text:
Talk:Honored Matres

Rewrite/Update
This article can use some updates and copyediting, anyone feeling "bold"? TAnthony 16:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I edited some stuff, moved a few paragraphs around, and split the article up into categories. Let me know what you think. Mindgiver 15:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the singular be Mater rather than Matre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.14.112.200 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 16 March 2007
 * Perhaps, but the books use Matre. TAnthony 14:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Execrable Contributions of The Son and His Hack
Is it really necessary to combine the information available from Frank Herbert's actual work with the garbage from Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson?

Yes, they read some of his unpublished notes. No, that doesn't make their work more than third-rate fanfic that got published on the strength of the Herbert name alone.

It would be bad enough to write elaborate fancruft assembled from original research on a fictional work, that spoils every detail of that work, without the sin of assimilating fanfic into the story's canon.

24.79.6.12 20:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, references to info from the Brian Herbert/Anderson works should definitely be cited as such or split out into separate sections, as in other Dune articles like Butlerian Jihad (there doesn't seem to be too much here, though). I think you may also be suggesting that the prequels/sequels are unworthy of being included at all; whether they suck or not is the reader's opinion, but they do have a place in an encyclopedia. TAnthony 12:39, June 15, 2007 (UTC)

 * In truth, they are both better writers than F. Herbert himself. Far better in my opinion. Most people I know who've read through the whole see the Brian/Kevin combintion as *better* and more even than anything F. Herbert wrote except Dune itself.216.203.27.99 05:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * While I enjoyed the Brian Herbert/Kevin J. Anderson works, I find it very hard to believe you've found that many people who would actually call them "better" than Frank's originals. Perhaps they're easier to read, but come on, they are blatantly inferior to even Frank's grocery list. — TAnthonyTalk 01:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If it has to stay, the page could at least say that the sequels are "allegedly" based on notes left by Frank Herbert, rather than just accepting the truth of that dubious proposition. Mangajunglist (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

 * For the record, I don't find the new books necessarily worthy of being placed alongside Frank Herbert's own, and feel that he may not have made some of the same plot choices etc, but the truth is that we have sources statements asserting that there were notes, and nothing at all to suggest that there were not. Any wording to suggest that the notes do not exist is unsourced editor POV. All they're saying is that they used a 2-page outline by Frank, not that he wrote the book himself or spelled out all of the details.— TAnthonyTalk 07:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I take your point, but think that it's misconceived. There are doubtless sources asserting the existence of the invisible flying tea cup, the faerie king Oberon and Robocop on a unicorn, but I've yet to hear anyone suggest that any of these should be uncritically accepted as historical fact. The fundamental difficulty with your position is that the sole (ultimate) source of the information is the otherwise unvouched ipse dixit of two people with an obvious financial interest in promoting one version of events. The individuals have had every possible opportunity to substantiate their claims by releasing or publishing copies of the notes, but have failed to do so. Without wishing to get into the merits of the books in question, I think it's fair to say that the claims that BH and KJA made about the notes were crying out for corroboration. In the absence thereof, it's difficult to see how anyone can lend much credence to them. In such a situation, it would hardly be NPOV to refuse to acknowledge the considerable degree of controversy surrounding the provenance/existence of the notes. Mangajunglist (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

 * To be fair, they've published images of the floppies containing the notes with labels in Frank's handwriting, and I haven't heard of any handwriting experts coming forward to challenge that. And I think we both know that even if any notes were published, plenty of dissenters would say the boys wrote them, as they are not handwritten by Frank. And I can easily see accusations of forgery after that! The books weren't written by Frank, these "fans" hate that they dared continue the series in any way, and nothing will ever satisfy them or change their minds. Oh, and your "Oberon/unicorn" comparison is a classic straw man argument I will disregard.

 * I put myself in the position of BH/KJA, and the mere suggestion that they are lying is basically insulting and inflammatory when there is no evidence except that some fans hate the books. You can say all you want about how they have motive to lie, but there is nothing concrete to contradict them, and writing any of these articles to suggest they are making false claims is basically slander, and I'm sure could be argued to violate WP:BLP. It speaks volumes that no one has yet produced a reliable published source which challenges the existence of the notes, or even reported on a fan/reader challenge significant enough to be noticed in the mainstream. You say there is a "considerable degree of controversy" but there is no real way to quantify if it actually amounts to more than the most hardcore fans posting in a forum. And I will repeat, they are not saying he wrote the books. If you read a 2-page outline of any book, the completed novel is obviously going to have a lot more to it. Am I the only one who can see that two writers could start with the same outline and come up with two considerably different novels? What is it, specifically, that has convinced you that Frank could not have conceived the basic plot of Dune 7? There were certainly choices made that didn't feel to me like natural extensions of the plotlines Frank set in motion, but they were going off two and a half pages. Give me a break. — TAnthonyTalk 22:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

 * straw man? It's nothing of the sort. I'm certainly not trying to paint you as a follower of the invisible flying tea cup, or some kind of Pastafarian. If you took that from it, then my apologies. The reference to the tea cup is a jocular - but in my view apposite - allusion to Russell's problem with articles of faith. Let me put it another way. Barring a tearful confession and retraction, what is the hypothetical piece of concrete evidence that would persuade you that Wikipedia ought to acknowledge the fact that the existence of the notes in question is disputed? (nb I'm not for one second suggesting that Wikipedia ought to make the claim that the notes are falsified.) If I were to publish my own version of Dune VII using the notes that FH gave me, would you accept my claims at face value as well? If not, why?

 * You'll doubtless accuse me of straw man again, but are you trying to suggest that anything other than complete acceptance of any claim that BH may make would amount to defamation? If so, I think you're missing a subtlety. It's entirely possible to point to factors that impact negatively upon an assessment of a person's credibility without making the claim that he's lying. I don't know Brian Herbert. I make no aspersions whatsoever about his personal integrity. What I am saying is that the state of the evidence engenders healthy, rational scepticism about his claim, just as it would if anyone else with a book to plug made a similar claim. The formulation on the Hunters page ("The authors have stated...") is appropriate for an unvouched claim, as was "It is apparently based upon..." Both are preferable to the suggestion in my post of 8 May 2008, above. Mangajunglist (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Reading my last comment I realize I came off a little snarky, and I don't want you to think I'm actually mad at you for bringing this up or anything, LOL. My basic point is just, by the simplest WP policy, every statement requires a source, and in particular anything putting across an idea that contradicts another or may advance an opinion. To my knowledge there is not a single review of any of the BH/KJA novels that has suggested that the notes may not exist, or even reported the fact that "many fans don't believe the notes exist." Is this because reviewers are afraid of being sued by the authors? Is this because the number of people disputing the notes is not notable? I really don't know. But I have seen nothing to convince me that any significant amount of people really challenge the existence of the notes compared to the amount of books that have been sold, and even if we could use forums and message boards as sources, I don't know that they would impress me from a demographic point of view. It's like asking people who love an exclusive clothing designer (and who post on his website) whether they prefer his regular line or the line he's going to design for WalMart. You know the answer you're going to get, and you'd probably get a different one if you opened the question up to a larger group of people. Even if a majority of members of a particular Dune website doubts the notes, is that percentage of readers in general enough to be notable? I don't know. But I'm curious what gives you and others the impression that a notable amount of people disbelieve, I mean, how many people do you know that have voiced this opinion? How many posts have you read? I personally think Grey's Anatomy is stupid, I have friends who agree, and could probably find a bunch more online. I won't fool myself into thinking I'm part of an anti-Grey's movement worth noting somewhere. Or I can say that the last few Sue Grafton novels have sucked, and I'm convinced she must have gotten lazy and hired some college student to write them for her; if I get a large enough group of her disappointed fans to agree with me, can I write: "T" Is for Trespass is a 2007 novel which Sue Grafton states she wrote? And you know what, if you had a plausible explanation for how you came upon Frank's outline, like you were his editor or his assistant, how could we challenge it? People could still say your book sucks and you've executed Frank's ideas poorly, rather than say you made them up. I'd defend your position dude, I swear! Hahaha
 * LOL, you got me going again! Anyway, we'll never agree and as much as I hate to admit it, mine is not the only opinion that matters ;) So I can concede to "the authors state," which is less suggestive than "the authors claim," and wait until the next person comes along to change it. Thanks for the fun debate! — TAnthonyTalk 04:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Wow, I'd forgotten all about this. The problem with your argument was that it failed to acknowledge the difference between a positive claim of fact and scepticism thereof. Argued through to its conclusion, it would have left you claiming as fact the existence of Robocop on a unicorn if you were unable to locate a source expressing doubt. Your threshold of plausibility sat uneasily with your argument, since it necessarily implied what was, in your view, the use of unsourced editor POV in order to apply it.

