text:
Perfect Strangers (TV series)

Perfect Strangers is an American sitcom that ran for eight seasons, from March 25, 1986, to August 6, 1993, on the ABC television network. Created by Dale McRaven, the series chronicles the rocky coexistence of midwestern American Larry Appleton (Mark Linn-Baker) and his distant cousin from eastern Mediterranean Europe, Balki Bartokomous (Bronson Pinchot).

Originally airing on Tuesdays for the short six-episode first season in the spring of 1986, it moved to Wednesdays in prime time in the fall of 1986. It remained on Wednesdays until March 1988, when it was moved to Fridays. The show found its niche there as the anchor for ABC's original TGIF Friday-night lineup, though it aired on Saturdays for a short time in 1992.

Premise
The series chronicles the relationship of Larry Appleton (Mark Linn-Baker) and his distant cousin Balki Bartokomous (Bronson Pinchot). Larry, a Wisconsin native from a large family, has just moved into his first apartment in Chicago, and is savoring his first taste of privacy when Balki, a hitherto-unknown cousin from a Mediterranean island, "Mypos", arrives intending to move in with him.

Balki, who was a shepherd on Mypos, interprets what little he knows about the United States by relying on his own (often out-of-context) recollections of American pop culture ("America: Land of my dreams and home of the Whopper"). Balki's signature is his "Dance of Joy", a cross between the do-si-do and the hokey pokey that he performs (with Larry) to celebrate good fortune.

After initially gently rebuffing his cousin's request to stay at his apartment, aspiring photographer Larry decides to take Balki under his wing and teach him about American life; as time goes on, the disparities between the two create many misadventures and growth opportunities. Initially working at a discount store and living in a small apartment, they eventually develop rising careers working for a respectable newspaper, move into larger residences, date two best-friend flight attendants, and expand their lifestyle through their various experiences; all while learning to balance Balki's wide-eyed enthusiasm and Myposian ways with Larry's real-world ambitions and American pragmatism. Neurotic Larry is frequently as inept as Balki, if not more so, and often gets the pair into situations that only Balki can set right. Major influences on the show include "buddy sitcoms" such as Laverne & Shirley and Mork & Mindy, both of which were produced by the Perfect Strangers team.

Development
The series was the brainchild of Dale McRaven (co-creator of Mork & Mindy) and producers Tom Miller and Robert Boyett. Miller claimed that the series' inspiration came in the wake of the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, when America experienced a wave of renewed patriotic sentiment. Their idea for a comedy about an immigrant in America was initially rejected by all three major commercial television networks operating in the U.S. at the time (ABC, CBS, and NBC).

In December 1984, Bronson Pinchot garnered notice for his role in Beverly Hills Cop as Serge, an effeminate art-gallery employee with an unplaceable foreign accent. When Miller and company pitched Pinchot as the star of their immigrant show, ABC signed on to the project, originally titled The Greenhorn. By this time, Pinchot was unavailable, as he had taken the role of a gay attorney in the NBC series Sara alongside star Geena Davis.

Sara failed to find an audience and was canceled by May 1985. With Pinchot now available, Miller and Boyett developed the show in earnest. By November it was retitled Perfect Strangers and comedian Louie Anderson was cast as the immigrant's American cousin. A pilot episode was put into production, but in the end Anderson was not considered right for the role.

Development was placed into overdrive when ABC President Brandon Stoddard offered the producers a prime tryout slot for the spring of 1986 between the hit shows Who's the Boss? and Moonlighting on Tuesday nights. After running through several actors for the part of Balki's cousin, the producers chose Mark Linn-Baker, whom they had recently seen in a guest appearance on Moonlighting. Linn-Baker displayed immediate chemistry with Pinchot and the series raced into production. It premiered on ABC on March 25, 1986.

Season 1 (1986)
The series commences with Larry living alone in an apartment in Chicago. In the pilot episode, Balki unexpectedly shows up at Larry's door claiming to be his distant cousin. Balki soon joins Larry as a clerk at the Ritz Discount Store, located on the ground level of their apartment building. Their boss is Donald "Twinkie" Twinkacetti (Ernie Sabella), an unscrupulous miser who is also their landlord. Twinkacetti's incessant berating of his two employees (he calls Balki "Turnip" and Larry "Yo-Yo") is occasionally alleviated by his wife Edwina (Belita Moreno). In the first season, upstairs neighbor Susan Campbell (Lise Cutter) is Larry's platonic friend.

Airing in the coveted timeslot between Who's the Boss? and Moonlighting, Perfect Strangers was an instant ratings hit in the spring of 1986, with five of the six episodes landing in the weekly Nielsen top 10 highest-rated programs.

Season 2 (1986–87)
For its second season, Perfect Strangers was moved to Wednesday nights at 8:00 p.m. as a lead-in to the new ABC sitcom Head of the Class.

Susan's character was phased out early in this season. Larry began dating Jennifer Lyons (Melanie Wilson) and Balki began dating Mary Anne Spencer (Rebeca Arthur), after meeting them through a local gym. In later episodes, it is revealed that both women are flight attendants who live in Larry and Balki's building.

Seasons 3–4 (1987–1989)
The start of season 3 in late 1987 found Larry and Balki in a new, larger apartment where Balki had his own room instead of sleeping on a fold-out sofa. External shots clearly depict a new apartment building. The characters never made reference to the move, and Jennifer and Mary Anne were still co-tenants in the new surroundings.

Larry acquires a reporter job working out of the basement of the Chicago Chronicle, a fictional metropolitan newspaper, and helps Balki get a job in the Chronicle mail room. They are overseen by demanding city editor Harry Burns (Eugene Roche). Burns is phased out of the show by the end of season 3; the paper's publisher, Mr. Wainwright (F.J. O'Neill) is introduced later in season 3, and takes over as Larry's boss after Eugene Roche leaves the show. Mr. Wainwright appears through season 7. Balki's immediate supervisor is mail room head Sam Gorpley (Sam Anderson, who had portrayed a bank clerk in the season one episode "Check This" in which Balki opens his first bank account). Gorpley never warms to Balki (he sometimes calls him "the Mypiot") and insults him regularly. Lydia Markham is the Chronicle's thin-skinned, multi-phobic advice columnist; she is played by Belita Moreno, who had previously played Edwina Twinkacetti in the first two seasons. Although Larry physically remains at his typewriter in the basement, he joins the investigative team of Marshall and Walpole (loosely based on the famed Washington Post duo of Woodward and Bernstein) in season 4. Larry's relationship with Jennifer matures as well.

Working as an elevator operator is Harriette Winslow (Jo Marie Payton-France). Her husband Carl (Reginald VelJohnson) is introduced in the fourth-season episode "Crimebusters", in which the couple moves into Larry and Balki's apartment building.

In March 1988, midway through the third season, ABC moved Perfect Strangers from its successful Wednesday-night slot to Friday nights at 8:00 p.m. before Full House. This was a key development in the formation of the ABC Friday-night comedy block that later became known as "TGIF". Later moving to the 9/8c slot on Friday nights in the fall of 1989, Perfect Strangers remained an anchor of ABC's Friday-night programming until it was unsuccessfully moved to Saturday nights in February 1992.

Seasons 5–6 (1989–1991)
In the fall of 1989, after two seasons on Perfect Strangers, Harriette's character was given her own spin-off series, Family Matters. Joining Perfect Strangers in the TGIF lineup, Family Matters eventually ran longer than its parent show. Harriette was not seen again on Perfect Strangers, although an early Family Matters episode explained that she had been fired as the elevator operator, only to be re-hired as chief of security at the Chronicle. Carl became a main character on Family Matters.

Shortly after the sixth season opened, the producers attempted to add a child character to the show. Tess Holland, as played by Alisan Porter (who had starred on ABC's short-lived Chicken Soup the previous fall), was introduced as the troublemaking-but-immensely-cute little girl who lived upstairs from Larry and Balki. Tess appeared in the season's second episode, "New Kid on the Block", when Balki agrees to babysit her, causing an uproar both at home and at the Chronicle. While Porter was supposed to be on full-time, and even credited in the opening title sequence of the episode, she was suddenly dropped, never to be seen again. The experiment of adding a child to the cast was partially influenced by the network as well, since ABC's TGIF lineup was wishing to incorporate the child-and-preteen demographic into its audience. While the content of Perfect Strangers could often appeal to the family as a whole, it had never had children in the regular cast. A similar infusion happened a few months later on sister show Going Places, which had also started with a more adult tone.

While Larry and Jennifer's romance blossomed, Balki and Mary Anne's relationship moved more slowly: the pair would get very close, but then back off after fleeting moments of passion, then drift back into affection. Many viewers' predictions came true near the beginning of season 6, when Larry proposed to Jennifer, after feeling competition from her old flame who was trying to woo her back. Jennifer accepted, and in the season finale they set a wedding date. As the 6th season (1990–91) closed, it was clear that despite Larry's impending marriage, his and Balki's relationship would somehow remain a focal point of the show.

Season 7 (1991–92)
At season seven's beginning (which premiered in September 1991), Larry and Jennifer's marriage meant that Perfect Strangers would move in a different direction. Larry and Jennifer move into a large Victorian house, then discover that they cannot afford the rent without additional roommates: Balki and Mary Anne. At midseason, Balki receives a promotion at the Chronicle, drawing a weekly comic strip based on his stuffed sheep, Dimitri. Gorpley and Lydia make occasional appearances throughout the season, but are gradually phased out as they have little relevance to Larry and Balki's new career paths.

