Talk:POSSLQ

"POSSSLQ" variant

A similar version is POSSSLQ meaning Persons Of Same Sex Sharing Living Quarters. This has been an acronym used by insurance companies to describe same-sex living arrangements.

"PASSLQ" variant

I've occasionally seen people suggest "PASSLQ" (where the A stands for "appropriate") as a gender-blind version of this acronym. Compared to other suggestions, "PASSLQ" causes the fewest difficulties:

1. It is easier to distinguish from the original acronym, both in speech and in writing; the extra S makes "POSSSLQ" look and sound like a typo, even if the letters are named separately.
2. It is consistent with the original acronym (which doesn't abbreviate the "of" either). A consistent version of the same-sex counterpart would read "PSSSLQ": in addition to the "apparent typo" problem, "PSSSLQ" suggests the word "piss" when pronounced as as an acronym.
3. It does not reveal the first partner's sexual orientation or the second one's gender: the "appropriate" sex for a live-in lover varies from person to person.

--Ingeborg S. Nordén 15:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Different POSSLQ Expansion

The version that I have always been familiar with has been 'Person Of Significance Sharing Living Quarters', which is also nicely gender-blind, but I'm not sure when or where it originated. Ghoti (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous "the term"

Are these two sentences about the same term, as their juxtaposition suggests?

The category "unmarried partner" first appeared in the 1990 Census, and was incorporated into the monthly Current Population Survey starting in 1995. By the late 1990s, the term had fallen out of general usage, and returned to being a specialized term for demographers.

Was "unmarried partner" a short-lived term, or has it supplanted POSSLQ? --82.46.155.15 (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Think "POSSLQ" -- it had 15 minutes of relative media fame in the 1980s, but a lower level of popular awareness since then. AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous

Does the term specifically mean an unmarried partner? Or is a spouse a POSSLQ just as well? The article doesn't make it clear. Of the sources, only Dictionary.com comments on the matter; not sure if we can count on this. Furthermore, from that definition, it would seem that a simple housemate (such as in a group of students or friends living together) who happens to be of the other gender is a POSSLQ, which is contradictory with the implication here. — Smjg (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary poem

I removed a trivial poem as there's no independent source suggesting it is inherently notable. @Yyyikes re-inserted it with a lengthy edit summary that amounts to original research. I don't think this belongs (irrespective of how old I am and Yyyikes's condescension). --ZimZalaBim^talk 02:28, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure of your definition of "inherently notable." Things are notable if lots of people think they are important. This is notable because Charles Osgood was important. Do you need a source saying this specific poem was important? I guess that's a reasonable standard, but I think in this case Osgood's notoriety might suffice. The fact that he would write a poem about an obscure bureaucratic term seems inherently interesting.

For Osgood's importance, consider this, from his page:

"Osgood was the host of CBS News Sunday Morning, a role he held for over 22 years from April 10, 1994, until September 25, 2016.[2] He also hosted a series of daily radio commentaries: The Osgood File, from 1971 until December 29, 2017."

He was a national network radio commentator for almost 50 years, and the host of a national network TV news program for 22 years. These are uncommon feats (and mostly occurred in an era with many fewer news choices). He was extremely widely known and respected, probably more than any active news anchor today. Yyyikes (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I prefer to use WP:POPCULTURE and WP:TRIVIA as guides. Just because a notable person happened to write a poem about something doesn't make that encyclopedic. Notability isn't inherited. Did anyone make note of this poem to suggest it is notable beyond its mere existence? --ZimZalaBim^talk 03:31, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Osgood used the title of the poem as the title of his popular 1981 book, which was a collection of his writings. That fact was referenced in the opening of this academic article in the leading journal Demography, to show the cultural impact of the term (it's in the opening paragraph):

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2648125

His books is here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/There_s_Nothing_that_I_Wouldn_t_Do_If_Yo/pFCbAAAACAAJ?hl=en

I'm happy to add this information if you like. Yyyikes (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Again, there is no doubt that Osgood wrote such a poem. But where's the independent sourcing suggesting this is notable? Just because a person used this term in something they created isn't encyclopedic. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a starting place. --ZimZalaBim^talk 16:39, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I just gave you a reference to an academic article noting the poem. I think that means they are calling it ... notable.

Also, publishing a book with the title of the poem also implies... it's notable.

Like, 99.99% of poems are not mentioned in Demography articles. 99.99% of poems are not used in the title for a book of essays by a very famous person. The poems that are ... are literally notable. Yyyikes (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Passing mention in a single academic article doesn't make this notable in my view. And his own book title isn't an independent indication of notability. I simply don't understand why copying/pasting his (copyright-protected?) lines is essential for an encyclopedia article on this topic. --ZimZalaBim^talk 02:08, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I am aware that you are on a mission to remove pop culture references from Wikipedia because you think they aren't serious. It is possible that sometimes you miss the point though. I have provided exactly what you asked for. However, I will try one last time.

It is not a "passing reference" in the Demography article, it is evidence that the term POSSLQ had made it into pop culture - very unusual for an obscure technical demographic term - which is the premise of the article. It is in the first paragraph.

The title of the book is notable because he (famous person) and his publisher (big publisher) thought the poem was appropriate for the cover of a popular book. It was their *judgment* that it was an important poem. The publisher is the one making an *independent* assessment, as they could have chosen any other words from the book for the title.

This is a very short entry, it is not loaded up with superfluous pop culture references. The poem has been on this page for many years. Maybe it's ok to move on. Yyyikes (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

The length of entry or time since content has been there is irrelevant. Sure, we have lot of "In popular culture" sections when the topic of the article appears in some other cultural form and when that appears is remarked as notable by some other independent, reliable source. But the arguments you are making are circular/insufficient. The journal article you found does support the notion that this topic is notable, but Osgood's book title is included in that article as one indicator of the topic's importance. That has nothing to do with whether the poem itself is noteable beyond its mere existence. Similarly, Osgood's own book isn't an indicator of importance. Your opinion might be "he (famous person) and his publisher (big publisher) thought the poem was appropriate for the cover of a popular book" but that's all original research and conjecture (what is a "big publisher" and how is this a "popular book" etc?). If we're going to cut/paste copyright-protected material we need a higher bar than what you're presenting. --ZimZalaBim^talk 13:36, 15 August 2026 (UTC)