 * No one suggested that that the existence (or otherwise) of a movement denying the claims of Herbert fils ought to be acknowledged. But even if there is no movement, that doesn't mean that an encyclopaedia editor of whatever description should immediately abandon common sense and disregard all of the tools that one would normally apply in evaluating the credibility and reliability of a source of evidence. Regardless of the number of times in which it has been reported (I note the seven citations and guess that there are thousands more) there are only two ultimate sources of this information. Whether or not it is true, both have a very clear financial interest in maintaining their position. (And pretty much any online book store will give you a source supporting that assertion.) Although you're correct that the notes would be diputed by some even if they were released, the fact that the two people supposedly in possession of them haven't placed them in the public domain doesn't assist them in any evaluation of credibility. The fundamental point is that it would be impossible for an informed, fair-minded observer to come to the conclusion that the pair's claims are certainly true. the only thing that the observer could be reasonably certain of is the fact that BH and KJA have made statements endorsing the authenticity of the notes. If that's the case, the NPOV position is to acknowledge the claims in those terms. Mangajunglist (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I edited this for npov. The existence of the notes is not in question, nor is the fact that there are two floppy disk with F Herbert's handwriting on them (for all we know, these are his backups of his zork games).  What cannot and has not been established, and thus, can only be claimed, is that the sequels are faithful to the intent of the notes.  A true npov can only state the claims made by the author's in question, given that they have purposefully withheld the contents of evidence that could prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.  QED  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.2.214 (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! Thanks for the laugh dude, I haven't thought of Zork in decades!— TAnthonyTalk 03:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is there a correct pronunciation for 'Matres'? Is it mah-trays or does it rhyme with taters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.226.146 (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Is there a correct pronunciation for 'Matres'?" -- seems not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.82.230 (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Honored Matres


text:
Talk:Van McCoy

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Giving up really written by Van?

I know he is often listed as the song's writer on records, but I vaguely remember reading that that's erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The4thpip (talk • contribs) 13:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Useful discussion

 * Soulful Detroit - Attention Van McCoy Fans - CHOICE FOUR - "On Top Of Clear"

Karl Twist (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Photo
Does the photo come from the album cover from this? File:VanMcCoy Real1976.jpg I think the photo caption should say the current photo was taken around 1975 or 76. 2601:406:4200:8E90:9193:C477:9E4C:FEA1 (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Van McCoy


text:
User talk:Hyskoa

Image:Soulfly.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Soulfly.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hyskoa


text:
Poncey–Highland

Poncey–Highland is an intown neighborhood on the east side of Atlanta, Georgia, located south of Virginia–Highland. It is so named because it is near the intersection of east/west Ponce de Leon Avenue and north/southwest North Highland Avenue. This Atlanta neighborhood was established between 1905 and 1930, and is bordered by Druid Hills and Candler Park across Moreland Avenue to the east, the Old Fourth Ward across the BeltLine Eastside Trail to the west, Inman Park across the eastern branch of Freedom Parkway to the south, and Virginia Highland to the north across Ponce de Leon Avenue. The Little Five Points area sits on the border of Poncey–Highland, Inman Park, and Candler Park.

Poncey–Highland is home to the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, established in 1982. The Carter Center occupies an area of land that was originally the neighborhood of Copenhill, and which was razed to build an interchange between eight-lane highways: Interstate 485 (now Stone Mountain Freeway) east and west, and Georgia 400 and Interstate 675 north and south. The development was successfully stopped by the surrounding neighborhoods, leaving Freedom Parkway in the area where GDOT had already demolished over 500 homes.

Poncey–Highland has numerous historic buildings, including:
 * Ford Motor Company Assembly Plant (c. 1916)
 * Western Electric Company building at 820 Ralph McGill
 * Briarcliff Plaza, containing the Majestic Diner (c. 1929) and the Plaza Theatre (1939), an art-deco cinema hosting numerous film events and the focal point of independent cinema in Atlanta
 * Hotel Clermont (c. 1924), and its basement Clermont Lounge, a landmark strip club open since 1965.

The BeltLine, a multi-use corridor of walking and biking paths and eventually a light rail line, built on the old Southern Railway tracks that form the western boundary of Poncey–Highland. The BeltLine Eastside Trail borders Poncey–Highland.

Around the intersection of North Avenue and North Highland are:
 * Manuel's Tavern, a local political hangout and one of Atlanta's oldest taverns
 * The Highland Inn (1927), one of Atlanta's only independent hotels

The so-called Murder Kroger at 725 Ponce de Leon Ave. was razed in 2016 and replaced by 725 Ponce, a mixed-use development with a new Kroger store.

title: Poncey–Highland


text:
Talk:Cohabitation

Extremely not NPOV
This article is incredibly biased and reads like an anti-cohabitation pamphlet. Corrolation is not causation, yet this article constantly hits on how people in sexual relationships who cohabit have a much higher instance of divorce. Yet it doesn't posit any reasons why, except for the cohabitation itself leading to divorce. I can think of one off the top of my head - people who do not live together in a sexual relationship before marrying are far more likely to be of a religious mindset where marriage is sacred and divorce is frowned upon. People who cohabit most likely view marriage as less sacred, therefore divorce is more common. The article doesnt even remotely touch on this. Reading through the comments, I see over 10 years of similar complaints. If no one objects I will be tagging this article biased pov. Also, why is te talk page tagged with this article of importance to "Latter Day Saints"? All the other tags make sense but that one. I'm seeing a potential reason for the biased tone in that tag. 2601:601:D00:C060:3901:F4D2:E5EE:827B (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Context
This arrticle appears to be narrow in scope: cohabitation does not necessarily connote a sexual relationship. For example, family members cohabitate. This needs to be rectified.

Furthermore, why it is that the first-sentence definition designates cohabitation as a communal living arrangement not condoned by governmental or religious elements? No official statute exists in the state of California prohibiting the cohabitation of heterosexual individuals, nor, I believe, that of individuas of any sexual/gender orientation. What's more, many religious sects do allow pre-marital cohabitation or at least don't explicitly forbid it. So, one could postualate, if a heterosexual couple, whose religious group did not prohibit pre-marital cohabitation, lived together in California, one would have an invalidating example of cohabitation without prohibition by governmental or religious elements. The only true counterargument is that there are some governments and some religions that don't condone premarital cohabitation, and, consequently, cohabiting couples live together inviolation of these laws. However, blanket applicaiton of the laws of governmetns and religions to individuals not existing under those entities (California Couple) is unacceptable as it implies a single government or religion is corret. It also violates the natural right of individuals to choose their political and religious affilitation and to follow their respective laws. I feel strongly that the -"exists without legal or religious sanction."- portion of the opening sentence should be removed or at least preceeded with "that may" so as not to be an absolute. I am not advocating that the very relevant controversy surrounding pre-marital cohabitation not be adressed in the artical, merely that an incorrect statement asserting the universal prohibition of cohabitation by religion and/or governmetn be removed from the opening sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.62.245 (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I will be compelled to change it myself soon, though I encourage any who may have a supported opposition to this revision to respond with there contrary evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.62.245 (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is usually only referred to as cohabiting if the people concerned are in a sexual relationship. Family members, friends or people sharing a house becuase they can't afford to rent a place by themselves are not usually considered to be cohabitees. Jim Michael (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I found and fixed two cases of vandalism in the first post of this section. Since restoring the original poster's words meant undoing the others'...contributions, I'm documenting the vandalism I undid. Sorry if this is overkill, but I didn't want someone to think my edits were vandalism. Thanks!
 * 1. The vandalism changed unacceptable to acceptable:
 * 13:58, October 9, 2008 24.144.30.214 (talk) . . (33,082 bytes) (-2) . . (made it more interestin g)
 * "However, blanket applicaiton of the laws of governmetns and religions to individuals not existing under those entities (California Couple) is [un]acceptable as it implies a single government or religion is corret."
 * 2. The vandalism added a phrase with cussing:
 * 04:27, November 4, 2008 86.147.105.255 (talk) . . (33,117 bytes) (+35) ..
 * "This needs to be rectified and what the fuck is this on about."
 * --Geekdiva (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Balance in studies
The section on opposition to cohabitation is biased in that it shows both sides of the argument as completely equal. I think it should be noted that the majority of research findings within the last ten years support the case for a much higher divorce rate among couples who cohabitated prior to marriage. The line "advocates, in turn, cite research that either disproves these claims or indicates that the statistical differences are due to other factors than the fact of cohabitation itself" makes it seem as though even researchers are torn about the issue, when among academia, supporters of cohabitation as a strength to marriage are among the minority.

20:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)~

For someone who slams the claims of others as unsupported and bias, you seem to provide relativley little concrete evidence of your own. Furthermore, the claim you made asserting the majority status of experts in opposition to cohabitation would, to be sufficiently supported, require all said experts to study the subject suficiently (they should have already done this to be concidered experts) so that their opinions were supported by scientific evidence, then a massive survay of these scientists to determine the prevalence and degree of their impression on the matter. While I am sure that their has been much study of cohabitation and its effects, I can also assure you that no holistic survay of cohabitation experts has ever been conducted. I guess the point I am trying to make is that you, yourself are making unsupportable claims while hypocritically criticizing others for doing just that. Whats more, I find it inspirationally incredible that fellow editors have managed to, as you so eloquently put it, "show both sides of the argument as completely equal" though it seems you don't share my sentiment. Your opposition, undersupported as it is, is based on the realitive prevalence of the respective subjects, contending that more popular opinons should be giving more weight and, from the sound of it, support in Wikipedia. To this I respond that Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, a compilaiton of human knowledge that does not advocate any ideology above another. All articles should provide enough information so that their subject may be understood and enough references so that that information may be verified and further explored by all. If something exists then it brobably matters and if someting matters then it probaly deserves a balanced wikipedia article about it. Any controversies and opposing viewpoints should be treated as equals regardless of differences in support or popularity as all viewpoints are integral parts of an issue that can be niether more or less important than eny other (though I will concede that popularity statistics do have a place in every controversy article). I ask that you not advocate the presentation of a particular viewpoint as superior to another on wikipedia whatever the reason, but rather that you join us in the struggle to make wikipedia as balanced and universal as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.62.245 (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

20:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)~

I do agree with much of what you have said. I think it's important to present every side of an issue clearly and let the reader decide how they interpret it. And you are right, that there is no mass poll of experts available. All I'm saying is that among what has already been published in peer-reviewed journals, studies showing cohabitation as a plus are few compared to those that suggest negative effects. I base my comments on search results for "cohabitation" on EBSCO's online journals database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.172.174 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

POV; US bias
This is a pov anti-cohabitation essay, not an encyclopedia article. Unless it is fixed soon, it will have to be deleted. --Zantastik  talk   23:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I reverted the article to its original text. I recommend other users do the same if the essay is posted again. -  Jersyko    talk   03:38, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the article is quite POV as it is now, even. I mean, although it is no longer anti-cohabitation, it is now very pro-cohabitation, to the point of being un-"encyclopedic." Robotbeat 21:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I absoultely agree. As some who has cohabitated (for about a month) with who is now my wife of eighteen months, I find it appaling that the article is mainly anti-cohabitation and doesn't give any supporting arguments for it, which is essential for any controversial issue.76.177.174.82 10:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

More importantly than the pov, I think this article needs broadening beyond the US. When this article moves from the general concept of cohabitation into specifics, it is always about the US ("Cohabitation has been dramatically on the rise in the United States within the last few decades", "about two-fifths of Americans", "according to the U.S. Census Bureau", etc etc etc). Furthermore, this article reeks very much of original research, particularly in the "Gender differences" and "Risks" sections. In those sections, the OR is close to pov. The references are all American references. I'll see if I can find some European data on cohabitation to add to the article. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 02:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I find that the above paragraph is still sadly largely true, seven years later. 194.237.142.10 (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because an article, essay, or news story doesn't support your subjective views doesn't make it wrong. How long you have personally cohabitated with a person and never had an issue is irrelevant. Most of the scientific evidence has proven cohabitation as problematic. --Supernix (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, why not modify the article then, citing some sources on that "scientific evidence". 194.237.142.10 (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Which states?
According to this, the states with laws against cohabitation are: North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi and North Dakota.

This article really needs NPOVing. It once again has been turned into anti-cohabitation propaganda.

 * A Craven County Superior Court judge struck down North Carolina's cohabitation statute today (July 20) on the grounds that it violated Lawrence v. Texas. I haven't seen the opinion as of yet (there may be a standing to sue issue for the plaintiff, so I wouldn't scratch North Carolina off the list yet), and the Attorney General hasn't as of yet decided whether to appeal to the NC Court of Appeals.  Here are articles from the Raleigh News & Observer and AP.  The law in question is N.C. G.S. § 14-184 (this also would also call N.C. G.S. § 14-186 into question, which deals with similar situations in public hotels) –Pakman044 01:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed N. Dakota given recent events, and added Virginia and N. Carolina per the article I read, and left in Idaho though it's not mentioned. Feel free to clarify, this is just a quick change Mbelrose 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.newsobserver.com/662/story/462833.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.191.246 (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

According to this only 4 states (VA, FL, MS, MI) still have anti-cohabitation laws. The citation in the current article is over 10 years old. This needs to be updated pretty badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.230.72 (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem with definition
According to the article, cohabitation "is defined as an emotional, physical, and intellectually intimate heterosexual relationship which includes a common living place and which exists without the benefit of legal, cultural, or religious sanction." I have removed the word "heterosexual", since cohabitation is not intrinsically heterosexual: Homosexuals and bisexuals can cohabitate as well, provided the relevant laws allow them to do so. The obstruction to cohabitation in cases where that is not allowed is legal/moral/political. It is related to a specific view on social preferences, and not so much to the concept of cohabitation itself. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Sounds right. I was wondering about that anyways. Matt Yeager 01:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert
This article has been reverted to the version of December 7th, in order to deal with the pov and OR textdump. If any non-or, non-pov edits have been reverted with it, I would like to ask you to reinstate them into the article if and where necessary. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 20:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)j

 * Uh, no. If YOU have a problem with the article, it's YOUR responsibility to take out the bad parts, not OUR responsibility to put the good parts back in. Right? Matt Yeager 20:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please look at the page history before accusing me of having done anything, ok? Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 20:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And if you revert the article, please revert to the right version. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 20:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Both the top two tags you placed (the only two that I reverted just recently (after the above comments)) refer the reader to explanations on the talk page. (The section one only asserts that the author of the comment thinks that the section's unreferenced, which you apparently do. I'll leave it until the discussion finishes, in any case.) You have not explained yourself, and there are countless references at the bottom of the page, so the tags appear unjustified. I therefore took them out. Make your case before tagging them (or, at the least, make your case shortly after you tag them). You have made no attempt to show why the edits that have happened to this page over the last month or so are harmful, other than a blanket "they're POV" statement. If you can't explain your case or back it up, then don't put the tags on. Matt Yeager 22:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

 * This line reeks of POV:

''Generally speaking, more conservative people who would not cohabit would also not entertain the idea of divorce. Yet, people with more liberal views would be more inclined to cohabit, as well as divorce more easily.''