With Larry and Jennifer happily married, the series turns toward Balki and Mary Anne's relationship. In the season's last several episodes, Mary Anne stops seeing Balki and moves out of the house. In the April 1992 season finale, Balki and Mary Anne resolve their differences and suddenly marry; the episode and season conclude with the couple on their way to an extended honeymoon in Mypos—and with Jennifer telling Larry that they are expecting.

Season 8 (1993)
The first episode of season eight picked up several months after the end of season seven, by which time Jennifer is visibly pregnant. Balki and Mary Anne returned from Mypos, revealing that Mary Anne was also well into a pregnancy. For the eighth season, the Chronicle storylines were phased out, with the series shifting its full attention to the home life of the characters. The series ended with a two-part episode "Up Up and Away", with each heralding the birth of a baby (first Robespierre, son of Balki and Mary Anne, and then Tucker, son of Larry and Jennifer). The last scene segues in and out of a musical montage of memorable scenes from the series to the tune of "Unforgettable" by Nat King Cole. The closing credits showed the cast bowing before the studio audience with Mark Linn-Baker saying, "Thank you all for being with us. Good night." Though it was not shown in the episode, co-stars Pinchot and Linn-Baker then did the "Dance of Joy" for the studio audience one last time.

Cast
Main cast
 * Bronson Pinchot – Balki Bartokomous
 * Mark Linn-Baker – Larry Appleton
 * Melanie Wilson – Jennifer Lyons (later Appleton) (seasons 2–8)
 * Rebeca Arthur – Mary Anne Spencer (later Bartokomous) (seasons 2–8)
 * Belita Moreno – Edwina Twinkacetti (seasons 1–2); Lydia Markham (seasons 3–7)
 * Ernie Sabella – Donald Twinkacetti (seasons 1–2)
 * Lise Cutter – Susan Campbell (seasons 1–2)
 * Jo Marie Payton-France – Harriette Winslow (seasons 3–4)
 * Sam Anderson – Sam Gorpley (seasons 3–7)

Recurring cast
 * F.J. O'Neil – Mr. Wainwright (seasons 3–7)
 * Eugene Roche – Harry Burns (season 3)
 * Jim Doughan - Jimmy, the Security Guard

Production
Perfect Strangers was produced by Miller-Boyett Productions in association with Lorimar-Telepictures, which later became Lorimar Television in 1988. The show, for its entire run, was executive produced by Thomas L. Miller and Robert L. Boyett, and series creator Dale McRaven was executive producer with them for the first two seasons, becoming an executive consultant thereafter. William Bickley and Michael Warren, who became longtime associates of Miller and Boyett, were supervising producers during seasons one through four, elevating to co-executive producers in season five and finally executive producers with Miller and Boyett from seasons six through eight. Chip and Doug Keyes, who also served as producers on Miller and Boyett's first project under Lorimar, Valerie (later The Hogan Family), were producers on Perfect Strangers during its first season. Others who joined or remained on the production staff for several seasons included Paula A. Roth (who eventually became a principal showrunner in the seventh season alongside the senior executive producers), Alan Plotkin, Terry Hart, James O'Keefe, and the team of Barry O'Brien & Cheryl Alu.

Robert Griffard and Howard Adler, who joined the show in its third season as writers and executive story consultants, were promoted to co-producers in season five. At the end of the 1989–90 season, Griffard and Adler launched pre-production on their own series developed by Miller/Boyett, Going Places, which followed Perfect Strangers on TGIF the following season. Later seasons saw the arrival of such producers as Shari Hearn and Tom Devanney.

In 1991, Bickley and Warren launched their own production plate, Bickley-Warren Productions, as associates to Miller/Boyett. The Bickley-Warren Productions entity oversaw Family Matters, Step by Step and Getting By for Miller/Boyett, and alone were later the producers of Hangin' with Mr. Cooper and Kirk, both of which were produced by Warner Bros. Television (which absorbed Lorimar Television in 1993). Despite the existence of the Bickley-Warren plate during the final two seasons of Perfect Strangers, and the fact that Bickley and Warren were still active as producers on Strangers, the Bickley-Warren logo was never added to the show's closing credits as an associate production company.

Within a year after Perfect Strangers finished production, many of its existing production staff (namely O'Brien & Alu, Plotkin, co-producer Michael J. Morris and executive story consultant Scott Spencer Gorden) were all assigned to sister series Getting By at the start of its second season (1993–94).

Theme song
The show's theme song, "Nothing's Gonna Stop Me Now", was written by Jesse Frederick and Bennett Salvay, who had composed the themes for other Miller-Boyett series, including Full House, Step by Step, and Perfect Strangers spin-off Family Matters. Frederick and Salvay also composed the show's musical score for the entire first two seasons; for the remaining seasons, the score compositions rotated between Frederick and Salvay, Steven Chesne and/or Gary Boren. The theme was performed by David Pomeranz. The music was rearranged and the lyrics re-recorded for season three and the music was rearranged slightly in season five.

First version (seasons one and two)
During seasons one and two, the opening sequence begins with images of Balki and Larry wiping sideways from opposite sides of the screen to meet in the middle, with the series title superimposed on top. Larry is shown saying good-bye to his family as he leaves his home in Wisconsin, and drives to Chicago in his old red Ford Mustang. The sequence then shifts to Balki, who is shown making his own farewells on Mypos before being driven off on the back of a horsecart, sitting alongside a box mislabeled "America or Burst". Balki is next seen on the tramp steamer as he sights the Statue of Liberty, then on a bus, presumably making his way to Chicago. After a brief shot of Larry driving under a "Welcome to Chicago" sign (in reality, located on eastbound Interstate 190 leading out of O'Hare International Airport), the sequence ends with the same shot of Balki and Larry together that began the sequence. The first season featured a script font for the series title and credits. For the second season, the show's title appears more similar to later seasons, and the script font is replaced with the fonts similar to that used in the remaining seasons. The Lake Shore Drive footage is now shown correctly. Additionally, the Larry and Balki sequences are shortened so that brief clips from some of the early episodes could be shown.

Second version (seasons three through eight)
For season three, the opening sequence was overhauled. The sequence begins with a close-up on Larry and Balki on the back of a tour boat heading east down the Chicago River, then zooming out to show them traveling under the Irv Kupcinet Bridge (the Wrigley Building and the now-demolished Sun-Times building can be seen in the background). A much larger version of the second season series title is superimposed on this image. During the third season only, light sparkles across this title. The sequence briefly recaps Larry and Balki's journeys to Chicago using footage from the earlier seasons. When Larry passes under the "Welcome to Chicago" sign this time, the sequence cuts to new footage of Larry and Balki around Chicago, including jogging in Lincoln Park, Balki greeting the female driver of a horse-drawn cab, Larry reading a newspaper from the newsstands, braving a wind gust on a city street, attending a Chicago Cubs game at Wrigley Field, and messing around in a revolving door. After a view of an El train moving over the city street, the sequence concludes with Larry and Balki emerging from the subway to attend the Chicago Theatre. The theater marquee shows, appropriately enough, Neil Simon's The Odd Couple. The new location shots were filmed on September 11 and 12, 1987. This sequence remained the same from season three through the end of the series in season eight.

As a brief salute to its parent series, in the opening credits of the spin-off series Family Matters (TV series for the first three seasons, the Winslow family is shown riding bicycles over the Irv Kupcinet Bridge, as seen from exactly the same vantage point as in the opening Perfect Strangers sequence.

First apartment building
The building used for the exterior shots of Larry and Balki's apartment for the first two seasons was the now non-existent Santa Rita Hotel, located at the south corner of S. Main St. and E. 11th St. in downtown Los Angeles, California. Since the series, the building has been remodeled and the upper stories removed. What remains of the building now houses several small shops and importers.

Second apartment building
The apartment building seen in the exterior shots from seasons three through six (and two episodes of season seven) is located at the northwest corner of West Dickens Avenue and North Clark Street in Lincoln Park, Chicago, and little has changed in appearance today.

Chicago Chronicle
The Chicago Chronicle building is in actuality known as the London Guarantee Building, located at 360 North Michigan Avenue in downtown Chicago.

Episodes
There were a total of eight seasons in the series. The first and last seasons were six episodes each. The second through fourth seasons had 22 episodes each, and the fifth through seventh each had 24 episodes. There were a total of 150 episodes in the series.

Perfect Strangers ' ratings remained steady throughout its long run, usually ranking among Nielsen's top 40 programs for its first six seasons. It was never a massive hit, but consistently in a comfortable spot in the ratings, and it usually won its time slot on Friday nights.

By the fall of 1991, ABC had been reaping the rewards of the successful TGIF and wanted to capitalize on the preteen-and-younger demographic for Saturday nights as well, in order to decrease competition from NBC’s popular Saturday evening lineup of adult-oriented sitcoms The Golden Girls, Walter & Emily, Empty Nest and Nurses. In late January 1992, the network rolled out plans to launch a similar family-friendly comedy block for Saturday, also helmed by TGIF creator Jim Janicek. It was announced that Perfect Strangers would move from TGIF to join this new lineup to help it take off. On February 1, 1992, Perfect Strangers began airing in the 9 p.m. slot of I Love Saturday Night, the new TGIF sister lineup (which included Growing Pains, Who's the Boss?, and Capitol Critters). The series experienced a drastic decline in ratings. It dropped to #65 for the remainder of the season. In July 1992, ABC moved Perfect Strangers back to Fridays at 9:30 p.m. ET to fill the timeslot with reruns until the new TGIF season began. The reruns that were aired won their timeslot as they had before.

ABC had initially ordered 13 episodes to be produced for the show's eighth and final season, though the network ultimately shortened it to 6 episodes which were filmed during the summer of 1992, but broadcast from July 9 to August 6, 1993. The season was rated in the top 20 with its series finale attracting 15 million households and rated #11 for the week of August 1, 1993. The average Nielsen ratings for the entire run of eight seasons was #27. For the abbreviated eighth season, Perfect Strangers once again aired Fridays at 9:30/8:30c.

