This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:
LawMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for thelegal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale.

I pretty sure alimony is now about the higher earning former spouse providing financial support to the lower earning former spouse until he or she gets married regardless of gender. Is this mentioned in this article. I mean it would not make sense for the poorer man to give money to his richer ex-wife.The Shadow Treasurer (talk)11:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is, as far as I can see, only about US law. But I cannot se it mentioned anywere, rather it states in the beginning that alimony "is an obligation established by law in many countries", specifying that the article might be about alimony in general on a world-wide scale. The rest of the article, though, seems to be about US law only even if it is not explicitly stated. I don't know if the article should be about US law only, but if it should, it must be specified, and if it shouldn't, it must be rewritten to explicitly state what parts of the article are specific for US law. I don't have enough knowledge to do anything about the article myself, but I added the the globalize/USA template to the article.212.181.133.11611:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi her, I heard, that if your marriage's year and your Age are together hit 65 Years, you are automaticlly get Alimony for live!Is that treu?—Precedingunsigned comment added byScheiz live (talk •contribs)16:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm annoyed after reading this article. Wikipedia is a global site and yet this article repeatedly lapses into sections written as though the U.S.A. is the only country in the world. Even when other countries are mentioned, it's written like an off-the-cuff remark meant to satisfy the hoi polloi. Why does it only seem to be Americans who do this? I've never experienced an article that assumes Serbia is the only country or that South Africa is the only country...Owen214 (talk)09:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... probably because you're not editing the Serbian language version of Wikipedia (does one even exist? it's not in the worlds top 30 languages), the population of South Africa is substantially smaller than the US and has much less internet access (and hence less editors.) A bias towards English speaking countries is to be expected at en.wikipedia.org. Nonetheless this article remains too US centric and should probably be renamed "Alimony in the United States."--Cybermud (talk)16:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The treatment of non-U.S. content betrays an overwhelmingly U.S-centric perspective. The most objectionable infraction is probably 'English Common Law' getting a ~5 line mention which is subsumed under the heading "Alimony reform in the United States." Since the paragraph discusses legal reform in England it is not only improperly titled but entirely irrelevant to the section; the implication - however unintentional - is that English law is in some way a subset of U.S. law.92.29.141.212 (talk)16:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would like to see a section of this pertaining to UK law information on this seems hard to come by and its kind of a fairly important matter for a lot of people— Precedingunsigned comment added by87.102.82.115 (talk)21:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for someone to waive their right to spousal support and then 2 1/2 years after the marriage ask for it and get it?

I believe so, but depends on jurisdiction, and judge. :) You would likely have to show a 'change of circumstances', which should be its own wikitopic. --Fish-man19:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,can a wife (party A) who has full custody of their teenage child (or child whatever the case may be) and be asked to pay allimony cause they made more money then the other? Also is ones retirement/pension be considered in a alimony case if its thought one won't live to enjoy and/or use their retirement?

Alimony is prositution in arears, where the courts establish the fees.

Alimony is an awful lot like Involuntary Servitude.207.5.194.240 (talk)22:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alimony reflects traditional views of marriage that males that must pay for wives, even after the termination of the marriage contract.Why is the fundamental gender dynamic of the assumption of male responsibilityas a general rule not addressed in this article?Dogru14418:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The sexism inherient in it seems like something that would be here.205.157.110.1103:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page after reading about the huge divorce judgment that Heather Mills got from Paul McCartney and wondering about the reasoning behind this. I'm sure this page gets lots of visitors every time there's a celebrity divorce and a big alimony payment is awarded, so wouldn't it make sense to have an explanation of the historical circumstances and legal reasoning surrounding alimony laws?—Precedingunsigned comment added by71.201.191.23 (talk)23:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Child support is listed as being an obligation of the non-custodial spouse, but in shared or joint custody situations, this is not the case - child support is still usually required by the courts, and paid by the parent with the higher income at the time of the divorce to the one with the lower income. I will think how to word this, and if no one kvetches, I will change the child-support sentance. --Fish-man19:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing this now.--Fish-man14:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One issue with child support and alimony is the state will enforce both as "support" if they are ordered at the same time. For instance, if a Court orders $100 in child support and $4,000 in alimony, which is not unusual because alimony is a transfer of income from one party to another. So in effect most, if not all, state enforcement bodies will enforce both streams of payments. What this creates is a perception of claim of the "deadbeat" name. Because if no alimony is ordered , then child support would be nominal or capped by state guidelines, as an example $1,000/mth. So if the paying spouse pays $2,000/mth for 5 years, that paying spouse would be still in arrears of $120,000, and still be identified as a "deadbeat" by local law enforcement and state agencies. On the otherhand, if no child support is ordered but alimony is ordered, then the alimony is not enforecable by the state. A case recently reversed in Todd Nadrich v. Renee Nadrich, all temporary support, alimony, and child support required reversal because the order did not take into account the former husband's living expenses, noted in opionin by the Florida 4th DCA. Basically this case is complicated by the fact, pending the appeals court decision, the former husband Todd Nadrich, was subjected too a 100% wage income deduction order, an equitable lien on his home and the forced sale of the property, also reversed. However after all said and done, the income is gone, the property was sold and the former husband could not even pay for transportation to work or even the basic needs of the children while the former wife, Renee Nadrich, had agreed to a substantial timesharing schedule. It is apperant the laws need to be changed. Every state needs to adopt alimony guidelines, as in a recent case in Florida denotes, alimony is similar to winning the lottery.Ibtodd (talk)14:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add subsequent clarifications to the factors, perhaps in a lower section - I will sandbox changes here, and look for any comments

(Sandbox removed)

Please comment... --Fish-man20:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changes Inserted.--Fish-man14:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

نفقه

anyone read Arabic?--Fish-man23:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commercial links —or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia.Wikipedia is not a vehicle foradvertising or a mere collection ofexternal links. See thewelcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.Titoxd^{(?!? -did you read this?)}04:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was wondering about that....I'm removing the link.Joshcating14:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been the target of multiple different vandals over the past few days. Anybody have any ideas on how to resolve this?Xnuala03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph in question is obviously vandalism and is definitely not written from a npov. I think we should request semi-protection. Almost all of the edits that have added the vandalism or reverted it back are from unregistered users.Masciare00:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, you can request hereWikipedia:Requests for page protection--Hu1200:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I requested semi-protection for this article. We'll have to wait and see if it is approved.Masciare02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a bad divorse. I couldn't collect child support or alimony because my x filed for bankruptsy. My x worked for cash at his uncle business, the district attorney went to the place of business and bought a spark plug to prove he was working. My x told the judge he was just helping out for the day. The judge believed my x. Now some years later my x has a nice house, cars and a 6 figure income, just like before our divorse. We were married for 16 years so the 10 year rule applies for lifetime alimony in California. So can I file today, I have become disabled as well.—Precedingunsigned comment added by173.67.123.141 (talk)23:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think anything should be written about all the murders that occur, usually of wives, so alimony wouldn't have to be paid? Many get away with the murders because it was made to look like suicide or robbery or many other things?Stars4change (talk)04:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, I think there should indeed be a section about the effects of this law—Precedingunsigned comment added byOwen214 (talk •contribs)09:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth mentioning that alimony is actually a form of indentured servitude (slavery), being that one has to work for the benifit of another without receiving due compensation for their labours?MattUK (talk)09:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not slavery in the conventional sense, this is more just an opinion. I think the slight correspondence between slavery and alimony is obvious enough to most; we don't need to point it out to people -Owen214 (talk)09:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate any suggestions on how to better maintain a neutral point of view in this article. I will note that this artical has extensive footnotes. Otherwise, I would ask that the "NPOV flag" be removed. Thank you.—Precedingunsigned comment added byPTiger1985 (talk •contribs)14:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out on your talkpage, the section is clear advocacy and soapboxing for alimony reform. It is full ofweasel words and argument for the cause, as well as inappropriate combining of (sometimesprimary sources) to make points that are not made in the references themselves. You need to find secondary sources, talkingabout the "alimony reform movement" and use them for this section. --Slp1 (talk)15:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slp1

Please read the four added sources at the beginning of the Alimony Reform Section - Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Huffington Post and National Public Radio. These are very credible sources and support every fact in the ensuing sections.

Which "weasel words" are you referring to? Please also point out the "soapboxing" and I will correct. Otherwise, please remove the NPOV warning. Thanks. PTiger1985.—Precedingunsigned comment added byPTiger1985 (talk •contribs)18:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the references. However, they have just thrown up additional problems, in that I note that you have copy and pasted whole sections of them into the article. Youmust not do this. Please remove any other sections that you have copied from other sources (or reword them in your own words) and I will comment on what is left. But to give you a head start.... Neutral Point of View means that we need to be neutral about the issue of alimony reform; putting forward what the significant views are about it but notpushing one opinion over the other. On rereading the section you contributed to, do you really feel it is neutral? No, of course not. The section is pushing one perspective and making an argument for alimony reform using original research and synthesis. More later when you have dealt with the copyright infringement issue.--Slp1 (talk)18:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on the Alimony Reform section to try to address the NPOV issues and to make it shorter and more concise. With a little more work and review it may qualify to have the NPOV tag removed. --Mdukas (talk)08:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked further, I noted multiple other copyright vios, as well as the original research and NPOV problems noted above. I have removed the whole section as it needs to be completely rewritten following WP policies. If PTiger1985 or others want to try again, I suggest starting small, with a very short paragraph summarizing the issue. Note that most of the info appears to relate to one possible bill in one state of one country of the world. Given this, the length and detail was in any case inappropriate, since the alimony reform movement seems rather small at present.--Slp1 (talk)19:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)s[reply]

I have made the correction requested. Also, please note that the reform movement in at least a have dozen states is dicussed in the Wall Street Journal, National Public Radio and the Huffington Post. Massachusetts is ahead of other states, but this effort is clearly going on across the nation.

I have also directly quoted the WSJ on the multi-state nature of the Alimony Reform movement.

I have also better documented the changing concept of the "Partnership Model" with a new source.

I have also extracted a direct quote from the Massachusetts Law School publication, The Reformer, on how alimony is likened by experts to welfare.

I hope this addresses your concerns. Thanks for the help!!! PTiger1985PTiger1985 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)—Precedingunsigned comment added byPTiger1985 (talk •contribs)20:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. PTiger1985PTiger1985 (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)—Precedingunsigned comment added byPTiger1985 (talk •contribs)20:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have left whole sentences of copy and pasted material in there, and you have not addressed the issues of original research, synthesis, undue weight etc. As I said, please start small, with a well-sourced paragraph that can be checked carefully. --Slp1 (talk)20:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely rewritten the Alimony Reform sections.

All text is original - no cut and paste.I have footnoted all factsI have removed all NPOVI have not included any original research - only documented statements and facts from published (non-copywrited) materials.

Thanks for your help! Sorry, I am new at Wikipedia, but trying to provide insight on this topic!

PTiger1985 (talk)22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section appears to focus only on the USA, so I changed the chapter heading to reflect that for the benefit of our world-wide readership. As far as I can see, it appears you have done some very good work here, so thank YOU!Jusdafax22:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks.

PTiger1985 (talk)22:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no you didn't remove all copy and paste material, as you know.[1] Nor have you removed the POV, the original research and inappropriately sourced material. I have tagged all the parts I have found to be problematic in order to help you fix the article. If you have specific questions about why I have tagged what, please feel free to ask. I will give you a few days to fix these issues, and remove the overall tone of advocacy/argument, or I will delete the whole again.--Slp1 (talk)03:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To understand the history of alimony it is important to understand two concepts.1) The English Common law doctrine of coverture created a responsibility for spousal support after the marriage2) Alimony was originally intended to provide 'sustenance' support to an ex-wife who (at the time - 17th Century England) usually had no means of support. Over time the purpose of alimony evolved in many states (but not all states) to providing the lifestyle the wife became accustomed to during the marriage. In Texas and other states, alimony is limited to providing essential needs.

In Massachusetts and other states, alimony is intended to provide the lifestyle a spouse became accustomed to during the marriage.

This evolution of the purpose of alimony, leads to vastly different alimony amounts depending on what state one gets divorced.

PTiger1985 (talk)00:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is also extremly important to understand that women are increasingly finding themselves paying alimony. Also, alimony began as a means of providing 'sustanence' support to an ex-wife without means of support. Now, alimony is paid to spouses, both men and women, who are perfectly capable of self-support. A very important change in the role of alimony over its History.