 * Catholics are barred from cohabitation and also from divorce. They're generally conservative. That's enough right there to back up that sentence. You're going to have to do better than that. Matt Yeager 01:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok Matt, please take a deep breath and calm down. You didn't just revert the two tags on the top of the page and the unreferencedsect tag, you also reverted to the "heterosexual" definition of cohabitation. When I removed that reference, you basically agreed with me on that ("Sounds right. I was wondering about that anyways." in the above discussion). I also would appreciate if you wouldn't remove the original research tag. I have mentioned it above, but I'll repeat it here: "Furthermore, this article reeks very much of original research, particularly in the "Gender differences" and "Risks" sections. In those sections, the OR is close to pov." If you want me to elaborate on that, that's fine, but that's no reason to remove these tags. I'm sorry (actually, I'm not), but I'm reinstating those tags until the parts that have been mentioned on this talk page (basically all that has remained of User:Mwbuck's 's essay textdump) have been dealt with properly: the interpretations need to be removed and the figures need to be referenced (and phrases like "This is supported by a study, which found that ..." just doesn't cut it.) or removed. It's better to be incomplete than to be wrong. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 12:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "unreferenced" tag: the article has a long list of references at the end. However, it is not clear on which reference or source many statements are based. I have added the Citation needed-tag behind just a few of them. It shouldn't be up to the reader to guess and search which article of the long list lists how many Americans are cohabiting, who has calculated that "one-quarter to one-third of children today will live with cohabiting parents before they reach the age of 18", how many hours married women and cohabiting women spend on household chores, how many cohabiter and non-cohabiter marriages dissolve, etc. Such statements need to be directly sourced and referenced. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 22:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(Breathe in... breathe out...) Okay, glad we're past that. I'll assume good faith here, which isn't hard to do in this situation. First, about me countering your revert... I believe you're an administrator, so you definitely should know this anyways, but just to remind you... on Wikipedia, we generally do not unilaterally revert a month's worth of good-faith editing without discussing it on the talk page. That tends to make people who have worked on the page angry. Of course I would revert it! Anyone would! This doesn't mean that I supported having the "heterosexual" bit in. Silly me--when I voiced my assent to removing "heterosexual", I didn't realize that I was giving you full license to wipe out a month's worth of edits!

(I hope it doesn't sound like I'm angry here. I'm not--I'm just a little unclear on your methodology here.)

On the tags... When you first put the tags on, I deleted the ones that pointed the reader to the talk page for a discussion, for the simple reason that there WAS no discussion! I'm always trying to think, "what would the reader think in this situation?" It would probably confuse most of them, I believe. When I browse Wikipedia, if I find a cleanup tag (or especially a POV tab!) on any random page with no corresponding discussion on the talk page, I just remove it on sight. That's what I did here.

Now that we've got a discussion corresponding to the tags, I'm not SO against them being there... but look at what you've done! Yes, every sentence (basically) SHOULD be referenced as per Wikipedia policy... but out of the 920,000+ articles on Wikipedia, I guarantee you that at least 900,000 of them are not referenced nearly as well as this one was (see Jet d'Eau, Bishop O'Dowd High School, North_London_Line...). Just press the "random article" button (which is how I found those articles). What it looks like to me is that you're SERIOUSLY trying to violate WP:POINT.

So... I'm not entering into a revert war (that's what I'm telling myself)... but the version you're proposing for the time being is UGLY. So I'm removing your "citation needed" things. I hope you understand. (Summing up: The tags are removed because I believe you're violating WP:POINT and you are applying an unfair standard to this article, as the references at the bottom are more than what would be expected on a normal Wikipedia page.) Matt Yeager 00:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * There are a few small points I would like to respond to. Due to a hand injury, I'm currently unable to post an elaborate response. You said you "countered my revert" and that you "didn't realize that I was giving you full license to wipe out a month's worth of edits!" I'm not saying this to pass the buck, but I wasn't the one who reverted the article. I can't say I fully disagree with it (or fully agree, for that matter), but I don't like to be accused of things I didn't do. Secondly, I believe that "a month's worth of edits" is no reason not to revert anything. The warning below the edit box clearly says that you shouldn't edit an article if you don't want your contributions to be edited ruthlessly. What matters is the article, and if it's in the interest of an article, wiping out a month's worth of edits is a sad but necessary tool. Whether this particular revert was in the interest of the article is part 2.
 * I agree that many articles are a lot less referenced than this one. But that is exactly the reason why I added the citation needed tags: the person who contributed the edits knew every source. He/she knew where the figures and the research findings came from. He/she should've specifically listed them with foot-/endnotes, as happens in every scientific study. He/she might not have known how the annotation in wikipedia works, but that could have been fixed by an unwikified annotation, which would then have been wikified by an editor who knows how it should have been done. It is the presence of documentation but the absence of annotation that is the problem in this article. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 13:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. Rest assured, I have not been violating WP:POINT. And the lack of source needed tags (or similar tags) on articles that need it more than this one doesn't excuse or exclude this article from anything. If you do come across articles that fail to reference crucial parts, by all means make the community aware of this by adding appropriate tags.

 * The revert wasn't made by you, but the note of the revert on this talk page WAS made by you. I guess I just assumed that you two were the same person. My bad.

 * Anyways, out of respect for your injury (hope you get better soon!), I'll keep this brief so that you don't have to respond to much... I understand what you're saying, and I totally get your point. My point is this: I think that templates like the three at the top of the page should only be included on pages that have serious problems. I don't think that the article has serious problems.

 * Your point about "annotation, not documentation" is interesting... but what are we going to do about it? Should we just delete the references so that this page becomes just like hundreds of thousands of other unreferenced works? I'm not going to annote the countless statements; I don't think there's a problem (and the work involved would be enormous!). You're not going to, either; if you were, you would've already done it. The original authors are not going to do it; they're long gone, apparently. The "problem" is not going away--no one is going to fix it. Frankly, it's not important enough to. You may be right that it "should" be done... but that doesn't change the fact that nobody is going to do it. So, should we just leave the article in a state of disrepair indefinitely? I don't think so.

 * That's my point of view on this. Thanks for explaining yourself... I guess I now see that you weren't violating WP:POINT... I really do see where you're coming from, but I guess I'm too pragmatic to embrace your viewpoint. I hope your hand gets better soon! Matt Yeager 00:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm back in the game, so here's my reply. The revert indeed wasn't made by me. I posted this page on WP:CU, and Acjelen responded to it by reverting the page to the last version before 152.163.100.202 posted his essay. Most edits after that were attempts to tone down gross assumptions (like "Women involved in cohabiting relationships are also more likely to suffer from abuse than wives") and pov statements (like "people with high morals and standards"). The only edits that were not related to the essay were made by User:Suidafrikaan (who added a link to POSSLQ) and by User:80.201.53.181 (who added an interwiki link), and they were immediately reinstated by Acjelen.
 * I'll ask the IP address to come back here and source the statements and figures. I don't think it'll work, but it's worth a try. In the coming days, I will dig through the references, sources and google to look for the proof of the figures. I will then try to make the comments more encyclopedic and less pov. If you come across any figures (whether it's from old schoolbooks, newspaper articles or google queries), please add them. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 23:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I suppose this is where our discussion ends. I think that I'll leave this page to you... As I stated above, I do think that the page has enough quality references, but if you don't, then the best of luck to you in your quest to source it better. I just would hate to see a lot of information go down the drain because of a somewhat POV tone or an over-applied policy... but still, I do see where you're coming from. I guess you should do whatever you feel is best. If you still think that a straight revert (keeping the PosslQ and interwiki) is needed, I won't revert you back, now that I see the reasoning behind it. Good luck. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Original research issues
I have placed the OR tag on the top of the article because the article consists of a lot of interpretations, assumptions, projections and expectations. This stems from a major overhaul to this article, performed on December 7th, 2005. An anonymous user added an unwikified textdump to the article. Considering the wording, the textdump is most likely a student's essay or thesis. The easiest way out of this is simply removing all that remains of this textdump. There are two reasons why I believe this is not an option. Firstly, it has been tried by User:Acjelen, which was almost immediately reverted by User:Matt Yeager. Reremoving would only lead to a revert war, which is not in wikipedia's interest. Secondly, the references section provides some credible and reliable sources that should not be overlooked and should be incorporated into the article. Using them properly and encyclopedically would imo add to the article. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 14:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Since this information has not been cited or removed in all this time, I am removing it now. --Gmaxwell 06:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Cohabitation cf domestic partnership
How does cohabitation differ from domestic partnership? Nurg 11:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Samaritan Woman
There is a major misunderstanding of Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman in this piece. Jesus is cited as meaning the exact opposite of what he means. The purpose of Jesus' pointing out the Samaritan woman's marital situation(having 5 husbands and now living with another man) is precisely to point out the extremely unacceptable position she is in. It is a not a offhand comment on his part that shows no sign of disgust or condemnation! Anyone who knows anything about Palestinian historiography knows that poligamy and cohabitation were completely unacceptable in Jewish society. --Geminatea(0:46 EST July 13,2006)