Syndication
From August 28, 1989, to July 13, 1990, reruns of the first four seasons of Perfect Strangers aired on ABC's daytime program block. Warner Bros. Domestic Television Distribution (former sister company to series production company Lorimar Television) distributed the series for broadcast television syndication from September 1990 to September 1997. USA Network aired reruns of the show from September 1997 to September 11, 1998. The WB 100+ carried the series from September 17, 2001 to December 2002.

The series aired on Nick at Nite, first with a 6-episode marathon on July 14, 2000, and then a special airing in November 2000; the series aired regularly in late nights from February 3 to September 20, 2003. TV Land aired reruns from August 2, 2002 to September 28, 2002 and January 3 to February 1, 2003, as part of its now-defunct "TV Land Kitschen" weekend late night block, though special episodes aired on the channel in December 2000, April and December 2001, December 2002, January and December 2003, and June 2005. From October 1 to November 1, 2007, ION Television aired reruns of Perfect Strangers on its primetime lineup Monday-Thursday nights at 8:30 p.m. (ET/PT). It is not currently broadcast on either broadcast or cable television in the U.S..

Various episodes were seen on AOL's In2TV video-on-demand service starting in March 2006, though after AOL's June 2009 announcement of its split with Time Warner, the series was moved to the AOL Video site.

Outside of the United States, the series aired in the Netherlands by public TV, in Turkey by the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation dubbed in Turkish. In Pakistan, reruns were carried by Pakistan Television Corporation in its original form. In Bangladesh, reruns were carried by BTV in its original form. The series aired in the United Kingdom on the BBC from early 1987 broadcasting the first 4 series, Australia and New Zealand (on Channel 2, now called TVNZ 2) in its original form; reruns aired in Australia on 7TWO between March and October 2011 and in 2013. The series aired in Bulgaria by BTV and in the Bulgarian language; Bulgarians know Balki mostly as a Greek. It aired in the Philippines by RPN 9 in its original form, it aired with Arabic subtitles in Kuwait on KTV2 and in Lebanon on Télé Liban (TL). The series aired in Ireland by RTÉ on Network 2 in its original form.

The series aired in Canada on DejaView channel 636.

On September 29, 2017, Perfect Strangers became available for streaming on Hulu along with fellow Warner Bros. TV properties Family Matters, Full House, Hangin' with Mr. Cooper and Step by Step, in addition to Disney-ABC TV properties Boy Meets World, Dinosaurs and Home Improvement. Perfect Strangers would leave Hulu on October 1, 2021.

Family Matters
Perfect Strangers had a spin-off series, the highly rated, long-running family sitcom Family Matters, which aired from September 22, 1989, to July 17, 1998. The series was centered around Harriette Winslow (Jo Marie Payton) in the role she originated on Perfect Strangers (Harriette was played by Judyann Elder for the second half of season nine after Payton's departure), and her cop husband Carl (Reginald VelJohnson; the character was initially introduced on Perfect Strangers in the fourth-season episode "Crimebusters") and their family. The series, which initially garnered modest ratings for most of its first season, became a ratings hit after the Winslows' annoying, accident-prone, budding inventor next-door neighbor Steve Urkel (Jaleel White), was introduced midway through the show's first season.

Neither Family Matters nor Perfect Strangers featured a direct crossover with the other, though Balki and Larry were originally scripted to appear in the pilot episode before the scene was cut from the broadcast. Mark Linn-Baker and Melanie Wilson each guest starred on the show, as a different character, and Linn-Baker directed another episode. Footage of the Chicago Chronicle building shot for Perfect Strangers appeared in the second episode of Family Matters and music originally written for Perfect Strangers was used during the early seasons of Family Matters as well. Several premises from popular episodes of Perfect Strangers ("Just Desserts", "Pipe Dreams" and "Blind Alley") were also recycled as first-season episodes of Family Matters ("Baker's Dozen", "Mr. Badwrench", and "Bowl Me Over", respectively).

Home media
The season four episode "Maid to Order" was released as part of a limited edition bonus disc of the complete first season DVD of Night Court on February 8, 2005 by Warner Home Video.

In February 2008, Warner Home Video released seasons 1 and 2 of Perfect Strangers on DVD in Regions 1, 2 & 4. Further planned season releases ultimately did not materialize. In an article on TVShowsOnDVD.com regarding TV series with stalled DVD releases, it was mentioned that the main hold-up for any subsequent releases of Perfect Strangers is not poor sales but rather high music licensing costs. It is noted that the series sometimes featured popular songs within certain episodes, though the versions by the artists who originally performed them were usually not used; instead they were commonly sung a cappella by Mark Linn-Baker and/or Bronson Pinchot's characters whenever the script called for Balki and/or Larry to sing within the episode.

In July 2017, a representative for Warner Archive Collection indicated on a social media post that the remainder of the series would be released on DVD, with a formal announcement to be made in the near future. The complete third season was released on April 17, 2018, with the next three seasons being released later the same year,  and the last two released in 2019.

In popular culture

 * Professional wrestling tag team Edge & Christian referenced Balki in a backstage segment of the December 18, 2000 episode of WWF Raw is War, when Edge tells Christian "so that's why Balki is a perfect stranger".
 * Perfect Strangers and star Mark Linn-Baker are referenced in the HBO TV series The Leftovers, which takes place after a fictional global event called the "Sudden Departure," the inexplicable, simultaneous disappearance of 140 million people, 2% of the world's population. Within the show, the entire cast of Perfect Strangers has departed — except for Linn-Baker, who, it turns out, has faked his own departure. In Season 3 of The Leftovers, a present-day Linn-Baker appears briefly as himself, and plays a direct role in the unfolding plotline.
 * In the Master of None episode "Indians on TV", Dev (Aziz Ansari) and Ravi (Ravi Patel) are offered the main roles in an Indian-centric remake of Perfect Strangers, with the main characters being Darren the assimilated Indian-American, and Srikumar, his cousin from India.
 * Fellow ABC sitcom The Goldbergs paid homage to Perfect Strangers in the season six episode "Our Perfect Strangers," by re-creating the show's iconic opening sequence with a distant cousin, Gleb, who was visiting the family from Russia.
 * A 2019 Father's Day episode of the YouTube series Pittsburgh Dad has the titular character telling his offscreen wife Deb what a "perfect day" would be. It then cuts to a scene-for-scene remake of the Perfect Strangers open (set in Pittsburgh instead of Chicago) titled Perfect Yinzers, complete with the Perfect Strangers theme song. The video featured Dad as Balki and longtime WTAE-TV news anchor Sally Wiggin as Larry. (Coincidentally, being the market's ABC affiliate, WTAE-TV aired Perfect Strangers during its original run.) The opening credits features Bill Cowher and Terminator 2 as "guest stars" and even references "Cousin Balki" alongside "Whoever done the Transformers movies" as "supervising producers".

Foreign versions

 * When the show was aired in Brazil, Balki was renamed "Zeca" (a Brazilian nickname) and his nationality was changed to Brazilian, specifically from the state of Minas Gerais, in a blatant adulteration of the character and the storyline itself. The show was called Primo Cruzado (Cousin Cruzado, where "cruzado" was the name of Brazilian currency from that time).
 * In the fall of 2006, the Russian TV station REN TV launched a remake of Perfect Strangers featuring Andrei, from a remote former Soviet republic, who moves in with his cousin Ivan, a Moscow resident.
 * The show was aired 1988 until 1994 on TVRI in Indonesia
 * From the late 1980s into the mid-1990s, the show was aired by Channel 2 in Saudi Arabia
 * In the German dubbing, Balki was said to be an actual Greek and Mypos a Greek island. Even the show was called Ein Grieche erobert Chicago (A Greek conquers Chicago) and in the opening credits Balki said that he became bored with his sheep in Greece so he went to America to visit his cousin. In the German version, Balki has no foreign accent and speaks the same native-accented German as Larry.
 * Other translations of the title were: Barki e Larry – Due Perfetti Americani (Italy), Dos Perfectos Desconocidos (Latin America), Larry et Balki (France), Primos Lejanos (Spain), Vărul Din Strainatate (Romania), Напълно непознати (Bulgaria), Perfektni Pribuzni (Slovakia), Potpuni stranci (Croatia), Muhteşem İkili (Turkey).and "Krovim rechokim meod (very distant relatives)" (Israel).

title: Perfect Strangers (TV series)


text:
Conan: Hall of Volta

Conan: Hall of Volta (or simply Conan on the box cover and title screen) is a platform game from American developers Eric Robinson and Eric Parker and published by Datasoft in 1984. It is based on the character Conan created by Robert E. Howard. This game was originally written for the Apple II and ported to the Commodore 64 and Atari 8-bit computers.

Released in 1984, the game's launch coincided with the debut of the film Conan the Destroyer. The box shows a painting of Arnold Schwarzenegger as the muscle-bound warrior with his new costume for Destroyer. Despite this attempted tie-in, the game has little to do with the movie other than the Cimmerian in the title role, having originally been designed as boomerang-throwing game titled Visigoth. One of the screenshots on the back of the box is from a prototype version and shows a boomerang instead of a sword.

Gameplay
The player controls Conan as he attacks the evil Volta in his castle fortress. Conan is armed with 10 boomerang swords. From time to time, Conan may be aided by an "Avian Ally" as he attempts to defeat Volta's sinister hordes, which included bats, scorpions, giant ants, fire-breathing dragons and floating eyeballs.

The game includes seven diverse levels requiring the player to navigate lava pits, geysers, spike pits, and floating platforms. Along the way the player often needs to collect magic gems or keys in order to progress.

