.' "[18] I see an extra ' in there. Is that a typo? Ruby 2010/2013 17:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think this quote within a quote has the appropriate quotations now. --Kgw2 (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Though not commonly referred to as a sacrament to American Protestants, Roman Catholics commonly refer to marriage as a sacrament.[6] "  Done

Demographics

  • This section is pretty messy. There are a number of citations that need to be addressed.  Done Also, these facts should be inputted into bigger paragraphs. ✗ Not done

Sociology of Marriage:

  • "Some basic types include the following. [17] Delete bolded  Done
  • [18] is a stray reference; add to sentence  Done
  • To tie in how the Theories about love section relates to the US, perhaps mention that Zick Rubin is an American psychologist? It's difficult to see how this section relates specifically to marriage in the US  Done
  • "A "Color Wheel Model of Love" including Lee's 6 Styles of Loving, and the Triangular Theory of Love are two of these perspectives." This sentence needs some clarification. What is the "Color Wheel Model of Love"? Something the author coined?  Done
  • I added citation tags to the Marriage rituals section. The entire section is unsourced  Done

Wedding ceremonies

  • Section mainly looks good
  • Just delete "Wedding ceremonies in the United States have very few things in common." and combine the first two paragraphs  Done
  • "As the couple begins to leave the church, family and friends throw rice or wheat their way, which symbolizes fertility.[2]" Make clear this does not occur at all weddings  Done
  • "These gifts allow the new couple to start their lives together." Gifts don't really allow it; change allow to help ✗ Not done

Laws

  • I added a few citation tags; these sections need references ✗ Not done (One more ref needed)
  • Wikilink Mormons. Also, make clear that polygamy occurs in a radical sect that is no longer affiliated with the Mormon Church  Done
  • "“Today’s Mormons live in every state of the United States and in 162 countries. Mormon men and women can be found in all professional fields—doctors, teaches, police officers, scientists, and soldiers. [30]" This whole sentence really has nothing to do with marriage laws  Done

Same-sex marriage

  • Overall a well-written, interesting section
  • Change History heading to Background  Done
  • "...that haven't favored gays..." haven't -> have not"  Done
  • "...which, interestingly, contains the most Jews in America, so it can be said that most Jews in the U.S. support gays and gay rights.[32]" Delete this sentence (interesting but in no way encyclopedic)  Done

Green-card marriages

  • ""Every year over 450,000 United States citizens marry foreign-born individuals and petition for them to obtain a permanent residency (Green Card) in the United States."[35]" Needs an attribution (according to...)  Done
  • I added a number of citation tags- add references to these sections  Done
  • "the emigrants country.[37]" -> emigrant's  Done
  • "worked forty social security act eligible quarters (10 years)... -> Social Security Act. What is this? Add a relevant wikilink? ✗ Not done (Capitalize it)
  • "...due to the internet." Internet ✗ Not done
  • "South/Southeast Asia, the Philippines, Thailand, Sri Lanka, India, Taiwan, Macao, South Korea, Hong Kong, and China" Wikilink these countries  Done
  • "Even though this is a large problem the upcoming fear of industrialized industries is that the mail- order brides are not trying to overcome poverty, but in fact seeking an easy immigration route by only staying married for long enough to secure permanent citizenship and then divorce their husbands." No idea what the first part means; also too much of a run-on sentence
  • I don't think "upcoming" is the correct word here. Also, "There is an upcoming fear of industrialized industries..." doesn't really make sense. Needs another rewriting Ruby 2010/2013 17:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Divorce

  • Wikilink South Dakota ✗ Not done
  • I added 2 citation tags ✗ Not done
  • ""Married adults now divorce two-and-a-half times as often as adults did 20 years ago and four times as often as they did 50 years ago... between 40% and 60% of new marriages will eventually end in divorce. The probability within... the first five years is 20%, and the probability of its ending within the first 10 years is 33%... Perhaps 25% of children ages 16 and under live with a stepparent."" Needs an attribution (according to...). This sentence can be probably be phrased in your own words anyway ✗ Not done

Relevant types of unions

  • ""A civil union is a formal union between two people of the same or of different genders which results in, but falls short of, marriage-like rights and obligations."[44]" Needs an attribution (according to...)  Done