 * I think you mean polyandry, not polygamy. thx1138 (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

'Living in sin' comment
The statement: "Such groups sometimes call cohabitation "living in sin", but this phrase is perhaps misleading as sin is not merely a matter of sexual behaviour. " seems to be logically confused. The phrase "living in sin" in no way implies that we are dealing "merely with sexual behavior." Because Christians believe cohabitation (an instance of sexual behavior outside of a Godly context) is sinful, they occasionally use the term "living in sin." There is no implication that this term referes merely to sexual bahavior. It deals with sexual bahavior within a specific context. --Geminatea 1:02, 13 July 2006 (EST)

 * Exactly. The term 'sin' has no intrinsic relation to sexual behaviour. Cf. Seven deadly sins. Aecis AppleknockerFlophouse 11:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes the term "living in sin" can refer to many things but it very accurately describes the attitudes of many people towards cohabiting couples.Tjb891 22:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I think you're taking the expression too literally. This is a common mistake in analyzing language. A fixed phrase can acquire a meaning different from its original meaning. For example, we still speak of "dialing" a telephone number, even though we now use push buttons. The word "dial" has acquired a new meaning.

 * Whenever I hear the expression "living in sin", it is used to mean cohabitation. A quick web search also finds that that is the most common meaning. I even often hear it used by people who do not believe it is sinful, some of whom reject the idea of sin (and sometimes God as well) entirely. In such cases, it is either treated as an idiom with no moral implications, and in others cases it is used in jest. I have never heard the expression used to mean anything else, but then again, Boston is not exactly the Bible Belt.

 * Finally, both the The Free Dictionary, which considers it to be either humorous or old-fashioned, and the Wordsworth Dictionary of Idioms, which says it is usually meant facetiously, cite it.

 * If I could find the original comment, I will add it back to the main article with the new information. Bostoner (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

'Description'
Among "Several common reasons that lead couples to decide to live together" not wanting to participate in marriage as the institution considered inacceptable (on the grounds of its historical burden of institutional violence over women, for example) or "just" bad and/or not neccessary, is not mentioned. I am aware of the (justified) absence of an ambition to give a complete description of cohabitation (indicated by the word "include"), but i feel this should not be omitted. Pappil 23:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)lappip

Statistics used in 'Description'
From the Description: "In 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 4.85 million cohabiting couples, up more than 1,000 percent from 1960, when there were 439,000 such couples. A 2000 study found that more than half of newlyweds lived together, at least briefly, before walking down the aisle."

A few comments about this:

1. The 1,000 percent should be removed -- I think a general rule of thumb is that if the percent is more than 100, then you need to reconsider expressing whatever it is as a percent (and for this case in particular, 4.85 million is 11 times as much as 439,000). 2. I think the stats are trying to show that there is a wider acceptance of cohabitation in the United States. However, saying that the raw number of cohabitating couples is 11 times more in 2000 than in 1960 does not necessarily show this. For instance, if the total US population is 11 times more in 2000 than in 1960, then really the number of cohabitating couples has remained the same. I'm not in any way suggesting that this is the case, I'm just illustrating that these raw numbers may suggest one conclusion, but the truth may be completely different.

3. These stats should be footnoted so that if anyone wants more detail, they can get it from the source (for instance, one might be curious as to the methodology for collecting and tabulating the data)

4. The stat that begins with "A 2000 study..." needs to be cited. I am very suspicious of any stat that starts with "A study from the year...", gives an interesting tidbit, and nothing else.

My inclination is to remove the paragraph completely until those issues are worked out. Thejacobian 22:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Misprint?
I'm not great at wikis, could someone look at this line?

"In Mexico, 18.7% of couples were cohabiting as of 2020"

Year 2020? --76.232.1.120 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Junk reference
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5840263/Couples-who-live-together-before-marriage-more-likely-to-get-divorced.html See page 393 of Intimate Relationships by Miller & Perlman Couples who start living together after they become engaged, and who cohabit for a shorter period of time do not divorce more frequently than do those who marry without living together. Stafford et al 2004. However, Casual cohabitation seems to lead to less respect for the institution of marriage, less favourable expectations and greater willingness to divorce McGinnis 2003. These are studies vs popular press surveys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.112.22 (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Dubious
What exactly is meant by "traditionally" in this opposition paragraph? The whole reason that common-law marriage exists is because so many people, over so many centuries, joined households without going through a specific religious or legal "now we are married" step. You just moved in, and announced to your friends that you considered yourself (as good as) married now. If you were poor, your equally poor neighbors weren't going to turn up their noses at you because you couldn't pay the fees for an official marriage license.

If we're going to keep this language, we need a good historical source for it. Otherwise, perhaps we could be a little less vague, and name a particular time and place when cohabiting was always considered poor form. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight and OR in support section
While the content of the support section as it stands may be factual, it gives undue weight to a minority view. The father's and men's rights communities are active on the internet and in particular on sites like WP and forums like Reddit and Digg, but as a general cross-section of the population the truth is that most people are relatively unaware of what these communities believe or who they are. This isn't a criticism of their beliefs, mind -- lots of people with minority viewpoints, particular as concern civil rights and equality, have been vindicated as society becomes more progressive. The problem rather is that this is the *only* view given in the support section, and in that context it's not notable. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the majority of people who support cohabitation (and that would be most young people in the developed world these days) do not do so because of concern about men's rights. So that's the source of the undue complaint.

The other problem is OR. The section reads like it was written by a member of the men's rights or father's rights groups, who is detailing what he has found anecdotally to be the case in his own community. This is an example of a primary source, and WP doesn't use primary sources, we catalog secondary sources. What the editor who wrote this is saying may well be true about his own community, but per WP policy we try instead to quote what other, third parties (such as journalists or whatever) are saying. This is essentially like a guy writing an article about his own band.Eniagrom (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Mormonism
Is there a reason why there is no mention of how cohabitation restrictions were imposed by the US Federal Government on the Utah Territory with the Edmunds Act and later, similar measures were required as conditions for Utah to become a US State? How about how the cohabitation laws were vigorously enforced there to punish Mormons participating in polygamy while the law was not enforced on non-polygamous relationships? How about the currently legal status of Murphy v. Ramsey in the United States and the likelihood of it currently being considered constitutional if challenged. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Negative/Positive effects for whom?
I think the subsections "Negative effects" and "Positive effects" need to be change to state the facts, i.e. "Increases divorce rates", "Decreases divorce rates". With the current headings it's impossible to tell who the effects are positive or negative for. Are they negative for cohabitators or the religious right? Are they positive for young cohabitators, old cohabitators, etc.

