Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021

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 'Repaled Before 1888' in the content box should be 'repealed before 1888'.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2022

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

or something that does not imply diminished value 

“lower” Without context this comes off as generally accepted fact or language; which is wrong. 
2601:143:8000:B5C0:119E:1BB1:AF25:4F3 (
talk) 01:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
 Partly done: Spirit of request fulfilled but with phrasing different from what was presented above. — Sirdog ( talk) 13:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply
I've changed it to 'lower status' similar to the wording used one-drop rule. I have not checked the source but while I agree the original wording was problematic in that it failed to make it clear we're talking about perceptions, it was also IMO far more accurate that "whichever race was the minority" [1]. The reality is it wasn't really the "race" which was in the minority but rather the "race" perceived and treated as being "inferior". The idea was to avoid "tainting" their "race" with these "inferior" people. While minority was accurate in the US in so much as once these really begun to be applied, it was always the majority towards the minority it doesn't have to be beyond the difficult a minority can have subjugating a majority. An obvious example is if we look outside the US, while in South Africa they handled things somewhat different for most of the time where legal racism was prevalent with the coloured "race" being used for most of those who were mixed, we can be sure if they did implement such a thing, they wouldn't be making the children of white South Africans and a black South Africans as white because whites were in the minority. We need to accurate reflect what the practice was, while making it clear what reality is. (I.E. That it was the race treated as inferior in their social order but that there is no such thing as an inferior race.) And lower status seems an adequate way to reflect this without needing to get into the nitty gritty. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments on Church of Jesus Christ's stance is outdated

This article cites to decades old sources from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints website instead of more recent ones, incorrectly insinuating that the LDS church actively prohibits or discourages interracial marriage. More recent sources, such as the Church's article "Race and the Priesthood" specifically states "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=engThis should be updated to match currently taught doctrine. Cammywashere ( talk) 22:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply

This doesn't seem to address what our article currently says which is that even after the LDS stopped saying it was a sin, they still discouraged it. There's nothing in that statement which clearly disavows this stance, and our article suggests the church has been fairly wiffy waffy on whether they've actually stopped discouraging such marriages in the recent past. The statement does say "unequivocally condemn all racism" which should mean they no longer discourage such marriages, but it's easily possible to see that the church might argue it's not racism to discourage such marriages. Whether the church refuses to directly say they no longer discourage interracial marriages because they want to pretend they never did after they stopped saying they were a sin, or it's because they still do, who knows, but it's their decision not clearly say such marriages are no longer (or not) discouraged. Nil Einne ( talk) 12:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
There is no evidence or source that the church discourages interracial marriage, so labeling it as such is unfounded and the passage should be revised. Moroni713 ( talk) 21:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023

Black men are not twice as likely to end in divorce as black women. The book listed stems from a survey over twenty years old. Bobbyb21 ( talk) 01:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝) 02:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC) reply

A comment

1) WMAF only means white male and asian female. You should include both Asian male and white female.

2) Why is Jewish a white ethnic group allow it's own grouping? According to racial census North African Americans and West Asian Americans are also considered white. And what about Central Asian Americans the 50 millions Central Asian is basically a creation of Mongol invasion of Central Asia or Mongol soldiers/families that conquered and married with the Caucasians. How do we classify them? I found a 2 Central Asian male celebrities married to white american actress.

3) Why only Jewish men asian women? You ough to be including Asian men and Jewish women or their offspring too. But that means black male/female with jewish male/female, and white female/black male white male/black female celebs too. You should also do that for Turkish Americans, Georgian Americans or Arabic Americans ( Jordanians, Iraqi, Syrians) or what about Yazhidi Americans who are neither muslims or Jewish

'AMWF celeb couples, only a short list of AMWF I found. Asian men white women celebrity couples.

Steve Park (comedian) and actress Kelly Coffield Park
Michael Chow (restaurateur) and Grace Coddington
Rene Gube and actress Briga Heelan
Seung Yong Chung and actress Diane Farr
Will Yun Lee and actress Jennifer Birmingham
Tim Kang and actress Gina Marie May
Brian Tee and actress Mirelly Taylor
James Kyson and Jamee Kyson
Justin Chon and model Sasha Egorova
Jon M. Chu and Kristin Hodge
Cung Lee and Sunshine Spring Le
Mike Moh and Richelle Kondratowicz
James Kyson and Jamee Mae Berg
Jon Jon Briones and Megan Johnson Briones
SungWon Cho and Anne Marie Salter: Tom Choi and Jill Renninger
Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa Sally Phillips: James Yaegashi and Tami Schuch

As for Jewish AMWF

Ryan Potter born of Japanese father and Jewish mother.

