Talk:Single person

Big Changes, same Page

I made a lot of edits mostly around citation and editing the paragraphs. there was a lot of information that had weak or unsubstantiated claims. I rearranged, combined information that was good but wasn't grouped well. I added the film and Lit section. I wanted to make sure that the page was actually focusing on single persons and not on comparing them to married people. --Littel16 (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Took out the ridiculous "voluntarily single people must be asexual or disabled" line.

Legal and social distinction

The definition in the article is so false. Being single means not being married. Period. It has nothing to do with whether or not you are in a relationship. Single means not married. That is what it is legally speaking. Furthermore, the article is poorly written. SN 10 October 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.50.12 (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above. That was my impression when I read the article. It's OK to provide alternate usages of a term, but the lead gives a much-too-broad definition, and then the rest of the article, either implicitly or explicitly, largely uses the traditional definition (i.e., not married) or a close variant. Holy (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This article needs to better clarify the distinction between the legal and social definition of the term or at least state it is only referring to legal uses of the word single --69.146.148.56 (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Certain situations assume that a person is married; this includes laws that vary depending on the country. For example, in the United States, Social Security relies on spouses, children, and other family, until the point that a given individual is legally elderly (65 years of age or over), or if the person has a significant disability (of any age; see Social Security Disability). It is generally assumed an individual's family member(s) will inherit or replace the holder when they are deceased. Therefore, except for the elderly and the legally disabled, US Social Security is not a benefit single people can claim." Huh? Not an expert on US social security, but by the paragraph's logic, non-single people under 65/without a disability can't claim social security either, so this isn't an example of a situation where the law assumes that a person is married and the whole thing seems to be irrelevant. Furius (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is badly written. The author should have said a single person is not eligible for a spouse's Social Security, and, if the person is divorced, is not eligible for the ex-spouse's Social Security unless married to that person for at least 10 years. Of course, single people get Social Security based on their earnings they made from work. I get it, and I have never been married. SN 10 October 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.50.12 (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Good catch, Furius. I'm editing that paragraph, which was unsourced and inaccurate.Infoman99 (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Single person. 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/20140912045442/http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mens_Health_Watch/2010/July/marriage-and-mens-health.ece to http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mens_Health_Watch/2010/July/marriage-and-mens-health.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621071505/http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/15731/ to http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/15731/

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 by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)