In the game, Conan does not jump, he somersaults. If he falls, he launches into a dive.

One original feature of the game's time was a close-up picture that would be shown upon the player's last death. For example, dying in the first level might show a close-up picture of a bat with the caption "bats in your belfry". Deaths in other levels would yield a picture of a hazard unique to that level:

 * Bats in your belfry
 * Only a cleric can help you now
 * Quest terminated (spike pit)
 * There is no glory for you here
 * To be continued
 * A watery barrier
 * You shuffle off defeated for now

Localizations
In Bulgaria, where Conan the Barbarian was generally unknown, the Apple II version was translated into Bulgarian and distributed by ZMD Pazarjik under the name "Добрия рицар" (The Good Knight).

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Conan: Hall of Volta


text:
Perfect Strangers (TV serial)

Perfect Strangers is a television drama first aired in 2001, produced for BBC Two. It was written and directed by Stephen Poliakoff, and starred Michael Gambon, who won a British Academy Television Award for his performance, Lindsay Duncan, Matthew Macfadyen, Claire Skinner, and Toby Stephens. Anton Lesser and Timothy Spall also appear. The drama received two Royal Television Society Awards and a Peabody Award. It was also nominated for the BAFTA TV Award for Best Drama Serial.

The action takes place during a large family reunion at a hotel.

It aired on BBC America under the title Almost Strangers.

Summary
The series is set over a three-day family reunion of considerably more than a hundred guests, that draws together the extended branches of the Symon family. Raymond Symon (Michael Gambon) reluctantly attends with his wife Esther (Jill Baker) and son Daniel (Matthew Macfadyen), who was not aware of the sprawl of his extended family because of his father Lionel's (Jay Simon) estrangement from his relatives. The stories Daniel learns about his family's past are episodic and non-linear, from his mysterious presence in a photograph taken at a children's party that he can't remember attending, to the wartime experiences of three distant elderly cousins. An important plot strand concentrates on a rift between two cousins (Claire Skinner and Toby Stephens) and their aunt (Lindsay Duncan) that has grown since the sudden death of the cousins' brother and Daniel's attempts to reunite the trio. An early incident of Raymond suffering a stroke while giving a withering speech to the reunion-goers and his subsequent bedridden state force him to appreciate the character of relatives that reflect his. Poliakoff's use of old photographs to unlock the intricacies of individuals' lives is prolific.

title: Perfect Strangers (TV serial)


text:
Batak, Bulgaria

Batak (Батак ) is a town in Pazardzhik Province, southern Bulgaria, not far from the town of Peshtera. It is the administrative centre of the homonymous Batak Municipality. As of December 2009, the town had a population of 3,498.

Geography
Batak is situated in the northwestern slopes of the Rhodope Mountains, at 1036 m above sea level. It is surrounded by many peaks, clad with century-old pine and spruce forests. The river Stara reka, a right tributary of the Maritsa, flows through the town. The climate is temperate continental with a characteristic southern warm wind. Batak was pronounced town in 1964 and has a population of 4,019 people. Batak is a centre of one of Bulgaria's largest municipalities by terms of territory - 667 km2 or 15% of the Pazardzhik Province area - as well as one of the most sparsely populated ones including only the town itself and two villages - Fotinovo and Nova Mahala. Ninety percent of the municipal area is covered with thick forests.

Batak is situated at 15 km to the south of Peshtera and 33 km to the south of the regional centre Pazardzhik. The nearest railway station is in Peshtera.

Antiquity

There are numerous archaeological monuments of most ancient times in the region of Batak. A find of the Old Stone Age was discovered in 1958. Tools, objects, ceramic vessels, ornaments as well as bones of rhinoceros were found which proves that the climate was warmer in the Quaternary. Twenty Thracian, Thraco-Roman, Byzantine and Slavic fortresses, churches and monasteries, as well as Thracian mounds, Roman bridges, mines, mills and other archaeological sites were registered.

Origin of the settlement and medieval history
The exact origin of Batak is unknown, since there is a lack of historical data. The earlier view that the settlement was founded by Bulgarians who escaped from the forced mass conversion into Islam in the valley of Chepino in 16th century today is rejected because it is believed that the settlement is much older. This is justified by an inscription on the fountain of Virgin Mary Monastery of Krichim built by the people of Batak in 1592, a writ of the feudal possessions of Sultan Suleiman I (1520–1566), in which the village of Batak is also mentioned, as well as the remnants of many churches and monasteries burnt down by the Ottomans during the conversion into Islam in this region. The origin of the name of Batak is not certain, too. In the old legends it is related to the Tsepina chieftain Batoy, while the history professors Yordan Ivanov and Vasil Mikov suppose that Batak was Potok, a settlement of Cuman origin existing between the 11th and the 13th century. It is, however, certain that the name of the village is Bulgarian, not Turkish as some authors assert.

Ottoman rule
During the centuries of Ottoman rule, many hajduks in the region of Batak took revenge from the Turks for the outrages upon Bulgarian people – Strahil Voivoda, Deli Arshenko Payaka, Gola Voda, Todor Banchev, Beyko, Yanko Kavlakov, Mityo Vranchev, etc. From these times have remained the old rebel names, such as Haydushka Skala, Haydushka Polyana, Haydushko Kladenche (spring), Sablen Vrah ("Sabre Peak"), Karvav Chuchur ("Bloody Spout"), as well as many legends.

Woodworking, trade and innkeeping were developed in Batak during the National Revival. The prosperity of the population was conducive to the prosperity of education — a secular school was opened in 1835 and the St. Nedelya Church was built in 1813 at the Todor Balinov place (mayor of the village at the time), donated by him specifically for the construction of the church. Built for 75 days with the work of citizens of Batak.. Batak has given many eminent figures of the Bulgarian Revival, such as clerics like archimandrite Yosif, Nikifor, Kiril and others, who worked in the Rila Monastery, a centre of the Bulgarian National Revival. Famous men of letters are Georgi Busilin and Dragan Manchov.

April Uprising and Ottoman war-crimes
The population of Batak took part in the April Uprising of 1876. The people of Batak rebelled on 22 April under the leadership of voivoda Petar Goranov. On 30 April the village was surrounded by Ottoman irregulars called bashi-bozouk, pomaks from the surrounding villages. The battles were carried on for five days. The last stronghold of the rebels was the St. Nedelya Church.

At the end five thousand people were killed and the village was burned down to ashes. News of the atrocities spread around the world, aided in large part by Januarius MacGahan's writing for the London Daily News. The public outcry created favourable conditions for Russia to declare war on Turkey. On 20 January 1878 the people of Batak who had survived the uprising enthusiastically met the advancing Russian army.

Batak today
Today Batak is a renovated modern town famous for its historical monuments and a resort and tourist centre. A key hydro power system — Batak Hydropower Cascade — with five dams and three hydroelectric stations was constructed in the 1950s. Rest houses, tourist complexes and villas have been built along the banks of the Batak Reservoir.

Honour
Batak Point on Smith Island, South Shetland Islands is named after Batak.

Education

 * Chitalishte "4 - May"
 * "Otets Paisiy" Primary school
 * Stefan Bozhkov High School of Forestry and Wood Processing

Religion

 * Orthodox Church Saint Maria

title: Batak, Bulgaria


text:
Talk:Public display of affection

Interracial PDA
Why is 'Latino', an ethnonym, included here? It's not a race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.41.30 (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Surprisingly good article
I didn't even expect a Wikipedia article on this, but I looked it up and was pleasantly surprised. This is really becoming a good encyclopedia transcending the limited space of paper! Nickptar 03:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Please add examples for countries all over the world. vaceituno 00:00, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I'm not to sure about the article - and most of all the term. As http://www.cariboo.bc.ca/news/Past02Oct7/DigestsOCT7/PublicDisplayAffection/Display.htm shows, the term itself need not refer to anything sexual. Where did the term evolve? When? Who uses it? For what purpose? If there are laws against kissing in public, do they use the term? Or are they specific? For me, as a German living in Germany, the idea of schools outlawing holding hands sounds definitely out of the 19th century. CJ de

I think the term is USA specific, but there is an unwritten code of acceptable public display of affection all over the world. vaceituno 00:00, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Now, what would really be interesting would be a section on changing attitudes to PDA in Western history. During some periods it was viewed as quite outrageous. Minivet 22:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Origin of term?
When did this term come about? Because I never heard it growing up ( in the USA ) but a few years ago I saw some forum about "banning PDA's in schools" and I thought they were talking about handheld computers being used to cheat on tests. But apparently everybody in the discussion was familiar with the other usage. Is it a regional thing? Squidfryerchef 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

To me the term itself shows lack of clear thinking, when used in the school setting -- for example, a smile is a public display of affection -- should it be banned? I would like to see a Wikipedia page on PDA policies in middle and high schools, including the zero tolerance ones. I came here for this and only found information on PDAs among adults in public settings.190.107.163.17 (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Homosexual Hijacking?
This article, while fascinating, contains an excessive amount of homosexual activist agenda. A "kiss in" Is not a communication of affection, exhibitionism, indifference or tolerance. Affection is merely the pretense of a "kiss in". The purpose of the ironically counter productive "kiss in" is to shock, disrupt and offend. It is a public display of contempt and disaffection toward the target audience.

I intend to research the topic of "PDA" and it taboos, and I hope to add some usefull/interesting material to the article.