Perhaps a section called "Effects of cohabitation" with subsections on "divorce", "children", "money", and the like would serve the article better. Thoughts? --Scochran4 (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional citations template
This template might be better positioned at the top of the page, so other users are made aware that the article needs work. Then it might be more likely that citations are added. PurpleMousey (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Agree that the template would be more appropriate in the area where the sources are needed. I am removing the template, as the article seems to be tolerably well sourced (not great, but I have seen lots worse).  Of course it can be added back where needed.  Zodon (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Likelihood of Split
Deleted. Entire section was cited by an editorial, opinion article on the New York Times. Section included non-objectively nor without sufficient data to conclude that females "think" are the basis of a cohabitation to an implied opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.51.210 (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * we don't blank out large sections of sourced text because one editor disagrees. read the WP:NPOV rules closely. it require INCLUSION of "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" If an editor knows of countervailing evidence then please ADD it so readers can see all sides. Rjensen (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone has added news articles mentioning peer-reviewed journal articles. I've added in more useful info with the papers the news articles cite, and info on the years that the surveys were run. The number of couples cohabiting in Western countries has changed significantly, along with statistics of divorce. Most people saying that couples are more likely to divorce are using data from before 1996, as noted in the recent surveys and journal articles I cite in the section. I've removed parts that were very POV and OR. Lots of the rest of the article, unfortunately, is conservative religious POV about perceptions of cohabiting couples, without data. Also lots of confusion between correlation and causation. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed POV psychpage source
Removed this section: the psychpage source is very POV and has no peer reviewed source for the following claims that have been text dumped in:

On the whole, couples who cohabit are more likely to have a poorer financial picture because one partner is less likely to support the other partner financially. Statistically speaking, people who cohabit tend to live a shorter life because their partner are less likely to remind them about doctor's appointments or speak up about unhealthy behaviors or risks. Also unmarried men and women are more likely to commit a crime compared to married men and women.

(ref) Cohabitating and Domestic Partnership." PsychPage | …perspectives on psychology in daily life. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2012. Retrieved from http://www.psychpage.com/family/mod_couples_thx/cohabitation.html

If anyone has verifiable reliable sources for these claims, please add them with correctly cited references. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Better quality unbiased sources
A lot of this page has inaccurate, POV, out of date figures, and conjecture and speculation from columns and opinion articles, lacking good sources. I've edited some sections to remove POV text and replace it with discussion of modern peer-reviewed research findings, more should be integrated from good quality sources such as these:

 * http://www.unmarried.org/statistics.html
 * http://www.unmarried.org/briefingkit.html
 * http://www.unmarried.org/experts.html

-- Aronzak (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

More POV sections
This seems very POV, bordering on offensive. the cite: Murrow, Carrie; Lin Shi (2010). "The Influence of Cohabitation Purposes on Relationship Quality: An Examination in Dimensions". The American Journal of Family Therapy 38: 397–412. doi:10.1080/01/01926187.2010.513916.

Gives a bad DOI link and I think it should be removed as a source. If someone can find a link to the article with a working DOI they can add it back in later.

Cohabitation can be an alternative to marriage in situations where marriage is not able to happen for financial or other reasons, such as same-sex, some interracial or interreligious marriages. Other reasons might include cohabitation as a way for polygamists or polyamorists to avoid breaking the law, a way to avoid the higher income taxes paid by some two-income married couples (in the United States), negative effects on pension payments (among older people), or seeing no need to marry. -- Aronzak (talk) 12:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction in Statements
The two statement under the "Reasons for Cohabitation" section contradict each other: "More than two-thirds of married couples in the US say that they lived together before getting married" and this sentence a few paragraphs down: "Today sixty percent of all marriages are preceded by a period of cohabitation"Reza789 (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cohabitation. 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 tag to http://www.aidsportal.org/news_details.aspx?ID=4236
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801084310/http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1142.html to http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1142.html

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) 12:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cohabitation. 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 tag to http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XLIII/457/457-39.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141216175439/http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE30/htm/30_01_000405.htm to http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE30/htm/30_01_000405.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121175822/http://www.eyeontheun.org/voices.asp?p=632 to http://www.eyeontheun.org/voices.asp?p=632
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121210230745/http://articles.cnn.com/2005-01-25/justice/grossman.oldlaws_1_criminal-ban-fornication-virginia-court?_s=PM%3ALAW to http://articles.cnn.com/2005-01-25/justice/grossman.oldlaws_1_criminal-ban-fornication-virginia-court?_s=PM%3ALAW
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402091547/http://www.fcs.edu.uy/archivos/Mesa_46_Castro%20Mart%C3%ADn%20et%20al.pdf to http://www.fcs.edu.uy/archivos/Mesa_46_Castro%20Mart%C3%ADn%20et%20al.pdf

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) 16:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cohabitation. 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/20130617080614/http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/births-marriages-deaths-quarterly/ve-2012-q4-tableq1.pdf to http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/births-marriages-deaths-quarterly/ve-2012-q4-tableq1.pdf
 * Added tag to http://w3.unece.org/pxweb/Dialog/Saveshow.asp?lang=1

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) 21:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is Asia reduced to a handful of bulletpoints?
North American and European countries on the other hand, are expressly enumerated and have better coverage. I would like to make the Asian section similar in that regard. I can expand the part on the Philippines, as I am most familiar with that country and its laws. I encourage others to do the same with other Asian countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverarvi (talk • contribs) 19:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Financial Disincentive
Programs like TANF, SNAP, and Section 8 provide a financial disincentive to marriage. Why would this not be mentioned? Patrickferguson (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Unbiased Sections
There needs to be more facts carrying this article. It seems to be lacking information, only noting the negative factors of cohabitation. There seems to be a lot of one-sided 'facts'. For example, children are more negatively affected with cohabitating parents than a single parent. There could be a lot of other factors mentioned. The same can be said for why cohabitation leads to higher divorce.Tmjimenez (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Spring 2023
— Assignment last updated by Emmalou72 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cohabitation


text:
Leo Huberman

Leo Huberman (October 17, 1903 – November 9, 1968) was an American socialist economist. In 1949 he founded and co-edited Monthly Review with Paul Sweezy. He was the chair of the Department of Social Science at New College, Columbia University; labor editor of the newspaper PM; and the author of the popular history books Man’s Worldly Goods and We, the People: The Drama of America.

Life
The next-to-youngest of eleven children of Joseph and Fannie Kramerman-Huberman he was born and grew up in Newark, New Jersey. Six of his siblings died in infancy. From the age of eleven he studied at Newark State School, as well as supporting the family by working in a celluloid factory, as an electrician's mate and in the post office. After graduating from high school in 1926, he spent two years at Newark State Normal School, where he received a teacher’s diploma and started teaching in the elementary schools at the age of eighteen. He served as a teacher at a private experimental school until 1932.

In 1925, he married a high school classmate—also a school teacher Gertrude Heller. For their honeymoon they hitch-hiked across the country to California and back to New Jersey.

His first book We the People was published in London and he gained a place at the London School of Economics. He later attended New York University and completed a science degree in 1937. He held a post at Columbia University in the Faculty of Social Sciences. From 1940, he became editor and columnist for the magazine U.S. Week. In 1949, with Paul Sweezy and backed by F.O. Mathiessen, he founded the left-wing magazine Monthly Review, and became its chief editor.

He continued to write and publish on socialist topics until his death in 1968.

Works
Man’s Worldly Goods: The Story of The Wealth of Nations , and We The People: The Drama of America were initially written for young people but were revised for an adult audience.

title: Leo Huberman


text:
Romsey Mill

Romsey Mill is a Cambridgeshire-based charity supporting young people, children, and families, including young people with autism, teenage parents, and young people facing vulnerability or disadvantage.

The organisation provides programmes to enhance personal and social skills and assist in education and training. The Step-Up programme offers alternative education for 14- to 16-year-olds, and the Young Parents Programme delivers certified courses.

The Romsey Mill Centre in the Romsey Town area of Cambridge hosts various affiliated groups and community activities. After renovations, it was inaugurated in May 2007 by Dr. John Sentamu, then Archbishop of York.

History
Founded in 1980 by five Cambridge churches, Romsey Mill, under the leadership of Rev Peter Phenna of St Martin's Church, sought to address the social needs of young people and families in the area. Recognising that many might not attend church services, the initiative aimed to serve them directly.

By 2011, the charity expanded its reach, serving approximately 2,600 young people and families annually. The charity now covers Cambridge and parts of South Cambridgeshire, using community venues like the Soul Centre in Cambourne. In 2009, Romsey Mill became a Children's Centre, offering Sure Start services to families with pre-school children.

Patrons of Romsey Mill include Hugh Duberly CBE, Colin Greenhalgh CBE DL, and Lady Wilson of Dinton.

title: Romsey Mill


text:
Volost

Volost (во́ласць; во́лость ; во́лость) was a traditional administrative subdivision in Kievan Rus', the Grand Duchy of Moscow, and the Russian Empire.

History
The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (1890–1907) states that the origins of the concept is unclear: whether it originally referred to an administrative subdivision or to a peasant obshchina, the term referring to a territory under a single rule.

In earlier East Slavic history, in the lands of Ruthenia, volost was a name for the territory ruled by the knyaz, a principality; either as an absolute ruler or with varying degree of autonomy from the Velikiy Knyaz (Grand Prince). Starting from the end of the 14th century, volost was a unit of administrative division in Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Poland, Muscovy, lands of modern Latvia and Ukraine. Since about the 16th century it was a part of provincial districts that were called "uezd" in Muscovy and the later Russian Empire. Each uezd had several volosts that were subordinated to the uezd city.

After the abolition of Russian serfdom in 1861, volost became a unit of peasant's local self-rule. A number of mirs are united into a volost, which has an assembly consisting of elected delegates from the mirs. These elect an elder (starshina) and, hitherto, a court of justice (volostnoy sud). The self-government of the mirs and volosts was, however, tempered by the authority of the police commissaries (stanovoi) and by the power of general oversight given to the nominated "district committees for the affairs of the peasants".

Volosts were abolished by the Soviet administrative reform of 1923–1929. Raions may be roughly called a modern equivalent of both volosts and uezds.

Administration
Volosts were governed by volost administration (волостное правление, volostnoye pravleniye), which consisted of the electable chief of volost (volostnoy starshina), chiefs of villages (village starostas) and other officials electable by the Volost Assembly (волостной сход, volostnoy skhod).

Volost Court was the court electable by the Volost Assembly, which could handle smaller civil and criminal cases. It could sentence people to corporal punishment, fine or short-term incarceration.

Russian Federation
In modern Russia, the term has a different meaning. The subdivision into volosts was used in the Republic of Karelia, where volosts had the same status as raions, and in Leningrad, Pskov, Samara, and Tula Oblasts, where volosts are considered subdivisions of raions and have the same status as selsovets in other Russian federal subjects.

title: Volost


text:
Talk:Buddhist deities

Missing
Mara (demon) and Phra Mae Thorani should be included. The encounter between the two was THE pivotal moment making possible enlightenment of the Buddha, according to what's in this on-line study guide by
 * Google Books references:

--Pawyilee (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Images of the gods : Khmer mythology in Cambodia, Thailand and Laos
 * Buddhist sculpture of Northern Thailand
 * Monks and magic : an analysis of religious ceremonies in central Thailand
 * Making merit, making art: a Thai temple in Wimbledon
 * Spirits of the place : Buddhism and Lao religious culture
 * Diogenes, Issues 173-176
 * Thai Goddesses : Dewi Shri, Nang Kwak, Phra Mae Thorani
 * The Buddhist world of Southeast Asia
 * Gods, Goddesses, and Mythology, Volume 4
 * Studies in Hindu and Buddhist art

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Buddhist mythology. 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/20101006031553/http://www.religionfacts.com:80/buddhism/deities/wrathful_deities.htm to http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/deities/wrathful_deities.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100223060607/http://www.thebuddhagarden.com:80/yakshas.htm? to http://www.thebuddhagarden.com/yakshas.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) 07:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sendai Daikannon(12536113403).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Statue of the Twenty-Four Devas (二十四諸天 Èrshísì Zhūtiān) in Iron Buddha Temple; Gaoping, Shanxi, China Part 9.jpg

title: Talk:Buddhist deities


text: Template:UK-bio-stub

title: Template:UK-bio-stub


text:
2005 Indonesian embassy bioterrorism hoax

The 2005 Indonesian embassy bioterrorism hoax occurred when Indonesian ambassador to Australia Imron Cotan received a suspect letter addressed to him at the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra, Australia, on 1 June 2005. The suspect letter later turned out to be harmless.

Events
The letter was opened by his personal assistant and contained white bacterial powder and a threatening message. Prime Minister John Howard made an apology to Indonesia after the incident, describing the incident as "a reckless act of indifference to human life".

 * "Insofar as possible retaliatory action is concerned in Indonesia, there is always a danger of that," the Prime Minister said. "Just as we cannot guarantee that a random act of stupidity with an evil intent from among our 20 million people will not occur, equally I cannot expect a guarantee from the Indonesian Government that some evil act of retaliation will not occur in that country."

The identity of the powder and whether it posed any health risk was initially unclear; initial testing of the powder detected traces of a "biological agent", but it was later found to be nontoxic. Approximately 50 staff members were quarantined for 12 hours. The embassy remained closed for several days following the incident.

The act is suspected to be related to the Schapelle Corby trial held at the time in Bali, Indonesia. Other Indonesian Diplomatic missions around Australia have reported receiving threatening emails and letters since the trial began. A bullet was sent in an envelope to the Indonesia consulate in Perth.

On 3 June 2005, a section of Parliament House was sealed off when the discovery of a suspicious package delivered to Foreign Minister Alexander Downer was discovered in the car park. The suspect package was taken away for analysis and no evacuations occurred. The analysis has since shown the contents to be harmless but forensic tests are continuing to establish if there are any links between this package and the earlier one sent to the Indonesian embassy.

Various news reports, including those from SBS have reported that the enclosed letter was written in Indonesian, with a high degree of competence. However, this has been contradicted in other reports, see links below.


text:
User talk:John Quincy Adding Machine

Outdated: wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WTO_members_and_observers.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.245.209 (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"ŘČS" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ŘČS and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 13 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

You have been pruned from a list
Hi John Quincy Adding Machine! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at WikiProject History/Outreach/Participants, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 6 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting WikiProject History/Outreach/Participants.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ct2.png
Thanks for uploading File:Ct2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vandalwatch
Template:Vandalwatch has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:John Quincy Adding Machine


text: User talk:68.9.96.165

title: User talk:68.9.96.165


text:
Talk:Ollie (skateboarding)

What is an Ollie?
I came to find out what is an Ollie? The opening paragraph should say what it is, instead of all the other stuff that the opening paragraph currently says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I second that! Looked it up, only to find that this article bizarrely never states what an ollie is, except that it is a skateboarding trick.  I knew that much already!  Also, reference is made to a "switch ollie", and the word "switch" links to Footedness.  If the link is relevant, you'd never know it - there is no attempt to explain what a switch ollie is either.  leevclarke (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I also agree.. Article jumps into jargon mode and never explains clearly what is a ollie.. for us stupid people Camille Lambert (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree also! What is it?!? I have no idea and the article does not state in anyway what it is. Nick Beeson (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Physics
I just removed: "As the tail hits the ground it rebounds bringing the board completely airborne." The tail rebounding off the ground has little to do with lifting the board. People can ollie without their tails hitting the ground at all.

Unfortunately, I have no evidence for this claim, other than my own personal experience and knowledge of physics. Pingswept 23:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe you should also delete everything else from Wikipedia that you don't understand. Tp 10:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Is Wikipedia always this friendly? I didn't say I didn't understand it. I said I had no evidence. See my comment below. Pingswept 23:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Let me rephrase: Maybe you should also delete everything else from Wikipedia for which you have no evidence. Tp 07:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Tp,

 * It's my understanding that Wikipedia has a policy against original research. That makes me think that deleting claims for which no source is cited (like the one we're discussing) would be a good idea. Are you opposing the "no original research" policy, or what? Pingswept 14:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It is true that you can get airborne using a technique similar to ollie but without your tail hitting the ground, but that is the not an ollie. I do not know the name of that trick, but I have heard people call it "ballerina hop". Verifying the efect of the tail rebound is very easy. You can do it with your own skateboard. Tp 11:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Tp,

 * I noticed you reverted the edit I mentioned above. Do you have some source to back up your claim that the tail is rebounding off the ground?

 * I'm not claiming that the tail doesn't hit the ground, just that, since people can ollie without the tail hitting the ground, it can't be an essential part of the manuever. Pingswept 23:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * You made the first edit (the one I reverted), so you have the burden of providing evidence (that the tail of a skateboard does not rebound off the ground during an ollie). If you own a skateboard you can easily try it an verify what the article says. And let me repeat: if the tail does not hiut the ground, then it is not an ollie. The subject of this article is ollie. Tp 07:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It's true that your tail *usually* hits the ground when you ollie, but it's not always the case. Especially with nollies and fakie ollies, you can do the trick without your tail hitting the ground. On vert, it's even more common.

 * The burden on proof is not on me-- there are no sources cited in the article. I'd be happy with the article if it just didn't describe the tail as regularly hitting the ground. How about something like, "Usually, the tail hits the ground, and the board is brought completely airborne." Pingswept 14:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Verifying this claim yourself with a skateboard is original research. Skateboard Science (external link from the article), on the other hand, seems to confirm it (as much as a single webpage can be said to confirm anything). Still, if it's possible to perform an ollie-like trick (note that it doesn't matter what is called what, since we're talking physics) without the tail hitting the ground (which you both seem to agree on), I believe we need more evidence. If that aspect is not required for getting the board airborne (regardless of whether it's required for it to be called ollie, which I don't care about) the statement should be rewritten. EldKatt (Talk) 15:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * So is taking existing knowledge and applying it to a new subject (ie. "I have no evidence for this claim, other than my own personal experience and knowledge of physics."). I request that you do original research for yourself, not wikipedia. Right now you are using the "no original research" policy as an excuse for being ignorant. Also, this article is not about physics. It is about how a skateboarding trick called Ollie is defined. Tp 13:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * To respond first to your first sentence, the difference is that Pingswept is arguing against having the claim in the article. My point: You don't need evidence in order to not mention something in an article. If you write something in an article, you have to be able to back it up with solid evidence, but if you remove something all you need is a reason to doubt it. Lack of verifiability is sometimes reason enough to remove something, without having to rely on personal knowledge of the specific area.

 * "[...] as the tail hits the ground it rebounds bringing the board completely airborne." The way I interpret it, this is a claim that it is the tail hitting the ground that brings the board airborne, which is a question of physics. All I'm propagating is that we shouldn't claim that without a source.

 * By the way, while I can't deny that I am indeed somewhat ignorant in this field, as you so politely pointed out, I can't see how this affects my ability to refer to the no original research policy, or indeed anything at all.

 * Looking at this objectively, though, this discussion is far too long bearing in mind that we're just talking about shifting a few words around. This leads me the conclusion that we are to some extent discussing things that don't need discussion here. EldKatt (Talk) 15:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, I have proven it myself on many occasions, but haven't got any way to prove it. So I will record a video tonight and put it up on a site like PutFile or Photobucket and have the article link to it, so as to end this once and for all. (PowerGamer6 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

 * PowerGamer6, that is original research (unacceptable as a source on wikipedia). heqs 10:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ollie without the pop is possible, if the definition of pop is that the tail has to hit the ground. It is based on lifting the nose a bit, then using the friction between the grip tape and the front foot to throw the board into the air. This way doesn't give you a very high ollie, but certainly is enought to jump small gaps. Also, there is nothing that points that this technique isn't an ollie; it just emphasizes different phazes of the move. The other way around you could ollie without using the front foot very much, which woul propel the nose high into the air going vertical, but leaving the tail only inches from the ground. A slight variation would be to now kick the middle /front of the board with your back foot, which would turn the trick into a no comply. Anyway, my conclusion is that you can ollie without touching the ground with the tail, but it requires a good grip with the grip tape and the shoe and also only a small gap. --80.222.53.222 00:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Revising physics

 * It's a sad state of affairs that five years later this page omits basic facts about the fundamental skateboard trick. Readers get no clue how this trick actually works, or how to perform it. I'm going to resolve, taking the above debate into account, and also these resources:

 * 1) Rodney Mullen explaining how he invented the Ollie, with repeated mention of the "pop", http://www.mumblemagazine.com/208rodneymullen/index.php
 * 2) Physics explanation, http://www.exploratorium.edu/skateboarding/trick02.html
 * 3) Every online resource I could find mentions popping the tail to Ollie:
 * 4) http://skateboard.about.com/od/skateboardingdictionary/g/GlosOllie.htm
 * 5) http://www.skateboard-trick-tips.com/tricktips/ollie.html
 * 6) http://www.wikihow.com/Ollie
 * 7) Finally I will mention that a 'pop-less' Ollie is possible, but has different characteristics. --Air (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankfully the page wasn't quite as bad as the discussion above, but I've removed the POV and made it clearer what we're explaining. --Air (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Momentum
From the article: "Crouching down to grab the board while riding through the transition absorbs momentum and makes the skater slow down"

Maybe I missed too many of my physics seminars while at university, but how does the repositioning of a system in motion, under its own power and perpendicular to the main axis of the system's velocity, serve to slow the system down as a whole? Alvis (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

 * The purpose of the transition is to change the direction of the skateboarder from a horizontal vector to a vertical vector, while also turning some of the skater's kinetic energy in to gravitational potential energy. But the skater already has gravitational potential energy when riding through the flat bottom, as his center of mass is several feet above the ground. By crouching down the skater lowers his center of mass and reduces his gravitational potential energy. This in turn reduces the amount of height he can achieve. Opon further thought, that statement in the article isn't totally correct, so I'll change it. But it remains true that crouching down in the transition reduces the height the skater can reach. Shreditor (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hitler
Just removed this from the page:

"The highest ollie ever recorded was measured at 1000 feet and was completed by Hitler."

It sorta tickled me. Chris 21:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)it is true he really did

Inventor?
In this article, and in the articles for the individuals, there are claims that Alan Gelfand and Rodney Mullen invented the "ollie". Does anyone know of any reputable sources for these claims? BlankVerse 09:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Gelfand invented the ollie on a vertical ramp. Mullen adapted this trick to the flat ground. I've edited the article to reflect this Steve-g 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The claim that Mullen invented the flat-ground ollie at the age of thirteen in 1982 does not jibe with his own entry, which indicates that he was born in 1966, making him 15 or 16 in 1982. Does his autobiography clarify this? Are there other sources out there to confirm when he actually invented the trick? --otherlleft 13:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just looked through Mullen's book. On page 115 he writes about 'inventing' (his words) the ollie. Thrasher magazines from 1982 also feature Mullen pulling the trick which was first called the 'ollie-prop pop'. It's generally regarded that Mullen was either the first to ollie on the flat, or at least the first to get recognition for pulling the ollie. And he was 16, not 13. Steve-g 06:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Variations
I've removed the variations section from the article as it's full of jargon and useless information such as: "A switch ollie is an ollie in switch". Steve-g 08:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you do it
When ever I try to do a ollie I never get of the ground. 216.211.51.150 12:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

records
12.5 feet is 3.6metres i highly doubt, do they mean 1.25metres? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.102.171 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 20 April 2007

There is also a mistake on Danny's record, it was mesured at 44.5 inches, not 45.5 (this can be checked easily, just google it, or check in mags). And there is a record claimed by Luis Tolentino at 45 inches but far from beeing legit and officialized so I keep Danny's record here. 13 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.81.153.23 (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ollie
He doesnt thoroughly explain the full details and processes you have to do to do an ollie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastcash70 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

YouTube?
"Luis Tolentino Ollied a record breaking 45 inches and landed it successfully, it was recorded by Nick Shenker and can be seen on YouTube." I have no idea what the wikipedia standards are for citations, but YouTube? Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.239.45 (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Boneless
Boneless is being redirected here but never mentioned. The only "near match" is "bonned ollie". I expect that "bonned" is the opposite of "boneless" which doesn't make it much clearer :-) --46.244.157.84 (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Trademark
The opening states "This trick is also a registered trademark." but doesn't give any further information. If it's trademarked, who or what owns it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.116.86 (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Date discrepancy
Still not resolved. In this article, the maneuver is dated to 1978, but in the Alan Gelfand article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Gelfand ) it is dated to 1976. The former has citation, but even the cited pages differ. The first (Merriam-Webster dictionary) says the term itself was used in 1979. The second source, mumblemagazine, says the trick came in 1977. Which date is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.168.127 (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ollie (skateboarding)