Overall comments:

  • Make sure the references (citations) go directly after the period, like so.[12]  Done Then have a space before next sentence ✗ Not done
  • Make sure references have proper formatting (Title, date, author etc) ✗ Not done

Here are my comments. Not sure when this assignment is due for your class, so I'll tentatively place the article on hold for seven days. This period should give you enough time to fix up the article. I'll be busy for the week with Thanksgiving and graduate school, so may not be able to speedily reply to any questions you may have. I'll make my judgment on how it looks in a week. Thanks and good luck, Ruby 2010/2013 19:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A comment from the instructor: the due date is mid-December. I'd hope that all issues will be addressed sooner than that, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I would really like to see this article be the best it can be, so I'll continue to keep this review open until as many improvements as possible have been made. There are a number of suggestions that have still not been implemented. Also, the references section is very shoddy (proper formatting is needed; specifically for refs 3, 5, 6, 14, 15, 23, 26, 36, 45-51, 53, and 54). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 17:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed, but it is not proper to cite Wikipedia within Wikipedia (See ref 16). Find a reliable source Ruby 2010/2013 17:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sociology Section

Hey Ruby, In regards to your comment about reference 18, that actually belongs to "residential patterns," which keeps getting deleted for some reason, this is the second time I've had to re-enter the information, so if it isn't there when you do your review, could you let me know and I'll put it back on the page so you can read it?

Thanks, KazzandraT (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's still in there! :) Ruby 2010/2013 17:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet more comments

Here are other issues (by no means an exhaustive list):

  • The lead image (Image:Maritalstatus.jpg) needs a better explanation (describe it more). It might be better suited in the article body than where it is now. Other appropriate images would be useful too.
  • The history section is pretty disjointed. You mention the early 18th century and then suddenly jump to the 1940s. Gaps need to be filled in
  • Refs aren't really needed in the lead unless the facts are controversial, bound to be challenged, or stats, because the information is already cited in the article body. I deleted some of them.
  • I added a few "clarification needed" tags when you mention "people" What people? Americans?
  • In lead: "Married adults now divorce two-and-a-half times as often as adults did 20 years ago and four times as often as they did 50 years ago... between 40% and 60% of new marriages will eventually end in divorce. The probability within... the first five years is 20%, and the probability of its ending within the first 10 years is 33%... Perhaps 25% of children ages 16 and under live with a stepparent." There's that quote again. Rephrase in own words
  • The John Adams quote still needs work. Where does the quote begin and end? Look carefully
  • What do the marriage models have to do with history? The U Pennsylvania sentence is also really disjointed from the rest of the section.
  • Some of the demographic info can be probably be fleshed out and added to the history section. This is personal preference though. Either way the section needs more expansion.
  • ==Speculation on married couples and their families to 2030== section: What report? Who wrote it? Why is it reliable?
  • "Passionate love is characterized by intense emotions, sexual attraction, anxiety and affection." - Unattributed quote
  • Still lots of ref formatting issues

This is something useful another editor noted about one of your other class group projects that would also apply to yours (particularly the history, demographics sections):

This is probably the biggest issue (the only big problem, in fact): the article reads like a lot of disjointed paragraphs that do not tell a single, integrated story. To achieve GA status, it is not necessary to have professional quality writing, so I'm not expecting perfection. What I'm looking for is a little bit of flow or connectivity. The lead should outline the entire article. Then, as the reader reads the article, it should weave a tale. By "tale" I mean that each section should help the reader place that section in context.