Meinshad 13:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)meinshad

Agreed... The homosexuality references have no place here. 'Affection' knows no gender, and same sex references should not be included here. Ghengis Kant (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree. There is affection between genders, and there are issues about same gender affection in many countries. If PDA plays a role in the way these issues are handled by the affected groups, it does have a place. It seem to me an homophobic bias to remove that content. vaceituno (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this kiss-in is obviously to send a message to people like you who feel homosexuality should be invisible. You people need to learn that homosexual relationships happen, and that nobody should be forced to keep their displays of affection private to avoid harrassment or violence.--holizz (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Vaceituno raises a valid point, whereas as Holizz makes evident the very problem with the original objection. The function of an encyclopedic entry is to provide reasonably unbiased opinion - not to alienate or embrace a particular group or mindset. Inclusion of it here is questionable; and the fiery responses suggest that it's about an agenda, as opposed to describing phenomena. I stand by my assertion in which I agree with the original objection - Holizz, is the suggestion somehow that same sex PDA is different than opposite sex PDA? If it warrants inclusion here, perhaps a distinct entry for 'homosexual public displays of affection'. Ghengis Kant (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your radically changing what he meant. He even said that affection has no gender, so I don't think he's someone whos trying to make homosexuality invisible. I think what he meant was that this is an article on PDA, not homophobia, which the kiss-ins are against, not merely PDA. The kissathons in South Africa are, however relevant. I agree that saying that homosexual PDA is more looked down upon, but it seems to overdo it a little. 72.220.125.86 (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

To me the reference about homosexuality is and should be part of a discussion of the relative acceptability of PDAs in different cultures. This article is lacking a general discussion of acceptability in an international context, as it seems to only reference Europe and the Americas, with little attention paid to the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Gymnophoria (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Illegal in Illinois?
User:Tclaw, who seems to have a history of crap and dubious edits, claims that all forms of PDA are illegal in Illinois and are punishable by prison sentences. He has yet to provide a citation for this ridiculous assertion and has accused me of vandalism for removing it. I have searched the internet and consulted a roommate who just moved from Chicago recently and this law doesn't seem to exist. Please be on the lookout for Tclaw trying to add this back w/o a cite. 24.2.50.40 (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Heavy petting in parks?!
Heavy petting is common in parks around Europe? Heck, I need to visit parks more often. Seriously though, things that are common in parks around Europe are joggers, old ladies and turks with bbqs. No petting, sorry. 92.229.120.230

Come to the south man, come to the south ;). vaceituno (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaceituno (talk • contribs)

Latin america
Of course PDA is accepted and has not been banned ever. Not even in Argentina (or other countries recently under a dictatorship). It was, maybe, seen socially as a bad conduct, but not "banned". There were no sanctions or fines applied. Also, even if it can bee seen as a display of the newly gained freedom (perhaps the music video "Zoom" by Soda Stereo can be an example), it cannot be considered a "patriotic" act, particularly in Argentina were it was the Junta who used terms such as "patriotism", "nation" and even race to promote their values.That section needs revision.

In Chile, another country "recently" under a dictartorship, there has been a large amount of discussion in the mainstream media regarding "emo kids" (just teenagers i'd say) virtually "taking hold" of public parks in the capital city where they involve in drinking, smoking and many forms of PDA. Even though the practice is widely accepted, the debate shows that the subject is not so pacific. See news here http://diario.elmercurio.cl/detalle/index.asp?id={4c9be9f2-b7aa-4195-8a0c-dc9a6a07a107} http://diario.elmercurio.cl/detalle/index.asp?id={d3f27799-987f-45a8-b37c-6711e3f5e586}--190.22.46.126 (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Latin america vs. the United states
Very important to mention that PDAs in latin america are completely different. They're simply something for the couple to enjoy, not meant to attract attention or carry a social / political message; while in the US PDAs actually occur on a much lower rate, among couples whom the mainstream society might perceive as "odd", they are meant to sexually disturb the public, attract attention and hence strengthen the bond between the couple.

79.175.191.160 (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Goshtaasp

On a psychological level.
Public displays of affection can be seen as a way of marking ones territory. Just saying. -AC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.239.198 (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Latin America, again
The way this part of the article is written, it can be misleading in at least two ways: 1. if something occurs in one isolated Latin American country, it DOES NOT mean it is a common trait to all Latin American countries. Would it not be more accurate to say Chile instead? 2. I have little knowledge of Chilean culture, but from the articles referenced it seems to me that it is one very specific group of people who has promoted sex in public, so to say. From that it is absurd to infer that it is a tolerated habit or anything like that. I doubt that sex in open, public spaces is seen as OK in ANY place in the planet, not to mention 'Latin America', a region with many nations culturally rooted in Catholic morality.

Daniel Ávila — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.194.67.100 (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Homosexual PDA paragraph
I quite agree that the paragraph now is of low quality, but the topic is indeed relevant. Perhaps we can decide on how to reword it? -- Cycl o pia talk  18:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is basically a dictionary definition. I suspect it could be merged with something else. Having two paragraphs about the different public reactions to same-sex public displays of affection is ridiculous here and probably covered better elsewhere already. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strange as it is, I didn't find anything else significant here on WP, but maybe my google-fu is rusty. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Section on Modern China Wrong
The description of modern Chinese culture is entirely incorrect, based on personal experience. In every major city I have been in, you can see couples holding hands, and couples will occasionally kiss. The sole reference for this assertion is a blog post citing personal experience which admits in many places to be talking about traditional and not modern culture. Marking disputed. Linuxrocks123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed, random blog posts aren't credible references. --Cold Season (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Disgust and Public display of affection
I don't know what problem you have for the Manchus, but I think we had this conversation before. If you don't mind, we can do this over and over again.

Quotes are optional. I have provided pages for each reference which matches the content very well. These are all reliable source. However, you are actually the one that is specifically targeting Manchu people. You have been doing this for many years by misstating the reference. Your quote and reference are meaningless because it does not matter how many reference you are citing, it all came from Shirokogorov's research in 1924. The book has already mentioned that his research is based on his visit to Amur River in Northern Manchuria in the 1900s, that is far away from giving a conclusion for a culture. You can't play WP:I just don't like it for your own interests.--Šolon (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I'm not WP:I just don't like it. You are. You write with a sole MANCHU WP:POV by willing trying to curb any info about Manchu people's cultural practices that isn't to your liking. And even now you are arguing in that way here. It is well cited to several researchers, such as Barre, Henderson, and others.

 * Secondly, info about cultural practices for HEALTH or others does not belong in an article about AFFECTION.

 * Thirdly, info about disgust need to be about disgust, as explicitly mentioned in the sources and not from own biases of what's disgusting.

 * Fourthly, a quote is needed, as you need to establish that your info is in fact factual and relevant by providing a quote when it is contested. If you refuse to do so, it means that you show explicit unwillingness to resolve an issue (and that's on you).

 * Fifthly, do what over again? Fixing you trying to remove well cited info (about Manchu cultural practices) that you don't like, and fixing you trying to misconstrue sources in places that are not related to the topic?

 * --Cold Season (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

 * As reproduced from my talk page . As I feel that this needs more eyes. Relevant to the edits on circa 8 April 2018 on both articles. --Cold Season (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

 * First, I am trying to reach a consensus instead of arguing.It doesn't matter how many researchers you have. They all came from Shirokogorov's research, Barre, Henderson, and others are just citing the reference. Why don't you post their bibliography? Because you know that'd absolutely against your favor.

 * Secondly, my source is about affection of Chinese parents towards different situation.

 * Thirdly, your quotos have nothing to do with disgust. My source even mentioned that Chinese and Vietnamese consume human placenta, which is done by psychologist Rachel Sarah Herz. It is obviously not from "own biases of what's disgusting."

 * Fourthly, Quote is not required as you can see in so many Featured and Good Articles. Pages number is good enough.--Šolon (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Fifthly, you are overly dedicated on posting these stuff in many articles. You are obviously WP:I just like it. Like what I told you, the research was done in a visit in Northern Manchuria, but you are focusing on playing WP:I just like it and wouldn't listen.

 * --Šolon (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Not really, it establishes and strengthens notability and reliability per WP:SECONDARY.

 * Your info is not relevant to the topic of the article (that is, Public display of affection). The term affection or any synonymous term does not appear in your sources. The context in the source is also not about affection or any expression thereof, as it is about health, respect, or something else (depending on the group of which the info is about).

 * The Manchu info talks about the dichotomy between the perspectives of westerners and Manchu, and their reponses. There's mention about how people react to it and view it, like "obscenity," "shameful," and "shocks." Barre, for example, states that "Protective anxiety (disgust) will then lead the latter to withdraw his franchise from the transaction and resume the standard moral." (in his Obscenity: An Anthropological Appraisal) in his treatment of perceived obscenities such as in described Manchu practices.

 * I quote...