Danny Fujikawa( born from Japanese father and white mother marries Jewish actress Kate Hudson Chella Man born of Chinese father and Jewish mother Source: 18 Things to Know About Chella Man - Hey Alma Dean Devlin born of Jewish father and Filipino mother married Jewish actress Lisa Brenner

And what about very famous AMWF couples with american citizenship Korean American Patrick McDermott the very famous Olivia Newton-John for 9 years and married White American actress Yvette Nipar Olivia Hussey super beauty of Romeo Juliet during the 1960's married Japanese singer but now has american citizenship

James Wan and Ingrid Bisu

What about Jennifer Lopez, Miss Filands, Miss Canada, Miss American New York, Chigaco ect all who married Asian men?There are 50 AMWF Asian men and white female celebrities and some are part Jewish or just European identifying as JewishBut I'm not going to border naming all. You take a look and tell me should I add all of them too?What are some 50 famous AMWF Asian men and white female celebrities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sengoku-lord ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Sengoku-lord, it is entirely unclear what you are trying for here. Also, please sign talk page posts, and consider that if you make unexplained edits like this one, or poorly explained HUGE edits like this one, you might end up getting blocked. Drmies ( talk) 17:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    • your talk page doesnt seem to have add option? Sengoku-lord, a suspected sockpoppet if not plain newer user, has a history of removing sourced content against policies based on biased, uneducated opinions warned 3+ times by 2+ vets before you (see his talk page);
    • re: separate section, Jewish is a 23&Me ethnicity, and the section has more sources, data statistics and other notable case studies/prevalent empirical evidence supporting section than others or biasedly removing on his personal opinions SMS on the rocks ( talk) 17:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply
      • I don't know who you are talking to, SMS on the rocks, or what you are trying to say. You may suspect Sengoku of socking, but I am an administrator with certain tools and they tell me that you are very likely incorrect. And then you are reinserting content based on your own personal opinions: "Select notable examples" here means you selected them--and in my edit summaries I have explained very carefully what else is so problematic about that content. Drmies ( talk) 18:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply
        • select copied from other "select" list sections on wiki, case studies were all wikis showing in wiki search results that already listed/mentioned these pairings with sources already in said people's articles, and public figures in news daily (ie pop culture). seperately, there's been a lot of unsourced and personal opinions injected or removed recently since war/Trump presidency and since original protection, isn't there a protection in between full protection if not doing that
          • SMS, I guess this is you, but what you're saying makes no sense to me, and if I understand you correctly you're basically arguing that you are free to insert this unverified material because some of it is somewhere else on Wikipedia. That is not correct, and it doesn't begin to address the sexism and the punctuation. Drmies ( talk) 21:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States&oldid=1207215284"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021

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

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2022

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

or something that does not imply diminished value 

“lower” Without context this comes off as generally accepted fact or language; which is wrong. 
2601:143:8000:B5C0:119E:1BB1:AF25:4F3 (
talk) 01:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
 Partly done: Spirit of request fulfilled but with phrasing different from what was presented above. — Sirdog ( talk) 13:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply
I've changed it to 'lower status' similar to the wording used one-drop rule. I have not checked the source but while I agree the original wording was problematic in that it failed to make it clear we're talking about perceptions, it was also IMO far more accurate that "whichever race was the minority" [1]. The reality is it wasn't really the "race" which was in the minority but rather the "race" perceived and treated as being "inferior". The idea was to avoid "tainting" their "race" with these "inferior" people. While minority was accurate in the US in so much as once these really begun to be applied, it was always the majority towards the minority it doesn't have to be beyond the difficult a minority can have subjugating a majority. An obvious example is if we look outside the US, while in South Africa they handled things somewhat different for most of the time where legal racism was prevalent with the coloured "race" being used for most of those who were mixed, we can be sure if they did implement such a thing, they wouldn't be making the children of white South Africans and a black South Africans as white because whites were in the minority. We need to accurate reflect what the practice was, while making it clear what reality is. (I.E. That it was the race treated as inferior in their social order but that there is no such thing as an inferior race.) And lower status seems an adequate way to reflect this without needing to get into the nitty gritty. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments on Church of Jesus Christ's stance is outdated

This article cites to decades old sources from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints website instead of more recent ones, incorrectly insinuating that the LDS church actively prohibits or discourages interracial marriage. More recent sources, such as the Church's article "Race and the Priesthood" specifically states "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=engThis should be updated to match currently taught doctrine. Cammywashere ( talk) 22:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply

This doesn't seem to address what our article currently says which is that even after the LDS stopped saying it was a sin, they still discouraged it. There's nothing in that statement which clearly disavows this stance, and our article suggests the church has been fairly wiffy waffy on whether they've actually stopped discouraging such marriages in the recent past. The statement does say "unequivocally condemn all racism" which should mean they no longer discourage such marriages, but it's easily possible to see that the church might argue it's not racism to discourage such marriages. Whether the church refuses to directly say they no longer discourage interracial marriages because they want to pretend they never did after they stopped saying they were a sin, or it's because they still do, who knows, but it's their decision not clearly say such marriages are no longer (or not) discouraged. Nil Einne ( talk) 12:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
There is no evidence or source that the church discourages interracial marriage, so labeling it as such is unfounded and the passage should be revised. Moroni713 ( talk) 21:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023

Black men are not twice as likely to end in divorce as black women. The book listed stems from a survey over twenty years old. Bobbyb21 ( talk) 01:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝) 02:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC) reply

A comment

1) WMAF only means white male and asian female. You should include both Asian male and white female.