PTiger1985 (talk)00:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to tell you this, but any post that starts "it is important to know that" makes clear that an editor is more interested in promoting his/her viewpoint that anything else. We are not interested in what you think is important. We are concerned in reflecting what mainstream reliable sources have to say about the subject. As I have said before, you cannot use WP as a soapbox to promote the truth about what you think is important.--Slp1 (talk)03:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the truth is important to know. Don't you?

PTiger1985 (talk)20:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to promotethe truth, then get your own website and write away to your heart's content. If you want to contribute here you will have to follow the policies and guidelines of this place. And one of the prime rules here isverifiability not truth. I'm sure you'll understand the reason when you consider that your version of the truth is probably rather different from your ex-wife's. We focus on what reliable sources have to say on the subject of the article, not what individual editors believe to be true.

I have, as you will have seen rewritten the entire first section. Hopefully this will give you an idea of what is required for the alimony reform section. A few specific tips to help you.

• youtube, random websites (e.g. mrcustodycoach), blogs are not consideredreliable sources. Neither isHuffington Post nor opinion columns, though these two might be considered reliable for theopinion of the author,if s/he is notable. ie "XXX argues that xxxxx".[2] Lots of your refs fall into these categories. Better references are required.
• nooriginal research or synthesis is permitted. Take a look at my edit summaries, where I have indicated that I have deleted OR, and hopefully you will be able to figure out what the problem is. If it isn't clear, please ask, and I will be happy to elaborate. The main thing is that you cannot combine different sources to make a different point; the point you are wanting to make needs to bein your reference. Example... there is nothing about alimony in the article about babylonian currency you cited.
• noadvocacy, which is the big problem with the alimony reform section. It is also way too long. Summary style is what is required. --Slp1 (talk)21:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• verifiability. Often I find that citations added do not contain the information claimed. It is importantonly to include information that can be verified from that specific citation, and not to add other ideas or spin. --Slp1 (talk)21:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The changing social circumstances in the US that are described in this article have also inspired theFathers' rights movement theMen's Rights movement and efforts to reform child support and custody laws.

I am creating links to those sites. They ARE NOT spam.

PTiger1985 (talk)01:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe alimony is to most, a very confusing topic. A topic that can be better understood and less threatening.

For an unlucky few, fighting with a parting spouse over alimony (due to the current vague statues and confusing case law) ruins relations between parting spouses, creates a hostile home environment for the children and drains the family bank account to pay the divorce attorneys.

I have made significant contribution to this section, but I need and would appreciate you help. Thank you.

PTiger1985 (talk)16:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Slp1

To understand the origins of alimony law in 16th and 17th century England, it is important to understand the dependent relationship of the wife on the husband that, unlike to day, did not end at the dissolution of the marriage. This point is misssing from our History section. From divorcenet.com

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/nevada/alimony_weakest_link

<removed copyright violation>I think we should add some of this historical context.

Will you work with me on that?

PTiger1985 (talk)21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is similar historical context to alimony law. This time from CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/05/grossman.adultery.alimony/index.html

<removed copyright violation>

PTiger. You've said you are new to WP and are wanting to learn. That's fine. I'm willing to help you in the process. I've given you a bunch of things (important policies/guidelines) to read, here, on your talkpage, on the father's rights talkpage. Have you consulted the policy pages that I have asked you to read? I'll assume the answer is yes. If so, you will know the answers the following questions

• Question 1. Why did I just delete massive quantities of text above?
• Question 2. Why are both the references you gave above inappropriate sources for facts?
• Question 3. Why does the phrase "it is important to understand ....." followed by an editor's personal opinion ring alarm bells?

I've already explained the answers to these questions, in several ways. But your edits suggest you haven't integrated the information as yet. Please take some time to read and understand our policies and answer the questions above to show that I am not spending my time in vain trying to help you. And then answer a fourth question as honestly as you can. What isyour primary reason for being here on WP? Is it spread information about alimony reform? Or is it to build the encyclopedia? If it is the latter, then it won't be a problem to learn to edit according to the policies here. If it is the former, then sadly I predict that you will quickly exhaust everyone's patience and editing privileges will be terminated. --Slp1 (talk)03:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Value of a shekel = 1lb barley

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/babylon.html—Precedingunsigned comment added byPTiger1985 (talk •contribs)20:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have not answered the questions above. Nonetheless I will draw your attention to the fact that you are continuing to use unreliable sources. You must stop; it is a waste of time for you and for WP.This[3] is not a reliable source. A self-published website with no sign of editorial oversight.WP:RSThis[4] is a reliable source for silver prices today. It is not a reliable source about the value of silver in the past, and it is obvious original research to try and make the point you are trying to here.[5]WP:OR Stop reinserting this without getting consensus. You could tryWP:30 if you like. This[6] is not a reliable source unless you can find that Bob Gaston has published (in books, newspapers, journals) on this subject. I've looked and I cannot find any sign that he has.[[7]] Enough for now. --Slp1 (talk)20:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted all these references and the related text.

thanks

PTiger1985 (talk)21:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you deleted some, which was good. I appreciate that we are agreed that the whole Ur code is pretty much unverifiable. I noticed you haven't removed the Gaston references, references. I will retag them so you can look for better refs. But in the meantime read the section about original research below, because it may save you some time.--Slp1 (talk)03:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slp1 Thanks for acknowledging my effor to comply to WP rules. I AM trying. I am new. I am not big on rules, but I AM trying...

What don't you like about the Gaston Reference? It was originally copied from the "Divorcenet site" - I agree, not the best source. Now I have found the original article written by The Honorable Robert E. Gaston and Published by the Nevada State Bar Association. Because Divorcenet plagerized the text, you may not have noticed the new, reliable source.

The Honorable Robert E. Gaston was a divorce attorney for 23 years and a District Family Court Judge for 12 years.

http://www.adrservices.net/pdf/Gaston%20Resume.pdf

His view on Alimony being the largest source of divorce litigation is from a very reliable source - The State Bar of Nevada (website). To me, it meets all three WP criteria for a "reliable source" - see I did read it!!

It is a peer reviewed article - reviewed by other members of the Nevada Bar Association The Creater (Gaston) has excellent credentials - see above. And the publisher is the Nevada State Bar - one of the 50 accredited state Bar Associations in the US. So, it meets all three criteria for a WP "reliabe source".