Truth be told, while I'd like to see the article become as good as it can be, it needs lots of work that I quite simply don't think is doable in a 2-week span. It has come a long way since this version. I am thus unfortunately failing this review because of the deficits in 1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 6a, and 6b of the WP:Good article criteria. I would assess the current state of the article at C class. Thank you all for contributing to Wikipedia, and I hope you do so again soon! Ruby 2010/2013 03:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. A note for the students: C-class is worth 15 points in our grade, but you can still keep improving the article and I may award you more points if I think that you have improved this article beyond C-class in the weeks to come. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The following section needs to be rewritten to eliminate bias (see parenthesized portion): "Religion and same-sex marriage Religions in the U.S. have many different opinions of what sorts of same-sex activity and rights should be allowed. Certain religions do not perform same-sex marriages for the sake of separating them from religious affairs, but tolerate civil same-sex marriage ceremonies. Others refrain from performing them because they believe in the separation of church and state. Congregations within the same denomination may even differ in the behaviors each supports.[44] Many who oppose same-sex marriage are conservative Christians who believe homosexuality to be a sin. (Some religious leaders are so fiercely opposed to it that they try to alter the gay person's views on homosexuality by subjecting them to intense classes or sessions in which the goal is to force them to change their orientation and/or repress homosexual feelings. Some people talk about passages in the Bible and how they teach that homosexuality is a bad thing, while others argue that the overall messages, for example, love, override the few anti-gay passages). Religions that have a strong anti-gay stance are Orthodox Judaism, Mormonism, Catholicism, Islam, and conservative Christian denominations. Some religions seem to be indifferent to homosexuality, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, and don't support or reject it. Some religions support same-sex marriage and homosexuality, such as Reform Judaism.[44]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrone302 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

1940 study

@Ruby2010: I moved this material into "history" when I found that the study, presented as "current" was fairly ancient. The conclusion could be supported by the reference. Last line does sound a bit or-ish. Student7 (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ref formatting

The following refs need to be formatted with the Template:Cite web template (<ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate=November 30, 2011}}</ref>):

<ref name="sociologyguide1">{{cite web|title=Types of Marriages|url=http://www.sociologyguide.com/marriage-family-kinship/Types-of-marriages.php}}</ref>

<ref name="umn">[http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/assistingimmigrantdv/assistingimmigrantdv.pdf].[[Immigration Services]]</ref>

<ref name="uscis">[http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis][[United States Citizenship and Immigration Service]].</ref>

<ref name="uscis3">[http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ec4295c4f635f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b328194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD]Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986.</ref>

<ref name="virginia">''Loving v. Virginia'', 388 U.S. 1 (1967). {{Author missing}}</ref>

<ref name="census">[[United States Census Bureau]] [http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/ms2.pdf PDF] {{2010|date=October 2011}} {{United States Census Bureau}}</ref>

<ref name="census1">[[U.S. Census Bureau]] [[Current Population Survey]] [http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2006.html America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2006].</ref>

There are probably others too. Just make sure that as many parameters (author, title etc) as possible are filled in. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 23:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Matrilocal, Patrilocal, Aunt-local

People tend to live with whoever will have them when they are deficient of funds. There are no specifics here to tie any of this to the United States. No figures on which is "prefered" in the US, if any stats are available. And how about Sibling-local, or roommate-local? Student7 (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Context needed :) How does this relate to the article? Could you expand a bit? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It relates to the article because the article concerns marriage, as does newlywed residential patterns. There were no stats that I could find on which is preferred in the US. KazzandraT (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
There are two problems as I see it. The first is that the article is about the US. Therefore we must show some association between material we insert and the United States. If we can't, it shouldn't be here.
The second is that, to me, this sounds like saying that people live in two story houses and making a real point that they are therefore basement-dwellers, 1st floor dwellers, or second-floor dwellers. Great! We've "categorized" apartment folks. Okay. But so what? What is the relevance, even in a general Marriage article? It might be relevant in India or some clearly patriarchal or matriarchal society article to demonstrate that the society is structured in that fashion. But otherwise it seems to serve no utility. Student7 (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude but nowhere in that section did I state they live in the basement and so on. When a couple gets married, they need a place to live, so they either live with one of the couple's parents or they live together in a separate place. This is why it is relevant to a marriage article. In all honesty, you should really work on how you state your opinion/view because the whole "great!" and "but so what?" comments come off as very rude.
KazzandraT (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for my rudeness.
My meaning is that everything in an encyclopedia is there (or should be there) for a reason. What is the reason for "matrilocal" being there? I do not see that it serves any purpose in an American article. Nor have I seen any attempt to relate it to the rest of the article. It might go into a higher level article on Marriage, generally. But it doesn't seem to belong in an American article.
This is not personal. If we insert things that seem "interesting" but are, in reality, irrelevant to the topic, it makes the article harder to read. This is the difference between a "paper" which may be read once, and an encyclopedia, which may be read multiple times.
My intent on the apartment dweller was to demonstrate that anything can be placed in this encyclopedia if (and only if) it is made relevant to the article. (Or, for most of it, that there is an implied relevance). That has not been done in this case. It appears to be an "empty factoid" without any relevance to "American marriage" whatever.
I do not know how to make this clearer, since you have declined my apartment analogy.
It would be like saying that some married people are exactly 5 feet tall, others are 6 feet tall. And there are some that are 5" 6" tall.
And this would be true.
But what would be the relevance?
If (and only if) I could say that Americans (and for this article, they would have to be Americans) who are exactly 5 feet tall marry and stay married for 50 years, people who are 6 feet tall almost never marry, but if they do, they don't stay married for more than a year.
At this point, and only at this point, does the factoid become useful. Otherwise, it would be a useless, stand-alone factoid without any relevance whatsoever.
It would be essentially non-WP:TOPIC. It would be helpful to look over material on your welcome screen, if you have one (I will check when I leave this page).
Wikipedia is not a "free for all" where we can merely throw in material that "seems interesting." It needs to be relevant as well and help the article make a significant point. Student7 (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Four maps