 * "As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." (WP:VERIFY)

 * I'm not particularly interested to whomever you point fingers at with those WP essays you pull out. The info meets the criteria of inclusion. But I will add that it was from Northern Manchuria. Someone else added it. --Cold Season (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Barre, Henderson, and others are not falling into the category of WP:SECONDARY on this specific topic itself. They are just referencing Shirokogorov's work in the 1900s for other research purposes. Therefore, the original researcher and the background needs to be specified in the paragraph. Southern Manchuria and Peking were intentionally excluded because Shirokogorov believed that these areas were less "pure". However, culture changes from time to time. There is no such a thing called "pure" culture whatsoever. It has regional differences as well. The Manchu studies in the English-speaking countries research Manchus ethnic group in China as a whole, not in a certain area, (e.g. The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China). His work is like conducting research at Yulin Dog Meat Festival, then comes up a conclusion that all Chinese consume dog meat (although it might be more relevent than Shirokogorov's research). Therefore, again, the original researcher and the background needs to be specified in the paragraph, or it will be misinterpreted.--Šolon (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Remind me of this page Slavery in China:
 * "Throughout the 1930s and 1940s the Yi people (also known as Nuosu) of China terrorized Sichuan to rob and enslave non-Nuosu including Han people. The descendants of the Han slaves, known as the White Yi (白彝), outnumbered the Black Yi (黑彝) aristocracy by ten to one. There was a saying goes like: "the worst insult to a Nuosu is to call him a "Han" (with the implication being that "your ancestors were slaves")"."
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by No1lovesu (talk • contribs)

 * I will agree with the background being added for clarification. --Cold Season (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Sentence in "Religiosity" is nonsense.
The first part of a sentence in the "Religiosity" section makes no sense: "Seemingly religiosity may work in two different ways where religious communities are in general quite racially segregated in the around the world,". What does that even mean? 64.211.224.254 (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Public display of affection


text:
Category:Canellales

This is the category for the Canellales, a magnoliid order of angiosperms (flowering plants) in the APG IV system (2016), and for the subdivisions of the order (families – two only, genera and species).

title: Category:Canellales


text: User:Rad Racer

title: User:Rad Racer


text: User talk:66.41.65.248

title: User talk:66.41.65.248


text:
Suovetaurilia

The suovetaurilia or suovitaurilia was one of the most sacred and traditional rites of Roman religion: the sacrifice of a pig (sus), a sheep (ovis) and a bull (taurus) to the deity Mars to bless and purify land (Lustratio).

Summary
There were two kinds:
 * suovetaurilia lactentia ("suckling suovetaurilia") of a male pig, a lamb and a calf, for purifying private fields
 * suovetaurilia maiora ("greater suovtaurilia") of a boar, a ram and a bull, for public ceremonies.

The ritual for private fields is preserved in Cato the Elder's De Agri Cultura, "On Agriculture". The first step was to lead the three animals around the boundaries of the land to be blessed, pronouncing the following words:

 * Cum divis volentibus quodque bene eveniat, mando tibi, Mani, uti illace suovitaurilia fundum agrum terramque meam quota ex parte sive circumagi sive circumferenda censeas, uti cures lustrare.

 * "That with the good help of the gods success may crown our work, I bid thee, Manius, to take care to purify my farm, my land, my ground with this suovetaurilia, in whatever part thou thinkest best for them to be driven or carried around."

"Manius" in this passage may be an obscure minor deity, related to the Manes, or may be the equivalent of English John Doe. Then, before the sacrifice is performed, the following prayer to Mars must be made:

 * Mars pater, te precor quaesoque uti sies volens propitius mihi domo familiaeque nostrae, quoius re ergo agrum terram fundumque meum suovitaurilia circumagi iussi, uti tu morbos visos invisosque, viduertatem vastitudinemque, calamitates intemperiasque prohibessis defendas averruncesque; utique tu fruges, frumenta, vineta virgultaque grandire beneque evenire siris, pastores pecuaque salva servassis duisque bonam salutem valetudinemque mihi domo familiaeque nostrae; harumce rerum ergo, fundi terrae agrique mei lustrandi lustrique faciendi ergo, sicuti dixi, macte hisce suovitaurilibus lactentibus inmolandis esto; Mars pater, eiusdem rei ergo macte hisce suovitaurilibus lactentibus esto

 * "Father Mars, I pray and beseech thee that thou be gracious and merciful to me, my house, and my household; to which intent I have bidden this suovetaurilia to be led around my land, my ground, my farm; that thou keep away, ward off, and remove sickness, seen and unseen, barrenness and destruction, ruin and unseasonable influence; and that thou permit my harvests, my grain, my vineyards, and my plantations to flourish and to come to good issue, preserve in health my shepherds and my flocks, and give good health and strength to me, my house, and my household. To this intent, to the intent of purifying my farm, my land, my ground, and of making an expiation, as I have said, deign to accept the offering of these suckling victims; Father Mars, to the same intent deign to accept the offering of these suckling offering."

The original Latin of this prayer is crudely metrical and incantatory; even in Old Latin, the prayer contains many rhetorical figures such as alliteration and liberal use of merisms and antithesis. It illustrates the sing-song, metrical, and poetic format of polytheistic prayers. Cakes of bread were sacrificed along with the three animals. At the moment the sacrifices were made, the landowner was to say:

 * Eiusque rei ergo macte suovitaurilibus inmolandis esto.

 * "To this intent deign to accept the offering of these victims."

If favourable omens as a response to the sacrifice were not forthcoming, the landowner was instructed to redo the sacrifice and offer a further prayer:

 * Mars pater, siquid tibi in illisce suovitaurilibus lactentibus neque satisfactum est, te hisce suovitaurilibus piaculo.

 * "Father Mars, if aught hath not pleased thee in the offering of those sucklings, I make atonement with these victims."

If only one or two of the omens expected after the three sacrifices failed to appear, the landowner was instructed to offer an additional swine, saying:

 * Mars pater, quod tibi illoc porco neque satisfactum est, te hoc porco piaculo.

 * "Father Mars, inasmuch as thou wast not pleased by the offering of that pig, I make atonement with this pig."

The nature of the expected omens is not given by Cato. The omens, however, were likely determined by the art of haruspicy, the examination of the entrails, and especially the livers, of sacrificed animals for divinatory signs. A private rural suovetaurilia was sacrificed each May on the festival of Ambarvalia, a festival that involved "walking around the fields." Public suovetaurilias were offered at certain state ceremonies, including agricultural festivals, the conclusion of a census, and to atone for any accidental ritual errors. Traditionally, suovetaurilias were performed at five year intervals: this period was called a lustrum, and the purification sought by a suovetaurilia was called lustration.

If a temple were destroyed, the site of the temple must be purified by a suovetaurilia before a new temple could be reconstructed on the site. When the Capitolium was burnt as a result of a struggle for imperial succession in the year 69, a suovetaurilia was performed to reconsecrate the site. A public suovetaurilia was also offered to bless the army before a major military campaign. On Trajan's column, the emperor Trajan is depicted as offering a suovetaurilia to purify the Roman army. A suovetaurilia is shown on the right hand panel of The Bridgeness Slab. It was suggested that the sacrifice might have been made at the start of the building of the Antonine Wall.

Parallels
Some religious rites similar to the Roman suovetaurilia were practiced by a few other Indo-European peoples, from Iberia to India. The Cabeço das Fráguas inscript (found in Portugal) describes a threefold sacrifice practiced by the Lusitanians, devoting a sheep, a pig and a bull to what may have been local gods. In the Indian Sautramani, a ram, a bull and a goat were sacrificed to Indra Sutraman; in Iran ten thousand sheep, a thousand cattle and a hundred stallions were dedicated to Ardvi Sura Anahita. Similar to the above rituals is the Greek, the oldest known being described in the Odyssey and dedicated to Poseidon. The philosopher and historian Plutarch related in the Lives Of The Noble Greeks And Romans a story from the life of Pyrrhus about the sacrifice of a ram, a pig and a bull. The Umbrian Iguvine Tables also describe a sacrificial ritual related to the aforementioned rites.

title: Suovetaurilia


text:
Talk:Battle of Monmouth

Contradiction?
The main article contradicts the infobox. The infobox gives the result as a "tactical American victory", while the article clearly states it was a draw. As such I've changed the result to "Tactical Draw", but I also think something should be written about the strategic consequences in 1943, even though the Allies captured them.

 * I don't see your point. The result of the Philidelphia Campaign has no bearing on the result of the Battle of Monmouth.Mickalos 14:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead Section Far too Long
Makes the article very hard to read. Maybe relocate some content to other parts of the article or delete. MOS:LEAD. A Tree In A Box (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a fair point. I would agree.

JF42 (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

What?

 * "...on July 1 the British army reached the safety of New York City, from where they were evacuated to New York."

Doesn't make sense. New York City is in New York, so what is this sentence trying to tell us? Daniel.Cardenas 08:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not an American Victory
Wasn't the Battle a stalemate and not an American victory? (Also, I originally posted this comment, but I wasn;t signed in when I did, so I decided to re-post it signed in)

 * No one agrees on this. Some say draw, some say American victory. I'd say more say a draw, but there needs to be a source to replace this.-Red4tribe (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I gave a source which cites other sources for draw. But some here are keen on using sources which do not cite secondary and / or primary sources and somehow altering to indecisive is "maximising every British victory". To me that sounds like Gaelic and Latin combined, because there is no reasoning behind it. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

 * I have told you many, many, many times that British Battles is not reliable. Others have agreed with me. Find something else.-Red4tribe (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I have told you many, many, many times that you are not the owner of Wiki and it is not down to you. Actually many more have agreed with me that your sources are not reliable as they do not cite any other primary / secondary sources, whereas britishbattles does. Why don't you stop being so hypocritical and discuss it first. (Trip Johnson (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

 * Here we are. Three sources all saying the same thing. (Trip Johnson (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

 * This was an American Victory for quite while now, not sure exactly how long. But then, all of a sudden, you burst back onto the scene, making all of these contreversial edits without dicussing orginally. None of the sources you have listed are reliable, you could list 1,200 of them, if they aren't reliable, you can't use them.-Red4tribe (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

 * It is not down to you to determine reliability on your own. Unless you haven't noticed there are other people on Wikipedia too, you are not God around here. May come as a shock but thats the truth. How about you discuss it with more civilised people on here who are prepared to discuss this matter. Remember, it is down to the MAJORITY not the MINORITY. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

 * Encyclopedia Britannica added as a source, possibly one of THE most reliable on the net. If you remove it without discussion now I will report you for vandalism without discussion. (Trip Johnson (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
 * why don't you say "tactical draw, while the Americans claimed victory in that they held the field", the main conclusion being that the Steuben training allowed the continentals to stand toe to toe with British regulars. lol is the war over yet? Pohick2 (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is Bias, in the battle of Harlem heights, the British were the ones on the battlefield, but that doesn't count be when it's the case with the American army being the one left on the battle field it's automatically a American victory, not any more I'm changing it to indecisive so everyone will stop being silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davido488 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tactical British Victory?
I don't get why this is listed in the result box. If you add up the total casualties of each side, according to what they're listed as ATM, the Colonists suffered 500 casualties while the British suffered 1032 casualties. If anything, it's a tactical victory for the Americans alongside with strategic victory.