Thanks again,

PTiger1985 (talk)11:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki "Divorce" page received 49,000 hits in November, 2009

The wiki "Alimony" page received over 23,000 hit in November, 2009"Child Support" received 14,000"Family Law" 8,000"Child Custody" 7,000"Father's Rights Movement" 3,600"Separation" 3,100

My point? Clearly, Alimony is AN IMPORTANT topic that wiki readers are looking to for detailed information. Please contribute more information to our readers!

PTiger1985 (talk)01:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PTiger. I do appreciate that you have been reworking the article and finding better sources and removing unreliable ones. This is a great start. Thank you. At some point I will devote some time to making sure that the edits are contain only information that is directly citeable to the references given, but before I do that I think it is important that you get your head aroundWP:Original research, and especiallysynthesis. To put things very simply, we cannot make our own arguments in the text. More specifically, we cannot even put multiple sources sentences together to make a point. There is lots and lots of this in the article. This is an example.

The role of men and women in the workforce and at home has changed dramatically since alimony was conceived in English Common Law. 49.5% of the workforce in America and in many other developed Nations is now comprised of women.[22] Women outnumber men in colleges and Universities by 58% to 42%.[23] In 1970, dual-earning couples were 39 percent of all married couples with children; by 1998 this had risen to 64 percent.[24] By 2002, only 7% of all household represented the traditional model of a family with children where only the Husband worked.[25] Today, it is estimated that 70% to 80% of all marriages are dual income."[26] In 40% of marriages women make as much or more than men.[22] But alimony, a concept established in 17th century English Common Law to protect a non-working wife who had given all her property rights to her husband (see History above and coverture), has changed little. Now many legal experts and legislators question whether the laws governing alimony should be re-written to align better with the modern roles of men and women.[17]

With the exception of reference 17, not one of the references has anything to do with alimony or even mentions it. PTiger is trying to show that times have changed in marriage/work etc, but on WP, PTiger is not allowed to make an argument of this sort by combining referenced sentences in this way perWP:SYNTH The bulk of this section will need to be deletedunless one or more reliable references, which, while taking about the alimony make these exact points.

As I said, there is lots more of this kind of synthesis in the article. The Betty Friedan part etc for example, and more. Before you spend time sourcing the rest of the article, I urge you to try to understand what WP requires. We need to start with the best, highest quality sources about alimony and alimony reform, and work from them. It will likely save you a lot of time and energy, and prevent a lot of annoyance on your part, if you identify what is original research first, before spending lots of time finding refs that are going to end up being deleted. If you want help with this please ask. --Slp1 (talk)03:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed this specific issue by changing the wording of the first sentence and adding a source. Will work on other examples (below) later. Thanks,

PTiger1985 (talk)11:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you are trying, but just fixing the first sentence by attributing it does not clear up the OR issue, and adding the source does not fix the issue either. Youcannot combine different references to make a point. A good rule of thumb to start with is that all the references you cite need to be about alimony and alimony reform. Part of the issue is likely the need to realize that we are writing an encyclopedia. This is not a webpage, nor a paper for school where you can make an novel argument supported by such references and where just editing is welcomed and encouraged. Here weonly summarize what reliable sources say about alimony and alimony reform, including, as it happens, that there is disagreement that AR is desirable (currently missing from the article). The whole section is disproportionately long, too, and removing the OR will help with that too. --Slp1 (talk)12:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slp1 Thanks for acknowledging my effor to comply to WP rules. I AM trying. I am new. I am not big on rules, but I AM trying...

What don't you like about the Gaston Reference? The Honorable Robert E. Gaston was a divorce attorney for 23 years and a District Family Court Judge for 12 years.

http://www.adrservices.net/pdf/Gaston%20Resume.pdf

His view on Alimony being the largest source of divorce litigation is from a very reliable source - The State Bar of Nevada (website). To me, it meets all three WP criteria for a "reliable source" - see I did read it!!

It is a peer reviewed article - reviewed by other members of the Nevada Bar AssociationThe Creater (Gaston) has excellent credentials - see above.And the publisher is the Nevada State Bar - one of the 50 accredited state Bar Associations in the US

Thanks again,

PTiger1985 (talk)11:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the evidence that the article has been peer-reviewed? Some links please. Otherwise, the Gaston article does not meet WP criteria because there is no evidence that he meets WP's particular definition of an 'expert' that his scholarship needs to have been published by third party sources.[8] I've looked and couldn't find anything. --Slp1 (talk)12:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slp1

Sorry, I wan't clear. The Gaston paper is published on the "Official Site of the Nevada Bar Association". That is what the cite

http://www.nvbar.org/default.htm

is. The Nevada Bar Association is the largest organization of lawyers and judges (peers), in the state. Everything, published by the Nevada Bar Association and posted on the website is (by definition) peer reviewed.

This source definitely achieves the three Wiki criteria of a reliable source.

Hope that clarifies.

PTiger1985 (talk)15:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't agree that this is as clear as you seem to think it. Websites, even bar associations, post all sorts of stuff by/about their members, and the information is by no means certain to have been checked by peers. Have you found a link saying that everything they post is peer-reviewed, and who does the reviewing? An editorial board, for example. If so, good, no problem. I can't find anything. And I must say that the formatting of the text[9] is not the least encouraging that there is much editorial supervision for this material.--Slp1 (talk)16:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slp1I have found the link we have been looking for!

As you can see, Gaston's article, Alimony: You are the Weakest Link! Part I

was published in The Nevada Lawyer in the October 2002 addition. Hit the link below and scroll down.

http://www.nvbar.org/nevada%20lawyer%20magazine/nevada_lawyer_2002.htm

So these meets all three Wiki criteria

1) Reliable Publihsed Source: "The Nevada Lawyer", the official magazine of the Nevada Bar Association (peer reviewed is NOT a wiki criteria, but Gaston's peers have read this article and thus, reviewed it)

2) The creator of the work is credible: Gaston was Nevada lawyer for 23 years and a Family court Judge for 12 years

3) The publisher is the Nevada Bar Association. Every state has its own Bar Association and they are THE reliable source of all legal articles in that state.

Please remove the rs tag.

Thanks again,

PTiger1985 (talk)16:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)<removed private emails published without permission¨>[reply]

I will take the rs tags off.Thanks,PTiger1985 (talk)18:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait to get consensus. I will respond later this evening. --Slp1 (talk)19:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. One last comment. I think part of your discomfort with Gaston and, perhaps other sources, is that they are State Journals, not National Journals. "HOw is a divorce judge in Nevada, no matter how qualified, an authority on divorce law?" This may be what you are thinking? However, keep in mind that all divorce law is under US State jurisdiction. So, you won't find articles discussing divorce law at the National level in Journals like that of the American Bar Associsation or the National Law Review. The state based Journals, published by the State Bar Association and the State law Schools are the most authoritative and reliable (and only) source of divorce law information in the US.

