Talk:Life partner: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:40, 22 January 2016

Law Redirect‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology NA‑class Low‑importance

	Society portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
NA	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Examples?

Are Holmes and Watson or Batman and Robin really examples of this category? Dr Watson is a friend, temporary flatmate and biographer of Holmes, but is married and shares lodgings with his wife and medical practice in many of the stories. Robin is Batman's adopted ward, and therefore the relationship is father-son more than life partner. Shinji nishizono (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romantic?

The definition could be improved to include people who live together for life (such as an old married couple or a pair of friends) but are not necessarily romantically involved. Lou Sander (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the article

I expanded the article, added several references and many links, and removed the tags regarding Wiktionary. Lou Sander (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?

Can someone explain what this means? From the article:

"In western popular culture the term 'life partner' is often humorously ridiculed due to the creative way same sex partners have to describe their relationship in place of the term 'husband' or 'wife'[3]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.31.36 (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal implications in the UK

The article says that:

In the United Kingdom, the law includes extensive provisions for life partners who are not husband and wife, regardless of their gender, e.g., a heterosexual couple living together as husband and wife.

I am not a lawyer, but I do live in the UK. As far as I am aware the law provides verry little provisions for life partners in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, although rather more in Scotland. I know a source is mentioned, but what does this source say?77.99.177.8 (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life Partner

"Partner(s)" is used in Infoboxes for BLP but in this context, people are adding those individuals with whom the subject had significant, committed relationships with (say, 5 years or longer). Sometimes these relationships can last a decade or longer. But they are not "for life".
Suppose an unmarried couple, gay or straight, have lived together for 15 years. How is anyone to know if this is a lifelong relationship? This can only be seen in hindsight, after the person has either broken up with their partner or died. But 15 years is still a committed, significant relationship. I'm just arguing that a "life partner" isn't meant to be, literally, for life, because you can't judge in the present what will last into the future.
There is not the expectation that marriages last for life so why should there be for unmarried, committed relationships?Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Context

Just passing by here, but thought there was an important point to add.

This distinction between monogamous and polyamorous seems a rather American concept. I know there are polyarmorous traditions in other parts of the world, but they often involve some religious element or tradition. The context here is more to do with the US and the whole monogamy/polygamy American debate is it not? The very fact that such distinction was made is telling. Something like this just is not an issue in many (not all) parts of the world. Maybe it should have some background information of US on it, the history, legal battles, modern liberalism etc? The LGBT, civil partnership, polygamy context?

US has the most English-speakers so most of the editors are probably American too, but is Wikipedia aiming for an American view or an international one with International English?

PS: Not talking about religion, morality, politics, imperialism or anything like that, just the cultural "lens", you know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.15.7 (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tcharooga, Parteezhan

I removed the item

*[[Tcharooga]] and [[Parteezhan]], strategic [[scholars]], [[polymath]]s, visionaries{{citation needed|date=December 2015}

from the list as these two fictional characters do not exist. I base that on the fact that there are no hits whatsoever on Google. If you are the person who put them in the list, you need to place here, in this item of the talk page, their origin and significance, before restoring them to the lists. Nick Beeson (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 PS: Not talking about religion, morality, politics, imperialism or anything like that, just the cultural "lens", you know?  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2.25.15.7|2.25.15.7]] ([[User talk:2.25.15.7|talk]]) 23:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Tcharooga, Parteezhan ==
+I removed the item
+&#042;&#091;&#091;Tcharooga&#093;&#093; and &#091;&#091;Parteezhan&#093;&#093;, strategic &#091;&#091;scholars&#093;&#093;, &#091;&#091;polymath&#093;&#093;s, visionaries&#123;&#123;citation needed|date=December 2015&#125;
+from the list as these two fictional characters do not exist. I base that on the fact that there are no hits whatsoever on Google. If you are the person who put them in the list, you need to place here, in this item of the talk page, their origin and significance, before restoring them to the lists. [[User:Nwbeeson|Nick Beeson]] ([[User talk:Nwbeeson|talk]]) 02:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)