Anyone care to explain before I decide to remove it?--Red Wiki 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

I don't understand how this is a "Long-term American victory"
The fact that the Americans engaged a British rear-guard should tell you something, the British always intended to evacuate - they had been ordered to evacuate the whole of Philadelphia. Therefore the argument that the Americans were left in possession of the field means nothing. If anything it was a British victory because they completed their objective, evacuation Voucherman (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comments
''These have been moved here from a subpage as part of a cleanup process. See Discontinuation of comments subpages.''

Ok, please allow me to add the following from:

American Military History Volume 1: 1775-1902. Edited by Maurice Matloff. From Combined Books, Inc.

A defense of a British counter attack, turned into a victory for Washington. Clinton abandoned the field, hence, a Victory for Washington. I am sure from a soldiers point of view, it was less than, but never the less, an abandoned field, for retreat, is a victory for the remaining army. I argue that there is no draw. Nor a tie, it was a Victory for the American Army. Clinton cut and ran.

How many times in history have we heard such things as "...Washington failed to strike a telling blow..." etc.....Meade should of pursued the Army of Northern Virginia....etc...

Yes, Washington failed to strike a telling blow, but so what? None of us were there. None of us know exactly how it un-folded. For all we know, G.W. might of had a belly full of battle that day, and retired. His Army held the field. It was banged up, but it held. Clinton had to retreat to lick his wounds, and not have to explain to George the III that he lost to a rag tag army, coming out of hibernation, from Valley Forge!! No less. G.W. had other things to do, and that included firing Lee for battle field blunder. I am sure that had his saddle sores flaring. His men just held there own, toe to toe with the worlds most power full land army. I say, he had enough, and was content that he was not heading the other way with his men retreating under foot. I am sure the camp followers / wives and maidens, were quite busy tending to the wounded and dead.

--LcozII (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)LcozII

What happened the Colonial Soldier whom General George Washington had arrested?
I have seen many documentaries on the Battle of Monmouth and they all mention that after General Lee ordered a retreat, there was a Colonial soldier who passed on the orders to retreat and (President) General George Washington had him arrested for spreading rumors, even though the soldier was only telling others what he was told by his higher ranking superior officers. This was before General Washington met General Lee and told him what he thought of his leadership skills. None of the documentaries tell what happened the soldier after he was arrested. Does anyone know what happened to him after he was arrested? Punishments in the Colonial Army could be very harsh, including flogging and the death penalty. A soldier arrested in the heat of battle for spreading rumors might get swift and extreme punishment on the spot. 74.76.237.57 (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Merge discussion.
Please note that there is an unresolved merge discussion regarding Monmouth order of Battle on its talk page. JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 04:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Long term American victory"
Considering the British forces were actually abandoning Philadelphia, I would argue that the results of this battle were more favorable to the British. I don't think calling it a 'long term American victory' is justified and there is no source for that statement either. The battle ended indecisively and the British achieved their objective of evacuating the colony with their army intact. The articles says: "The battle was a tactical British victory, as the rearguard successfully covered the British withdrawal. However, strategically it was a draw, as the Americans were ultimately left in possession of the field, and had, for the first time, demonstrated that the Continental Army regiments could stand against British regulars.[6]" Every battle seems to be an example of 'continental army proving they can stand up to British regulars', I don't think this justifies calling it an American victory. I suggest just leaving the result as a draw, because it could easily be argued that it was a British victory altogetherJimmysales7 (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

 * "tactical American victory" sounds like weasel words to me, as do "strategic and propaganda American victory, " with an unspoken 'nonetheless' or 'notwithstanding' hanging in the air there, as some contributors demonstrate a need to accentuate the positive for the American cause in this war. C'mon boys. We all know who won the war, don't we?

 * As jimmysales states, after the action at Monmouth Courthouse, the British continued unimpeded on their withdrawal to Sandy Hook, and thence to New York. Washington's aims were confused but he had carried out the harassing attack that had been the practical limit of his ambitions, even if the opportunity of disrupting the British baggage train had not been realised. A general action had not been his intention and a set-piece defeat of the British not within his reach.

 * Clearly the battle was inconclusive. Arguing about who held the field or number of casualties is not relevant, and seems a little desperate.

 * The objective of the Philadelphia campaign had not been achieved, so the battle was irrelevant to that. The war would eventually be lost (and was, arguably, unwinnable after winter 1777-78) but that was not a consequence of the fight at Monmouth Courthouse (why "Monmouth"?). These info box skirmishes are ultimately futile, but let's be sensible here. That current entry looks preposterous. I am changing to 'inconclusive- draw'JF42 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Casualties
The casualties listed in the info box are incoherent. If there is some unresolved point being argued,   that is not the place to do it. I am changing the entry to match the text in the article.JF42 (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I see that the figures for casualties in the information box have been reverted. Incoherent figures of that sort are effectively meaningless. They appear to reflect an unresolved divergence of opinion either among authors or among editors but the information box is no place to air such descrepancies, it simply undermines the authority of the article. It would be more sensible to present the official figures and discuss their reliability in the article.

 * The heavy dependence on one author ( Martin, Philadelphia Campaign) is also suspect. Martin, who I have not read, reports by far the highest British casualties I have come across. The book was published 25 years ago and has been superceded by other more recent works, not least 'Fatal Sunday'by  Leder and Stone published last year.

 * I plan to update the relevant sections based on the book I have mentioned.

JF42 (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC) JF42 (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

TItle 'Monmouth'
I am surprised why this hasn't been mentioned. Why is the title of this article 'Monmouth?' The battle is generally referred to as 'Monmouth Courthhouse', that being the name of the village on whose lands the battle took place.

I am mystified as to why this contractin should be favoured.

The title should surely be 'Monmouth Courthhouse.... also known [if you insist] as 'Monmouth.

The disambiguation with the battle of Monmouth would be superflous for a start.

JF42 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Battle of Monmouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311220214/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/history/online_books/colonials-patriots/sitec23.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/colonials-patriots/sitec23.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311220214/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/history/online_books/colonials-patriots/sitec23.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/colonials-patriots/sitec23.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Monmouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218191827/http://states.ng.mil/sites/MA/News/Pages/125th%20Quartermaster%20Company%20honored%20for%20storied%20lineage%20and%20service%20at%20Lexington%20and%20Concord.aspx to http://states.ng.mil/sites/MA/News/Pages/125th%20Quartermaster%20Company%20honored%20for%20storied%20lineage%20and%20service%20at%20Lexington%20and%20Concord.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

American strategic victory
I see that the change from 'American long term victory' to 'inconclusive' has now been amended to 'American strategic victory'. What does that mean?

The British campaign to occupy Philadelphia was ultimately futile. The British ultimately lost the American colonies. Neither of these was attributable to the events around Freehold on June 28th 1778. As has been pointed out, General Clinton proceeded with his withdrawal to New York; Washington's attack, of more modest ambition, did not affect that objective. The two armies fought. Men died. Perhaps more British than American. In the first general action since Germantown the American army performed well. None of these amount to 'strategic victory'- unless the coiner of this term wishes to point out that the rebel colonists eventually won their independence from the British Crown which, I would argue, is unnecessary in an information summary box on the Wikpedia page for the battle of Monmouth Courthouse.

I have looked but the change doesn't seem to have been clearly flagged in the editing Talk page. It would make sense to engage in discussion rather than covertly opt for what I believe is termed 'edit war.' I open this topic here to give - whoever- the  opportunity to air their thoughts on an 'American strategic victory.' Meanwhile I shall revert to 'inconclusive.'

JF42 (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"Replaced "Inconclusive" with "Tactical Draw" because it more precisely describes the outcome."
This amendment is puzzling. It is hard to see in what way the term 'Tactical Draw' is more precise, how the word 'tactical' usefully qualifies the  word 'draw,' or why the combination, replacing one word with two, is preferable. I would suggest that 'Draw' is more appropriate to a sporting contest where the final score can be  calculated. In a battle where the result was inconclusive, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the more appropriate term remains - 'inconclusive.' JF42 (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes by IP User:2605:6000:1522:47FF:3596:F7D8:768B:5AA9
I have been watching this page for some time and have recently observed a massive rewrite and connection to reliable sources by a trusted editor. I'm comfortable the casualty figures given in the infobox match those in reliable sources cited later in the page. The link to a fuller discussion of outcome to the appropriate section also seems to meet the guideline for proper referencing and appears to accurately reflect the judgement of cited sources. While I normally encourage editors to make bold changes, in this case I'm undoing these changes in order to allow the User:Factotem to weigh in. In this thread I encourage this new contributor to present reliable sources refuting the ones already given. BusterD (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I believe I have covered all the reliable secondary sources in coming up with those figures, but happy to hear of any that I might have missed and accommodate them. Would also point out that the result must reflect what those sources say about the battle itself. The result of the wider Philadelphia campaign is a completely separate issue. Factotem (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Lafayette's actions during retreat
Re: this edit, which inserts a statement in the lead asserting that Lafayette rallied the retreating Americans. Neither Lender and Stone nor Bilby and Jenkins make any mention of this in their works focused specifically on the battle. In both, it is Washington who rallies the retreating forces. Other reasons why this and asociated edits are problematical are: I've tried to look up Shachtman, provided as a source for the Lafayette assertion, but gbooks does not offer a preview. Would be interesting to know what specifically he says about Lafayette during the retreat. Until then, I've reverted the series of edits. Happy to discuss. Factotem (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It inserts a statement into the lead that is not supported in the main body of the article. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead summarises key details of the main body;
 * Lafayette's role in the battle is not significant enough to warrant a mention in the infobox commanders section.