Again, here is the link provided by The Nevada Bar Association on the process to submitt an article

http://www.nvbar.org/publications/pdf/NVSubmitGuide.pdf

As you know from the e-mail, all articles from this Journal are reviewed by an "Editorial Review Board" before publication.

So, again, back to the 3 Wiki criteria governing "reliable" sources:1) We have a piece of work by Gaston, laying out one argument for Alimony Reform. A piece that has been written by an expert and reviewed by an editorial board.2) You have a Pulication - The Nevada Lawer - that is the Official magazine of the Nevada State Bar. The Nevada state Bar is the official State wide organization representing and, more important, creditentialing (administering state based bar exams to deter who can practice law in Nevada and who cannot) all lawyers in the State. Again, divorce law is under state jurisdiction, not National jurisdiction, so most all sources on Alimony and Alimony reform are going to come from Journals from the State Bar Associations or Law Schools.3) Gaston is a very credible and reliabe author - 23 years of divorce law practice followed by 12 years as a family court Judge.

This is as good a source on US Divorce Law as we are going to find. This is a much better source than some hack in the WSJ or NYT or NPR trying to understand Divorce law from the remote standpoint of a national (layman) journalist.

Hope that helps.PTiger1985 (talk)20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start off by saying that yes, as the article has been published in a the Nevada Lawyer, then yes, it can be considered a reliable source. However, I'll take the opportunity to correct a few apparent misconceptions. I'm not sure where you got the idea that there are 3 criteria for being a reliable source, but this isn't correct. The definition is "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This an article published in the Nevada Lawyer meets. It is only when articles are self-published that the notion of 'expert' comes into play. WP's guidelines are very clear about what constitutes an 'expert', and Gaston's years of experience, or your view of his credibility are irrelevant. What would be relevant is if he has published books, journal articles etc on the subject. And no, bar Associations are not "THE reliable source of all legal articles in that state" per WP. Their journals likely would be, their magazines probably are, their newsletter could be etc. It all depends whether and how much checking of content is going on. Andpeer review involves a good deal more than have peers read you work after it has been published!

A couple of important points.

• I don't feel discomfort about sources, and it is generally not the greatest idea to speculate on what others are thinking. As it happens, I am giving and will continue to give you my opinion on whether the sources you find are considered reliable sources based on our guidelines and policies. Websites generally aren't reliable sources, and I told you that, and how you would need to find a good publication history for Gaston to make his self-published article a suitable source. Once you found that it had originally been published in the Nevada Lawyer that became moot. I will however say that the Nevada Lawyer magazine is not a top quality source for this subject. I'm particularly concerned about the 'research' he quotes. If it was a good study then it should have been published in more detail elsewhere, and if not, it is of questionable value and significance. In any case, rather than magazines, a scholarly journal or legal texts/reviews would be much preferred. The higher quality te better. And please note that there are lots of journal articles out there.[10]
• Contacting people off WP as you did is not a way to "prove" anything here on WP. As you can imagine, anybody could make up any number of fake emails and post them. I'm sure you didn't but that kind of original research just does not fly. And it wasmost inappropriate to post it. I really hope you realize the seriousness of the breach of privacy that you committed, given the info you posted.

So, yes, I will remove the reliable source questioning for the Gaston article. I'd really like to see you addressing the Original Research issue as you edit though. I don't currently have time, but I will go through the article at some point and prune the most obvious stuff, but it would be good if you could see your way to do it first. --Slp1 (talk)02:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slp1

This comes from the Boston Globe. Others sources support this fact: alimony was at one point ordered as part of a finding of marital fault. When states adopted "no fault" divorce laws, this notion that alimony was linked to fault ceased and alimony continued.

FromAdrianne Walker in theBoston Globe

"Like most states, Massachusetts divorce law changed in the 1970s, the golden era of no-fault divorce. But while divorce changed, alimony really didn’t. The idea that the lower-earning spouse needed and deserved to be supported for life in some approximation of their old lifestyle was simply too deeply ingrained."Boston Globe, Alimony Agony.

Please read the the section. This is a fact in the evolotion of alimony. Stop threatening me for adding "original content"!!

PTiger1985 (talk)21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of it is there, but you have added some additional information that isn't. --Slp1 (talk)21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Adrianne Walker is not an "activist". He is a well regarded reporter at the Boston Globe. What evidence to you have that he is an "activist"??PTiger1985 (talk)21:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's introduced as the opinion from Stephen Hitner of the alimony reform movement..."His argument, stripped of expletives....". His opinion is also misleading for the history session, since by then, alimony was not being given only if one person was at fault. --Slp1 (talk)21:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slp1

I completely disagree.Walker is obviously paraphrasing Hitner in theprevious paragraph on an entirely different point - that alimony should help a spouse weather the economic dislocation of divorce, not be forever.

"His argument, stripped of expletives, is that the legitimate purpose of alimony is to help people weather the economic dislocation of divorce, as opposed to maintaining a certain lifestyle forever."

Walker's next paragraph has nothing to do with Hitner or temporary v. permanent alimony. That is why he starts a new paragraph.

"Like most states, Massachusetts divorce law changed in the 1970s, the golden era of no-fault divorce. But while divorce changed, alimony really didn’t. The idea that the lower-earning spouse needed and deserved to be supported for life in some approximation of their old lifestyle was simply too deeply ingrained." This held true even for spouses clearly capable of supporting themselves. Pierce’s wife was making $95,000 a year when this case began, with close to $1 million in various retirement and other accounts - although she, like her former husband, is now retired." Please review this again and stop racing to snap judgements.

Also, please readGaston's section "History of Alimony". It is long, but he makes the same points:

"Initially the decisions emphasized the "bad acts" of the husband (1882)....More recently, inRodriquez(Nov 2000) the Supreme Court clarified the isue of "fault" or by holding that the trial court was no longer permitted to consider misconduct of either of the parties when considering alimony."

Also, inSciarrino, the very same point is made:

"It was buttressed by the fact tha the courts found marriage to be a contract, fault to be a breach of contract, and that most women were without means. Though today such rationales have been eroded by no fault divorce...."

