Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Basically, this is a bloated dictionary entry (Wikipedia:WINAD) that yet manages to do a very questionable job of defining its terms — most glaringly, nowhere is any attempt made to define committed or commitment, or even to point to such. How is it possible to objectively establish that any given relationship has somehow achieved the status of "committed"? In a two-person relationship, if one is committed to the relationship but the other isn't, does that still constitute "a committed relationship"?
Even if those hurdles were somehow overcome, the list falls far short of very basic Wikipedia standards. It's been waiting since 2011 (!!!) for more than ONE cited source for ONE entry. The great bulk of its content ought to become a See also section, though that will simply point up the general pointlessness. Weeb Dingle (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
The redirect Long-term relationship has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 12 § Long-term relationship until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)