Lmao it says andorran victory
Fix it ig 31.2.237.70 (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just routine vandalism - removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

A defense of a British counter attack, turned into a victory for Washington. Clinton abandoned the field, hence, a Victory for Washington. I am sure from a soldiers point of view, it was less than, but never the less, an abandoned field, for retreat, is a victory for the remaining army. I argue that there is no draw. Nor a tie, it was a Victory for the American Army. Clinton cut and ran.

How many times in history have we heard such things as "...Washington failed to strike a telling blow..." etc.....Meade should of pursued the Army of Northern Virginia....etc...

Yes, Washington failed to strike a telling blow, but so what? None of us were there. None of us know exactly how it un-folded. For all we know, G.W. might of had a belly full of battle that day, and retired. His Army held the field. It was banged up, but it held. Clinton had to retreat to lick his wounds, and not have to explain to George the III that he lost to a rag tag army, coming out of hibernation, from Valley Forge!! No less. G.W. had other things to do, and that included firing Lee for battle field blunder. I am sure that had his saddle sores flaring. His men just held there own, toe to toe with the worlds most power full land army. I say, he had enough, and was content that he was not heading the other way with his men retreating under foot. I am sure the camp followers / wives and maidens, were quite busy tending to the wounded and dead.

--LcozII (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)LcozII

What happened the Colonial Soldier whom General George Washington had arrested?
I have seen many documentaries on the Battle of Monmouth and they all mention that after General Lee ordered a retreat, there was a Colonial soldier who passed on the orders to retreat and (President) General George Washington had him arrested for spreading rumors, even though the soldier was only telling others what he was told by his higher ranking superior officers. This was before General Washington met General Lee and told him what he thought of his leadership skills. None of the documentaries tell what happened the soldier after he was arrested. Does anyone know what happened to him after he was arrested? Punishments in the Colonial Army could be very harsh, including flogging and the death penalty. A soldier arrested in the heat of battle for spreading rumors might get swift and extreme punishment on the spot. 74.76.237.57 (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Merge discussion.
Please note that there is an unresolved merge discussion regarding Monmouth order of Battle on its talk page. JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 04:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Long term American victory"
Considering the British forces were actually abandoning Philadelphia, I would argue that the results of this battle were more favorable to the British. I don't think calling it a 'long term American victory' is justified and there is no source for that statement either. The battle ended indecisively and the British achieved their objective of evacuating the colony with their army intact. The articles says: "The battle was a tactical British victory, as the rearguard successfully covered the British withdrawal. However, strategically it was a draw, as the Americans were ultimately left in possession of the field, and had, for the first time, demonstrated that the Continental Army regiments could stand against British regulars.[6]" Every battle seems to be an example of 'continental army proving they can stand up to British regulars', I don't think this justifies calling it an American victory. I suggest just leaving the result as a draw, because it could easily be argued that it was a British victory altogetherJimmysales7 (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

 * "tactical American victory" sounds like weasel words to me, as do "strategic and propaganda American victory, " with an unspoken 'nonetheless' or 'notwithstanding' hanging in the air there, as some contributors demonstrate a need to accentuate the positive for the American cause in this war. C'mon boys. We all know who won the war, don't we?

 * As jimmysales states, after the action at Monmouth Courthouse, the British continued unimpeded on their withdrawal to Sandy Hook, and thence to New York. Washington's aims were confused but he had carried out the harassing attack that had been the practical limit of his ambitions, even if the opportunity of disrupting the British baggage train had not been realised. A general action had not been his intention and a set-piece defeat of the British not within his reach.

 * Clearly the battle was inconclusive. Arguing about who held the field or number of casualties is not relevant, and seems a little desperate.

 * The objective of the Philadelphia campaign had not been achieved, so the battle was irrelevant to that. The war would eventually be lost (and was, arguably, unwinnable after winter 1777-78) but that was not a consequence of the fight at Monmouth Courthouse (why "Monmouth"?). These info box skirmishes are ultimately futile, but let's be sensible here. That current entry looks preposterous. I am changing to 'inconclusive- draw'JF42 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Casualties
The casualties listed in the info box are incoherent. If there is some unresolved point being argued,   that is not the place to do it. I am changing the entry to match the text in the article.JF42 (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I see that the figures for casualties in the information box have been reverted. Incoherent figures of that sort are effectively meaningless. They appear to reflect an unresolved divergence of opinion either among authors or among editors but the information box is no place to air such descrepancies, it simply undermines the authority of the article. It would be more sensible to present the official figures and discuss their reliability in the article.

 * The heavy dependence on one author ( Martin, Philadelphia Campaign) is also suspect. Martin, who I have not read, reports by far the highest British casualties I have come across. The book was published 25 years ago and has been superceded by other more recent works, not least 'Fatal Sunday'by  Leder and Stone published last year.

 * I plan to update the relevant sections based on the book I have mentioned.

JF42 (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC) JF42 (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

TItle 'Monmouth'
I am surprised why this hasn't been mentioned. Why is the title of this article 'Monmouth?' The battle is generally referred to as 'Monmouth Courthhouse', that being the name of the village on whose lands the battle took place.

I am mystified as to why this contractin should be favoured.

The title should surely be 'Monmouth Courthhouse.... also known [if you insist] as 'Monmouth.

The disambiguation with the battle of Monmouth would be superflous for a start.

JF42 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Battle of Monmouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311220214/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/history/online_books/colonials-patriots/sitec23.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/colonials-patriots/sitec23.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311220214/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/history/online_books/colonials-patriots/sitec23.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/colonials-patriots/sitec23.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Monmouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218191827/http://states.ng.mil/sites/MA/News/Pages/125th%20Quartermaster%20Company%20honored%20for%20storied%20lineage%20and%20service%20at%20Lexington%20and%20Concord.aspx to http://states.ng.mil/sites/MA/News/Pages/125th%20Quartermaster%20Company%20honored%20for%20storied%20lineage%20and%20service%20at%20Lexington%20and%20Concord.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

American strategic victory
I see that the change from 'American long term victory' to 'inconclusive' has now been amended to 'American strategic victory'. What does that mean?

The British campaign to occupy Philadelphia was ultimately futile. The British ultimately lost the American colonies. Neither of these was attributable to the events around Freehold on June 28th 1778. As has been pointed out, General Clinton proceeded with his withdrawal to New York; Washington's attack, of more modest ambition, did not affect that objective. The two armies fought. Men died. Perhaps more British than American. In the first general action since Germantown the American army performed well. None of these amount to 'strategic victory'- unless the coiner of this term wishes to point out that the rebel colonists eventually won their independence from the British Crown which, I would argue, is unnecessary in an information summary box on the Wikpedia page for the battle of Monmouth Courthouse.

I have looked but the change doesn't seem to have been clearly flagged in the editing Talk page. It would make sense to engage in discussion rather than covertly opt for what I believe is termed 'edit war.' I open this topic here to give - whoever- the  opportunity to air their thoughts on an 'American strategic victory.' Meanwhile I shall revert to 'inconclusive.'

JF42 (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"Replaced "Inconclusive" with "Tactical Draw" because it more precisely describes the outcome."
This amendment is puzzling. It is hard to see in what way the term 'Tactical Draw' is more precise, how the word 'tactical' usefully qualifies the  word 'draw,' or why the combination, replacing one word with two, is preferable. I would suggest that 'Draw' is more appropriate to a sporting contest where the final score can be  calculated. In a battle where the result was inconclusive, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the more appropriate term remains - 'inconclusive.' JF42 (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes by IP User:2605:6000:1522:47FF:3596:F7D8:768B:5AA9
I have been watching this page for some time and have recently observed a massive rewrite and connection to reliable sources by a trusted editor. I'm comfortable the casualty figures given in the infobox match those in reliable sources cited later in the page. The link to a fuller discussion of outcome to the appropriate section also seems to meet the guideline for proper referencing and appears to accurately reflect the judgement of cited sources. While I normally encourage editors to make bold changes, in this case I'm undoing these changes in order to allow the User:Factotem to weigh in. In this thread I encourage this new contributor to present reliable sources refuting the ones already given. BusterD (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I believe I have covered all the reliable secondary sources in coming up with those figures, but happy to hear of any that I might have missed and accommodate them. Would also point out that the result must reflect what those sources say about the battle itself. The result of the wider Philadelphia campaign is a completely separate issue. Factotem (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Lafayette's actions during retreat
Re: this edit, which inserts a statement in the lead asserting that Lafayette rallied the retreating Americans. Neither Lender and Stone nor Bilby and Jenkins make any mention of this in their works focused specifically on the battle. In both, it is Washington who rallies the retreating forces. Other reasons why this and asociated edits are problematical are: I've tried to look up Shachtman, provided as a source for the Lafayette assertion, but gbooks does not offer a preview. Would be interesting to know what specifically he says about Lafayette during the retreat. Until then, I've reverted the series of edits. Happy to discuss. Factotem (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It inserts a statement into the lead that is not supported in the main body of the article. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead summarises key details of the main body;
 * Lafayette's role in the battle is not significant enough to warrant a mention in the infobox commanders section.

Lmao it says andorran victory
Fix it ig 31.2.237.70 (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just routine vandalism - removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Monmouth