It is a complete statement of fact, not opinion or original research, supported by three different credible sources to say that:

In the 1970's, most states moved away from the the notion that alimony should be paid in cases of marital fault when they adopted "No Fault" divorce laws. Even in "No Fault" divorce states, higher earning spouses continued to pay lesser earning spouses life time support

This belongs in the History of Alimony as it is an important evolution in the history. Please stop badgering me on this. I think you have an EXTREME bias on this topic.

PTiger1985 (talk)22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asingle purpose account claiming that I am biased has happened before and no doubt it will happen again. If you want to complain about me, feel free to go to theadministrators noticeboard and make a post. A couple of things.

• I can only go on what you offer as sources. You added information from the "Alimony Agony' Boston Globe article (a rather polemic newspaper article that is hardly the best source, as you have pointed out yourself). We can argue about whether the Hytner is still being referenced in the second paragraph; the fact that par. 2 is an expansion of Hytner's argument and includes references to the lifestyle issue makes me think he is, but anyway. The fact is the articledoes not make any direct connection between marital fault and alimony. You may be correct to read between the lines, but it really is not there in black and white.
• Now you have found cited some other sources. Thank you. Much better and much clearer. Sciarrino is the best source and could be used to make at least part of the point you wish to. However, note that Sciarrino's thrust is very different from the one you wish to include, which seeks to emphasize that the paying, rather than the financial need as Sciarrina does. This is what Sciarrina says after your ellipsis:"Though today such rationales have been eroded by no-fault divorce, and the blurring of gender roles, the practical reality is that women remain financially dependent in many marriages. Alimony is now used ostensibly to not only support a spouse, but in many cases to allow him or her to become financially independent, or to live in the style he or she was accustomed to in the marriage. Of course, the latter seldom occurs." This article[11] from the Florida State Law Review, also very high quality scholarly source, actually contradicts the point you would like to make directly:"However, after the advent of no-fault divorce, permanent alimony fell out of favor because it interfered with the “free exit” from marriage allowed by the new no-fault divorce laws" and"Ever since the advent of “nofault” divorce law, women have been significantly adversely affected by divorce" and"Despite its good intentions, no-fault divorce law and its accompanying rationale of conditional spousal support have caused the postdivorce economic situations of women to considerably decline." I think you'll find this McCoy article a very good, impartial review of the subject, and it includes some of the points that alimony activists seem to like to emphasize (as well as some they don't). I think the review will be a great source for article.

All of which is to say, now we have the Sciarrino and McCoy references, I think you are right that the ending of fault divorce did influence spousal support payments, it appears to women's disadvantage. --Slp1 (talk)00:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slp1Again, in your rush to drive your agenda and prove me wrong, you have failed to read carefully. Your ONE source that you hold up against my THREE is not even a lawyer, nor a judge. She is law student. See the footnote on the VERY FIRST PAGE.

The following statement is true:

In the 1970's, most states moved away from the the notion that alimony should be paid in cases of marital fault when they adopted "No Fault" divorce laws. Even in "No Fault" divorce states, higher earning spouses continued to pay lesser earning spouses life time support.

Your source, as un reliabe as it is (you should really read the wiki rules on credible sources) doesn't even contract this point.

Again, please stop expressing your pro-woman views here and stick to helping me write a fact based article on Alimony.

PTiger1985 (talk)00:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you doubt McCoy and the Florida State Law Review as a reliable source, do make a post at thereliable sources noticeboard. I will abide by whatever they say, but I can pretty much guarantee that a scholarly journal will be deemed a reliable source. Curious too that you would object to McCoy based on her being a JD student, since Barbara von Hauzen, Esq. who you have cited by name in the article, and who published her article in the much less prestigious "The Reformer" magazine,[12] is also a student, thanking her supervisor and all. --Slp1 (talk)01:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you'll note that despite McCoy's comments (supported by several research studies) about how women have suffered financially from no-fault divorce, I haven't actually included in the article, and in fact have added several chunks of text that support the arguments of alimony activists, sourced to her article.--Slp1 (talk)01:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slp1 Do you know what the "Esq." in Barbara von Hauzen, Esq means? Again, why are you rushing to fight me on this and drive your own POV? As a Wiki Editor, with your enhanced editorial power, that doesn't seem fair.

McCoy is a law student. My sources are Gaston(a lawyer with 23 years and a judge for 12), Walker (a reporter for theBoston Globe and Sciarrino (A. Sciarrino: LL.M. Wisconsin. M.A.R. Yale Divinity School. Associate Professor of Business Law, State University of New York at Geneseo. S. Duke: JD University of San Diego. Private Practice in New York State.)

I really don't think you should be re-writing the entire Alimony section based on an article by a law student.

I am tired. I had a bad day at work. I am going to give it a break for a while. I suggest you do the same.

We can come back at this with cooler heads later.

PTiger1985 (talk)02:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have POV, that the article should be well-sourced and should not be used for advocacy, unreliable sources, original research and unverifiable material. If that means you think I have another kind of POV, so be it. Since a person with your user name (with or without the P) has made pro-alimony reform posts on other websites, I strongly suspect you came here with a purpose, and unfortunately the slant of your edits including what material you object to, have consistently confirmed this. Now, in some areas your edits have become closer to policy in recent days, but there are some areas that still need work. That includes the fact that the article needs to be accurate and neutral, and it cannot be an advertisement for the views of alimony reform advocates. By all means take a break. I probably will too. BTW I don't have any enhanced editorial power. At first I may have responded as an administrator, but I have edited the article now, so I am just like you, a regular editor. --Slp1 (talk)02:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears each states reacted to no-fault divorce laws differently as you pointed out with Florida. The text has been revised to show this state by state difference. Hope you concur.

Despite the similarity to a previous editor "with an axe to grind", this is my very first time on Wiki. I am trying to keep to a NPOV. Thanks for your help in this. I think we are keeping each other in balance.PTiger1985 (talk)12:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a ton of info in the US section that only refers to Mass. Please break that out. Mass is a state ruled by very old case law and is out of step with the general US. It is a poor example in the general US section. There is enough there to breakout a section specific to Mass.SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That's interesting.... didn't know that about Mass, but it certainly makes sense, given that so many of the sources are about Mass. There's also masses of original research and repetition, and other problems like unreliable sources, and advocacy/argument that needs to be dealt with. --Slp1 (talk)02:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a credible source, Dr. Felix M. Berardo,http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:9ZTeIJknK8wJ:www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fberardo/+Felix+Berardo&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

on the impact of hostility around alimony on children

"Even if its use has declined, alimony can continue to cloud relationships after the marriage is formally dissolved. “It has very profound implications for the emotional and economic well-being of the former spouse, not to mention the children,” he said.The payments can keep the initial hostility alive in divorced couples, especially if the man wants to remarry but doesn’t think he can afford to."