This is really WP:OR observation by editor. Really should have summary of article that accompanied these maps somewhere. Sure maps aren't copyviolation? This summary might also put the "observations" in context. WHY would anyone outside the US CARE where marriages or divorce predominated? Student7 (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

LGBT

This subsection is inordinately long. It repeats material that has already been stated, however differently. Repetitive arguments needs to be merged. Boutilier might qualify as a separate article and one linked reference could be made to it.

A reader should not be able to tell from reading the article that the editor has a pov, though many of us do. It should be objectively written. This subsection is somewhat pov. The tone needs changing. It is not an automatic "abuse of rights" that Congress has law x. It is what Congress has done and should be objectively reported. We report what is, not what "should" be. And we report it in a way that makes each change or no change look normal. Student7 (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Historic background for low marriage rates among blacks

Re: "African Americans have married the least of all of the predominant ethnic groups in the U.S. with a 29.9% marriage rate."

This difference should be put in historical perspective.

The lower marriage rates of African Americans arises directly from a long series of laws targeting black marriage:

1. Enslaved blacks were denied legally-recognized marriage (hence ceremonies such as "jumping the broom.") The denial of legally valid marriage served the convenience for slaveowners who might wish to sell one but not both of a couple. All slave children were by definition "illegitimate" and could likewise be sold without concern for any legally enforceable rights to a parent-child relationship. After the American Civil War, special statutes legitimated certain marriage-like relations between freed African-American couples, and their children were acknowledged to have rights to parental support, but no tradition of marriage had been allowed to develop over the generations.

2. After the Civil War, miscegenation statutes continued to void and punish attempted marriages of blacks to whites.

3. In the latter 20th Century, children of a couple could receive needed governmental assistance (e.g., W.I.C.) only if there were not, in their home, two parents required by law to support the children. If unemployed, the children's father had reason not to live in the family home, or if he did, to avoid marriage to their mother. Legal obligations to provide child support depended on marriage in most states) (in Texas and Ohio, until 1972 Supreme Court decisions). A man without a job was thus worth more to the physical needs of his family if he were gone, rather than present in the home. The persistent high rate of black unemployment, directly connected to separate and inferior schools under Jim Crow laws, exacerbated this problem. A generation of black youth were thus raised in fatherless homes.

As these laws were finally repealed or amended toward the end of the 20th Century, allowing the tradition of marriage to begin to recover among American blacks, the rate of marriage began to decline generally among all ethnic groups. This decline affected black as well as non-black marriage rates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The above is very interesting. Feel free to convert it to prose (i.e. no bullet points) and enter it into the article (with reliable sources of course). Ruby 2010/2013 17:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes. 1 is true. But there were "slave marriages" that lasted as long as the pair were together.
2 is true, but this was a time when few people married outside of their race anyway. Asians (Chinese-Americans, for example) married Chinese-Americans. While true, this did not curtail marriage opportunities very much. But from the Civil War onward, most adult blacks were married. Probably into the 80-90% range, not much fewer than whites, I would suspect.
This leaves 3, the modern reason, the real reason, for today's catastrophic marriage rates. An "unintended consequence" of an otherwise well-meant law. The first two are "merely historic" and belong in some other article. Student7 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Decline of marriage

I disagree with Nat's deletion of my new section. [2] I was starting to write about the effects of the decline in marriage; perhaps I should have made that more clear.

