Talk:Alimony

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alimony is based on who is the higher earning former spouse 

message: 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. 212.181.133.116 11:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  US only? 

message: 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-man 19:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spousal Support 

message: 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 responsibility as a general rule not addressed in this article? Dogru144 18:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. The sexism inherient in it seems like something that would be here. 205.157.110.11 03:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender basis of alimony

message: 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-man 19:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am changing this now.--Fish-man 14:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child Support 

message: 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-man 20:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes Inserted.--Fish-man 14:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factors Affecting Alimony 

message: :anyone read Arabic?--Fish-man 23:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''در اين بخش به موضوع نفقه در اسلام و ايران خواهيم پرداخت. منتظر باشيد''' 

message: Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome 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)
thread_title:  External links 

message: This page has been the target of multiple different vandals over the past few days.  Anybody have any ideas on how to resolve this? Xnuala 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.123.141 (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alimony - Can I file after 13 years? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Alimony causes murder

message: 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)
thread_title:  Slavery 

message: 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.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PTiger1985 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have pointed out on your talkpage, the section is clear advocacy and soapboxing for alimony reform.  It is full of weasel words and argument for the cause, as well as inappropriate combining of (sometimes primary sources) to make points that are not made in the references themselves. You need to find secondary sources, talking about the "alimony reform movement" and use them for this section.  --Slp1 (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

text: 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. You must 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 not pushing 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title: Section Removed

message: I have completely rewritten the Alimony Reform sections.
All text is original - no cut and paste.
I have footnoted all facts
I have removed all NPOV
I 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)
replies: text: 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! Jusdafax 22:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, no you didn't remove all copy and paste material, as you know. 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)
thread_title: Completely Started Over

message: The changing social circumstances in the US that are described in this article have also inspired the Fathers' rights movement the Men'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)
thread_title: Men's Rights and Fathers' Rights Movements

message: 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)
thread_title: Help on this Article Greatly Appreciated

message: 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  is not a reliable source.  A self-published website with no sign of editorial oversight. WP:RS
This  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. WP:OR Stop reinserting this without getting consensus.  You could try WP:30 if you like. 
This  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.[] Enough for now. --Slp1 (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Unreliable sources

message: 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)
thread_title: Alimony is important to readers

message: 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 around WP:Original research, and especially synthesis.  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 per WP:SYNTH  The bulk of this section will need to be deleted unless 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)
replies: text: 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.  You cannot 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 we only 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)
thread_title: Original Research

message: 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)
thread_title: Breakout Massachusetts

message: 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/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PTiger1985 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Impact of Legal Battles over Alimony on Children

message: 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 at http://www.alimonyformula.com and http://familylaw.kelseytrask.com/spousalsupport.htm.  The article is available at http://www.alimonyformula.com/SpousalSupportCalculator.pdf and http://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.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlkelsey (talk • contribs) 04:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alimony Amount and Duration Formulas 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article Doesn't Explain the Reasoning Behind Alimony in Today's World

message: 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)
thread_title: Supreme Court Ruling

message: 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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MfinckCalpoly8 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heteronormativity in the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Numbers and statistics 

message: Portions of the section for Canada seem to be taken verbatim from the cited source at .
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Potential Copyvio in Canada Section 

message: 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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.103 (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  that alimony was given to was 3 years. notabot (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs serious updating, especially regarding TN law 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Alimony. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/332/mccoy.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Alimony. 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/20080509192326/http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm to http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107054234/http://www.massalimonyreform.org/PDFs/alimony-servitude-peonage.pdf to http://www.massalimonyreform.org/PDFs/alimony-servitude-peonage.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107054234/http://www.massalimonyreform.org/PDFs/alimony-servitude-peonage.pdf to http://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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified