Talk:Marriage gap

NPOV improvements

Hey y'all, this article seems pretty POV. The section "interpreting the data" seems expressly ideological, with each of the sources being well-known conservative pundits on the subject at hand. I am new to wikipedia editing, so I do not really know what policy is here, but is there a way to flag this issue more broadly so readers are aware?

Thank you, Peterdjones, for reviewing this page, and for working toward an NPOV. I am not completely satisfied with two of the four edits. However, I think they all add clarity and objectivity to the article.

Firstly, I have revised the opening edit to improve the flow of the sentence. But I wanted it to reflect the use of the terms choice and raise you added. The phrase …but retaining the other elements… just seemed awkward to me (i.e. elements of what?).

Secondly, I think the second Explanation edit removes the meaning of the "hypothesis". Stating that the influences might be seen as corrosive conflicts with the fact that the parents being discussed do see the influences as "corrosive" (see Children and cultural values paragraph of the source). Perhaps it could read …to shield their children from cultural influences which are perceived to be "corrosive". Comments please.—Red Baron 23:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original text didn't have the word "see" , it just said "shield them from corrosive influences".

I would rather go with "to shield their children from cultural influences which they perceive to be "corrosive" 1Z 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I'll do it, thanks, Red Baron 14:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

npov

This article is written like a pamphlet on conservative views on the importance of the traditional hetero family unit. Nowhere does it mention the conservative political origin of the term and that evidence in favor of the existence of a "marriage gap" is an ideological tool of conservatives. It doesn't even give credence to the opposing notion that a marriage gap is a myth. VanTucky 21:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I simply removed the editorializing statements that supported the attribution of the marriage gap to conservative ideology. There's no doubt this exists, in any political camp, but someone had taken the opportunity to take NPOV statistical facts and add a POV explanation of them and their origin. VanTucky 22:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This article was a clear violation of WP:SYN. —Psychonaut 23:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Logic of Life

A book called "The Logic of Life", I recall mentioned an idea as to why unmarried parents are so much more common in the lower classes in the United States. It related the variation to the prison population. So many low income men behind bars means less men for low income women to marry - and an imbalance of men to women for the non-incarcerated favors men in the sense that they have far less incentive to be faithful in order to have their needs satisfied (getting laid). The argument is that a rational consequence of reducing the number of adult men from the gene pool of a given population will make said population relatively unfavorable to marriage. Peoplesunionpro (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has few facts, therefore seems POV

This article is rather one-sided, which ends up making the article sound POV (Conservative American Right). Also, there are several citation issues. If the unreferenced statements were removed from this article, nearly the entire economics section would have to be removed. While there almost certainly is an economic gap based on marriage, it needs to be proven with facts. Jdrrmk (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV, this article contradicts many known facts with pure supposition

"However, this is usually due to taxation overwhelmingly favouring married couples" ... since when? Isn't the "marriage penalty"--which causes many married couples to be taxed at a HIGHER rate--somewhat legendary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.228.19 (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]