I'd like some help describing how marriage has declined, in terms of percentages; or in comparison with divorce rates or numbers of couples simply "living together". We should also point out what sociologists and social critics have said about the effects the decline has had on society as a whole, or on children in particular.

  • A new Pew Research Center report confirms that marriage continues to lose market share among Americans to other arrangements, such as cohabitation or living alone. [3]

Does this increase poverty? Who says so? What evidence do they give? Why do they think the decline is related to poverty?

These are the types of things that should be in the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Except the quotes you were putting forth weren't on the effects of the decline in marriage. The New Yorker quote was on the effect of out-of-wedlock children, which may be an argument for why marrying if you're having kids would be a good idea (but even then, it's a weak source; being a New Yorker staffer does not make one a sociologist). The Manhattan Institute quote isn't about marriage, it's about single-parenting, and soon covers that ("Some are raised by a man and woman who, though living together, are not married"). So the items you were adding were a couple steps removed from the topic they were being raised under. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see, like degrees of Kevin Bacon. I guess you're looking for information that's more pertinent. Thanks for taking the time to explain that. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Children not suffering during divorce?

A quote from "Fagan" says "Each year, over 1 million American children suffer the divorce of their parents; moreover, half of the children born this year to parents who are married will see their parents divorce before they turn 18." I may have paraphrased this insufficiently and perhaps need to quote it directly. Anyway, it got deleted in the purge with all the other stuff. Student7 (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Despite your claim in the recent edit, that quote is from the last century, a predictive quote referring to those born in 2000. It doesn't speak to current situation, and shouldn't even be used to describe the children referred to, as those kids are now 2/3s of the way through those 18 years, and there would be much more actual data on what has happened to them than this prediction. (And to be clear, the divorce rate has been lowering - "Divorce rates have been going down for the last few decades. Data indicates that the marriages are lasting longer in the early 2000s than they did in the 1990s" - which would impact the current applicability of both of the statements.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
You are correct. I have changed the date to 2000. They don't rerun all studies every year to suit Wikipedia editors. They are usually expensive in the way of time, money, or other resources.
Not understanding why this has to be so precise, and other statements do not. Are you suggesting that divorce does not negatively affect children? What statistics, however old, do you have to support that claim? Student7 (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
What's the point of including an old prediction about what will happen to kids born in 2000? By now, it's either proving accurate, in which case we should be showing the facts, or it has proven inaccurate, in which case the prediction is pointless. Unless the prediction itself is notable, it seems fairly pointless to include a prediction this old. I'm not suggesting that divorce doesn't negatively effect some or most kids, but that reaction is not 100%. This quote is basically using "suffer" to mean "experience"; it doesn't have the support to say that 100% of those will suffer from the divorce. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

candor vs love

I'm a little confused, it says "Rarely in American history has love been seen as the main reason for getting married" but candor is love, this sentence is contradictory in nature for if you love someone you will have good candor with them, otherwise it's just an illusion of love and/or lust.

See the comments under History.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

History Section

Hey Ruby! In regards to your comment about where does this quote begin and end...do you mean which page number? I am a little confused. If you could give me some clarification that would be great. Thanks!!! Mookielynn18 (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is more with the unclear marking of the quote in text. Is "the ideal mate" part of the quote, too? Also, you are using both ' and ", and missing the opening ", as far as can tell. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Piotrus has my correct meaning. The different quote marks (') threw me off. Also, I replied to this comment above in the GA review instead of this section (so more clarification can be found above). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 19:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
It is quoting Adams in the middle of a quote by Coontz. There's no need to quote Coontz directly here, and if she is quoted, it should be explicit: "Coontz says..." I have changed it from a direct quote of Coontz.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marriage_in_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1136992938"