Marriage in the United States was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 2, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Family and relationships (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships Genealogy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the history section, including claims about the current status of marriage ("Assuring stability in the family has now become a main focus"), it sourced to a book over half a century old, which obviously cannot be a reliable source for the current status. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this, as discussed below.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section is prejudiced. It implies that all green card applications based on marriage are fraudulent, which is how green card marriage is defined on its own page. I have changed the heading, but the rest needs work.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whts next? Meaning for Kim Davis? Patrick Jay D Malinowski 16:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickjayduffy (talk • contribs)

In Marriage as a fundamental right section we can see list of some important cases, but I can not found Obergefell v. Hodges. Why?? M.Karelin (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you didn't add it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage

2606:6000:FECF:4100:6057:54D2:211B:7BDF (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of content sourced to this report, which was generated in 2008 and is based around data that is older than that; a quick glance is that most of their trend charts end in 2004 or 2005. As such, we are closer to the date being forecast than we are to when the forecast was made, which means that any such forecast is increasingly irrelevant - particularly since even in the forecasting they note as variables such things as changes in immigration law. In addition, a lot of the content here taken from that material is not about "marriage", per se, but about "family" (how many of us are going to be great grandparents, which is a fact independent of whether anyone in the chain is in a marriage) or less relevant stuff (what percentage of Americans are immigrants.)

To a certain degree, much of this feels like leading an article on the 2016 presidential election with 2014 predictions of its outcome. And perhaps as a clue to how non-vital this is now... the original link to the report is a dead link, I just had to replace it with an archive link. (The organization does have a 2011 paper that appears to build on the 2008 one.)

My instinct is that most or all of this stuff should be gutted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, speculation isn't very useful.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging parts of Weddings in the United States and Canada into Marriage in the United States, specifically just the information relating to the United States. The Weddings article is, first off, incredibly weird in the way that it combines two separate countries together. Secondly, it is essentially just the same article as this one, just combining elements of Canada in too. I believe anything on that article can and should be merged onto this one and Marriage in Canada due to the overlap of content between the articles. Pinging some top/recent editors of this article: @Vycl1994 and X5163x: and of Weddings article: @WhatamIdoing: jolielover♥talk 13:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SpinnerLaserzthe2nd moved Weddings in the United States to Weddings in the United States and Canada. Some of this material was split in 2019 from Marriage in the United States.

The obvious split to me is that the "weddings" article is about clothes and flowers and parties, and the "marriage" article is about everything else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we created a article regarding Canadian ones? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe? There are some cultural similarities for weddings in the two countries (e.g., similar clothing styles will be fashionable), but the legal situation will naturally be somewhat different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources identifying specific traditions/cultural practices in Canada (or in parts of Canada, like Quebec) that are different than the U.S.? Please click here for my argument against merging the article on weddings with the article on marriage and divorce. Mathew5000 (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect Quebecers and First Nations people to have some unique wedding traditions, just like there are unique wedding traditions among Black Americans (Jumping the broom), Native Americans (varies by tribe/nation), Native Hawaiians (sounding the pü, exchanging leis), etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the article's cites. They are in terrible shape. A lot of them were commercial sites for wedding planners and wedding industry; I've deleted them, based on WP:SPONSORED. A lot of the rest are dead links, or have failed verification for the propositions being cited. There is nothing in the article that relates specifically to Canada, other than one cite to a federal statute regarding the minimum age for marriage. It looks a lot like Original Research, where whoever wrote the article just assumed that Canada and the US are the same country. I see absolutely nothing in this article that should be merged to Marriage in Canada. Instead, it should be re-named to "Weddings in the United States", and any reference to Canada deleted, or possibly even proposed for AfD, since the cites are so bad. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a "Page move request" template on the "Weddings in the US and Canada" Talk page. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, you might read WP:SPONSORED or the article Sponsored content a little more closely. A commercial site for a wedding planner or the wedding industry is not sponsored content. It may even be reliable for the content it supports.

If you want to see better sources, then I suggest leaving the old citations in place (because if someone copyvio'd from those cites, it's much easier to spot it when we have the original cites in place) and add the {{better source}} template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation. Sponsored Content is information that is put up to attract attention to a commercial website. An alternative tag is the Template:promotional source. My general approach is to delete such sources on sight, because they are an attempt to use Wikipedia to attract customers. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on that subject, "sponsored content...is a type of paid advertising that appears in the style and format of the content near the advertisement's placement." A company's own website is not sponsored content. An influencer's website that says "Thank you to Big Business for sponsoring this post, though all the opinions are my own" is sponsored content.

Template:Promotional source is another option, and you may also complain about WP:REFSPAM all you would like, especially if you can demonstrate that the website was added by a paid spammer, or at least added to multiple articles, instead of by someone just doing their best according to the usual standards back then (e.g., back when you were citing historyofwar.org and internet discussion forums, and I was citing sources that were at least as bad). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weddings in the United States and Canada WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]