This is from the University of Florida News.http://news.ufl.edu/2001/05/21/alimony/

Is this a reliabe source for the following sentence to be added to the Alimony Article?

"Alimony can negatively impact relationships between ex-spouses even after the dissolution of the marriage. This has a profound impact on the well being of parting spouses and their children."

http://news.ufl.edu/2001/05/21/alimony/—Precedingunsigned comment added byPTiger1985 (talk •contribs) 23:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)PTiger1985 (talk)23:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a reliable source, though finding and citing scholarly articles written by Berardo would be preferred. It was a good idea to ask if you weren't sure. I'd disagree that "implications" (in the article) is the same as "impact" (in your version), however. It would also be good to see you use this and other citations neutrally, rather than just emphasizing the points that give support to the "alimony is bad/needs reforming" meme. For example, Berardo and the article emphasizes that alimony is quite rarely given these days, especially permanent alimony. These things need to be included in a neutral article.--Slp1 (talk)23:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this section for additions and comments before I post it in the article.

Unlike in the U.S. where state laws dominate, divorce in Canada is governed by Federal Law. During the 1980's the Supreme Court of Canada embraced the notion of economic "clean break" between parting spouses. It also supported the principle of alimony as a means of providing temporary support even in long term marriages.Cite error:The<ref> tag has too many names (see thehelp page). However, in subsequent rulings in the 1990's (Moge v. Moge and Bracklow v. Bracklow) the court revised its view on alimony leaving divorce law in Canada in a state of flux.Cite error:The<ref> tag has too many names (see thehelp page). At this point, some reform advocates promoted the passage of statutory guidelines, but these efforts were initially rejected due to a concern that statutes would lack necessary flexibility. In 1997, Canada adopted Child Support guidelines which were considered a success. The success of Child Support guidelines in Canada combined with alimony reform efforts in the U.S.A led many to reconsider the benefits of Alimony guidelines.Cite error:The<ref> tag has too many names (see thehelp page).

To address the controversial issue of spousal support reform, the federal government created an advisory group to develop recommendations and propose support guidelines if appropriate. The adviory group, consisting of Judges, attorneys, academics and bureaucrats, proposed the first draft spousal support advisory guidelines (SSAG) in January of 2005.< ref name = "Oldham" p. 440 /> The final version of the SSAG was released in 2008 and recommended guidelines for amount and duration of alimony. For marriages without any minor children, the guidelines recommended 1.5% to 2.0% of the difference between spouses incomes multiplied by the number of years of the marriage. More complex formula were developed for divorces involving minor children. The recommendation of duration of alimony was for one half to one year for every year of the marriage. The acceptance of the SSAG depends upon the Supreme Court of Canada which has yet to hear a case based on these guidelines.Cite error:The<ref> tag has too many names (see thehelp page).

Comments appreciated.PTiger1985 (talk)20:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start, and certainly a good idea to increase the global scope of the article. However, I don't believe this version accurately summarizing the contents of the original article[13], tending to minimize or omit aspects which fit less well into a US alimony reformer's point of view. For example, the summary above omits why the Supreme Court revised its opinion (ans: because spouses who had undertaken domestic responsibilities needed to be compensated for their reduced income/employment prospects; or needed support for illness/disability). (You can find more details here[14]) While detailing the percentages etc of the SSAG, the "presumption of indefinite support after twenty years of marriage" is omitted. This selective approach to sources has occurred with other references, (e.g. McCoy, and the discussion of a Pennsylvania Senate Bill that isgiven 3 lines of text but which a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee says doesn't have strong support, stating that she "would be surprised if it moved any time soon"). These need to be corrected at some point. I don't have time at present but will certainly get to it at some point.

A couple of other points to think about. WP is nota collection of indiscriminate information or a how-to-guide. For example, unless the Kaufman guidelines are notable (as evidenced by independent sources), they are not appropriate for inclusion. We seek to summarize. There is a lot of detail, in the article and in the proposed above, that would be better condensed. A final, and a very minor point, is that as a global encyclopedia, we don't use the US as the centre/focus/point of comparison. All countries are equal, if you know what I mean. So it is best to avoid statements in a Canadian section such as"Unlike in the U.S. where state laws dominate, divorce in Canada is governed by Federal Law." Like I said, a very minor point.--Slp1 (talk)13:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order to not violate the wiki policies regarding potential self-promotion, I am not editing the article directly. However, I have done significant research into various alimony formulas used in other jurisdictions across the United States, and particularly in Massachusetts. I have compiled these formulas into a calculator and have described the resources of these formulas at length in an article (including various state statutes and/or organization recommendations such as the AAML). This seems like the type of information that could be useful to have in the wiki and so I am posting links to it here in case someone more neutral than me agrees. The calculator is available athttp://www.alimonyformula.com andhttp://familylaw.kelseytrask.com/spousalsupport.htm. The article is available athttp://www.alimonyformula.com/SpousalSupportCalculator.pdf andhttp://familylaw.kelseytrask.com/SpousalSupport.pdf

If you agree with me that these formulas should be discussed in the wiki article then please feel free to review the resources in the endnotes of our article as well as to contact me through our above-referenced websites for any further information that might be useful.—Precedingunsigned comment added byJlkelsey (talk •contribs)04:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article I got an idea why alimony was introduced in the first place, but that was long time ago, when this was basically a penalty for marital infidelity and also because women rarely had income of their own.

Today in most places there is the no-fault divorce and women work. Why alimony still exists? Article doesn't explain this. Article says "because the other party got accustomed to particular lifestyle". So how is this different from when an employee has high income and as a consequence gets accustomed to the particular lifestyle? Should there be the law requiring an employer to keep paying the ex-employee salary in cases when they didn't manage to find another high paying job?

Is alimony perceived as a relict from the past? Does it make sense to majority? Or most people don't care? Or maybe women support it because they are statistically on the receiving end and men don't care enough to change it? In any case, article should elaborate on alimony meaning it today's world.Yurivict (talk)23:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "In the 1970s, the United States Supreme Court ruled against gender bias in alimony awards, and the percentage of alimony recipients who are male rose to 3.6% in 2006." The reference is to an article about men receiving alimony, but I could not find a reference for the Supreme Court decision. Can this be made more specific? I've looked for the case in question but cannot find it, unless this is a reference to Orr v. Orr 440 U.S. 268, 99 S. Ct. 1102, 59 L. Ed. 2d 306 (1979). I feel like I can't put that in the article without knowing for sure that that was the case being referred to.Thanks, --Bluejay Young (talk)15:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Unions and Heteronormativity in this Article. This article is very well informed in avoiding gender bias in such a gender charged issue. However, despite haphazardly including civil unions in parenthesis as an alternative for marriage, it does disregard the role of non-heterosexual unions in the issue of alimony. This page could greatly benefit form including at least a section about the implications of Civil Unions for alimonial law. The article goes into great detail describing several factors that contribute to the controversy of alimony including health, gender, fault, finances, the list goes on. It only makes sense for the article to at least cite sexuality as one of the factors. It also focuses on the history on alimony in the US specifically and how its definition and the laws surrounding it have evolved. It is a large oversight to not include the history of the LGBTQ rights movement and the emergence of Civil Unions as a complicating factor to the progression of defining alimony. Interestingly enough, the article seems to evolve from heteronormative to inclusive language as it progresses. For instance, at the beginning of the article, the author describes alimony as a legal agreement between husband and wife. Starting towards the middle of the article, however, the authors abandon this binary and opt for more inclusive language like “spouses” or “partners.” While the article ends using more inclusive diction, the entire article could use and overhaul to correct these errors from the very beginning. This I propose a critical look at the gendered language describing the couples in question and a section that addresses LGBTQ implications on alimony.— Precedingunsigned comment added byMfinckCalpoly8 (talk •contribs)05:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could the article at least link to some? How much and how often are the questions I wanted to see answered. --82.128.250.221 (talk)20:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portions of the section for Canada seem to be taken verbatim from the cited source at[15].I'm going to blank part of the section and place a copyvio notice there, but I must emphasize that not all of the information is subject; while substantial portions (sentences and paragraphs) have been copied verbatim, clearly additional research has been done - for example, naming specific pieces of provincial legislation.Zelse81 (talk)23:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the template because as it turns out that one is only for entire articles, so using it destroys the references. There is still a suspected copyright violation ongoing there; I will hopefully have time to fix it later on but if someone else cares to tackle it, they can remove/rewrite the plagiarized parts (or verify the content is licensed for Wikipedia's use) and then put {{subst:cclean|url=http://www.hdas.com/sites/hdas.com/files/articles/spousal-support-bch.pdf)} on this talk page.Zelse81 (talk)05:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from the text:

"Permanent alimony began to fall out of favor, as it prevented former spouses from beginning new lives,[6] though in some states (e.g., Massachusetts, Mississippi, and Tennessee), permanent alimony awards continued, but with some limitations."

"In Texas, Mississippi and Tennessee, for example, alimony is awarded only in cases of marriage or civil union of ten years or longer and the payments are limited to three years unless there are special, extenuating circumstances."Then two sentences later in the same paragraph""In Maine, Mississippi, and Tennessee alimony is awarded in marriages or civil union of 10 to 20 years and the duration is half the length of the marriage barring extenuating circumstances."

"In other states, like Mississippi, Massachusetts and Tennessee, alimony is usually awarded for life."

"California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Oklahoma, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia have all passed laws that allow for the modification or termination of alimony upon demonstration that the recipient is cohabitating with another person."

The references are all over the place and often not even for TN. This needs serious revision.— Precedingunsigned comment added by199.82.243.103 (talk)14:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed that too. From the research I've done it seems Tennessee doesn't have a defined length of marriage time to be awarded Alimony; it is just decided on a case by case basis with the shortest marriage time[16] that alimony was given to was 3 years.notabot (talk)19:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link onAlimony. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. You may add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing forhttp://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/332/mccoy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed to let others know (documentation at{{Sourcecheck}}).

YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online}15:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This passage is the laziest writing I have ever read:

"Lawyers use special software designed specifically to calculate the entitlement, amount, and duration of support. After information is input into a computer, the software will provide a range for the spousal support amount and duration.

"Depending on the means and needs of the individual receiving support, the court will generally award an amount of spousal support somewhere within the range provided by the software."

It may be true -- the reference link is dead, so it's of no use -- but "special software" is a bizarre description that conjures up an image of aStar Trek episode where humans are consulting through telepathy some otherworldly oracle with blinking lights! What makes the software "special"? Which of the software -- if any -- on my computer is "special" and how can I tell? Is this "special" softwarespecialer than the software that NASA uses which, by professional estimations, is pretty damn special. (A blue screen of death in space would likely be literally that!)

Regardless, all software is (currently) written by humans, and humans had to come up with the rules that the software uses. While I realise that an encyclopaedia has its limitations, and we don't need to see a line-by-line analysis of the source code of the software, someone with "special" knowledge of this "special software" must have a better way to summarise what's so "special" about this software and what information, in general terms, it uses to spit out a number.

Signing off from my "special software" that allows me to magically modify the contents of a website on the other side of the planet.

--Craig (t|c)07:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've found thearchived reference, which I've just noticed is the subject of an allegation of a copyright violation ("Potential Copyvio in Canada Section") three sections above this one. The text above is copied verbatim from a lawyer's article titled "Spousal Support – Who Gets It???" It's still lazy writing, but in that context -- a lawyer giving an overview of a legal topic to lay people he's hoping will pay him money for the "special" sauce -- it makes more sense.

There must be a lawyer -- Canadian in this case -- monitoring this page who could do a better job of explaining the "Amount and duration" section without using words and phrases that essentially amount to references to a secret sauce.

--Craig (t|c)08:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links onAlimony. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20080509192326/http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm tohttp://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm
• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20100107054234/http://www.massalimonyreform.org/PDFs/alimony-servitude-peonage.pdf tohttp://www.massalimonyreform.org/PDFs/alimony-servitude-peonage.pdf
• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20100107054234/http://www.massalimonyreform.org/PDFs/alimony-servitude-peonage.pdf tohttp://www.massalimonyreform.org/PDFs/alimony-servitude-peonage.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)21:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

41.216.54.122 (talk)10:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles

• Talk pages with reference errors