2) Why is Jewish a white ethnic group allow it's own grouping? According to racial census North African Americans and West Asian Americans are also considered white. And what about Central Asian Americans the 50 millions Central Asian is basically a creation of Mongol invasion of Central Asia or Mongol soldiers/families that conquered and married with the Caucasians. How do we classify them? I found a 2 Central Asian male celebrities married to white american actress.

3) Why only Jewish men asian women? You ough to be including Asian men and Jewish women or their offspring too. But that means black male/female with jewish male/female, and white female/black male white male/black female celebs too. You should also do that for Turkish Americans, Georgian Americans or Arabic Americans ( Jordanians, Iraqi, Syrians) or what about Yazhidi Americans who are neither muslims or Jewish

'AMWF celeb couples, only a short list of AMWF I found. Asian men white women celebrity couples.

Steve Park (comedian) and actress Kelly Coffield Park
Michael Chow (restaurateur) and Grace Coddington
Rene Gube and actress Briga Heelan
Seung Yong Chung and actress Diane Farr
Will Yun Lee and actress Jennifer Birmingham
Tim Kang and actress Gina Marie May
Brian Tee and actress Mirelly Taylor
James Kyson and Jamee Kyson
Justin Chon and model Sasha Egorova
Jon M. Chu and Kristin Hodge
Cung Lee and Sunshine Spring Le
Mike Moh and Richelle Kondratowicz
James Kyson and Jamee Mae Berg
Jon Jon Briones and Megan Johnson Briones
SungWon Cho and Anne Marie Salter: Tom Choi and Jill Renninger
Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa Sally Phillips: James Yaegashi and Tami Schuch

As for Jewish AMWF

Ryan Potter born of Japanese father and Jewish mother.

Danny Fujikawa( born from Japanese father and white mother marries Jewish actress Kate Hudson Chella Man born of Chinese father and Jewish mother Source: 18 Things to Know About Chella Man - Hey Alma Dean Devlin born of Jewish father and Filipino mother married Jewish actress Lisa Brenner

And what about very famous AMWF couples with american citizenship Korean American Patrick McDermott the very famous Olivia Newton-John for 9 years and married White American actress Yvette Nipar Olivia Hussey super beauty of Romeo Juliet during the 1960's married Japanese singer but now has american citizenship

James Wan and Ingrid Bisu

What about Jennifer Lopez, Miss Filands, Miss Canada, Miss American New York, Chigaco ect all who married Asian men?There are 50 AMWF Asian men and white female celebrities and some are part Jewish or just European identifying as JewishBut I'm not going to border naming all. You take a look and tell me should I add all of them too?What are some 50 famous AMWF Asian men and white female celebrities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sengoku-lord ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Sengoku-lord, it is entirely unclear what you are trying for here. Also, please sign talk page posts, and consider that if you make unexplained edits like this one, or poorly explained HUGE edits like this one, you might end up getting blocked. Drmies ( talk) 17:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    • your talk page doesnt seem to have add option? Sengoku-lord, a suspected sockpoppet if not plain newer user, has a history of removing sourced content against policies based on biased, uneducated opinions warned 3+ times by 2+ vets before you (see his talk page);
    • re: separate section, Jewish is a 23&Me ethnicity, and the section has more sources, data statistics and other notable case studies/prevalent empirical evidence supporting section than others or biasedly removing on his personal opinions SMS on the rocks ( talk) 17:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply
      • I don't know who you are talking to, SMS on the rocks, or what you are trying to say. You may suspect Sengoku of socking, but I am an administrator with certain tools and they tell me that you are very likely incorrect. And then you are reinserting content based on your own personal opinions: "Select notable examples" here means you selected them--and in my edit summaries I have explained very carefully what else is so problematic about that content. Drmies ( talk) 18:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply
        • select copied from other "select" list sections on wiki, case studies were all wikis showing in wiki search results that already listed/mentioned these pairings with sources already in said people's articles, and public figures in news daily (ie pop culture). seperately, there's been a lot of unsourced and personal opinions injected or removed recently since war/Trump presidency and since original protection, isn't there a protection in between full protection if not doing that
          • SMS, I guess this is you, but what you're saying makes no sense to me, and if I understand you correctly you're basically arguing that you are free to insert this unverified material because some of it is somewhere else on Wikipedia. That is not correct, and it doesn't begin to address the sexism and the punctuation. Drmies ( talk) 21:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States&oldid=1207215284"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE