Talk:Voluntary childlessness

Childlessness definition.

Having a non-biological child doesn't mean your suddenly not childless. Having a child means making one. If you adopt but haven't given birth your obviously still childless by definition. 47.197.4.142 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Parents of adopted children are parents. Nerd271 (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

By definition, no they aren't. The article on parents touches on this. 47.197.4.142 (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, here is a quote from article parent itself: ...in humans, it can refer to a caregiver or legal guardian, generally called an adoptive parent or step-parent. In other words, there are biological parents, and there are step or adopted parents. And what does any of this have to do with being childfree? Wikipedia is not a forum. Nerd271 (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

A father who parents a child that he didn't birth isn't childless, a mother who hasn't given birth but "parents" a child is. It differs depending on gender. 208.30.108.183 (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Parents are by definition not childless. Nerd271 (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Parents (specifically a mother) are by definition a person who created a child. 208.30.108.183 (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Almost no one thinks this. The very fact that we have terms like "biological parent" and "adoptive parent" refutes what you are saying. If "parent" only meant "biological parent," we wouldn't have to make that distinction. Language doesn't function according to how you personally use words; it functions according to how they are commonly used. Words like this don't only have a definition within biology; they also have legal and social definitions. Also, a quick search shows me that major dictionaries include foster and adoptive parents in their definition of "parent." So, with respect, there isn't really any basis for what you are saying. LouMichel (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Is this sentence malformed?

[In his analysis of search-engine data, data scientist Seth Stephens-Davidowitz discovered that parents are a few times more likely to regret having children than adults without children.]

As "adults without children" couldn't regret having children by definition (at very worst case they could regret not having them), the overall meaning of sentence indeed seems right (assuming there is at least one case of regretting from some parents; likely there is, so it safe to assume it is shown in a source), but could infinite ratio (not-0 / 0) be really correctly phrased as "a few times more" way? ~2026-27106-53 (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Adults without children may regret not having them. But parents are a few times more likely to regret having children. That's what it says. Nerd271 (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Could you please pinpoint the particular place in original quote, where it says that [Adults without children may regret not having them.]? I cannot see a place with any negation at all there (*well, "without" is such a place, see it now; so "with any negation related to it" then), all it talks about is regretting about having children and two groups of people affected by it (and it obviously not applicable for "adults without children"). And yes, I supposed the same meaning that you wrote as probably intended, just I cant see where it actually written in the quote, so I wonder if I miss it somehow, or it is indeed a malformed phrase. ~2026-27235-86 (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The page number is given. Nerd271 (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

That's an answer to another question, not one I asked. I wonder if the particular sentence is malformed, not if the provided quote itself is precise or not regarding to the source. The source book is not in the free access, otherwise I would already wrote in my initial question something like {and also the presumed quote itself is not verbatim} or {I understand that its the exact wording in the book itself, but maybe it require (sic) then}. As its your article, according to talk and history, and you put that mention about that book here yourself, it would be way easier to check it for you, as you, obviously, have an access to that book (if you think its needed). But again, its on another level of that I'm trying to get: I didn't edited it because its possible that I missed something, and the sentence is actually totally fine, despite looking not exactly as it for me (I tried to explain the problem I see in it above). Hope I managed to write it more clearly now, because from your answers it seems that you misunderstand the question I tried to ask (its a my fault, because if I had a perfect English, there wouldn't be any need to ask about it here, I would either just fixed it if it would be malformed, or left as is, if it would be a good one). Edit: I think I found a place of misunderstanding. [Could you please pinpoint the particular place in original quote] was intended by me as "in the text I quoted from the article in my question; one I'm asking about" ([In his analysis of search-engine data, data scientist Seth Stephens-Davidowitz discovered that parents are a few times more likely to regret having children than adults without children.], one I meant as "original quote from the article). Sadly the way I wrote it, it indeed could (should?) be read as "point me to that place in original book", that was absolutely not something I asked about; my question was merely about wording in this article only, and only about the sentence i quoted in the first question. Sorry for confusion. ~2026-27675-56 (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

"and those who never married or have children are among the happiest subgroup in the United States."

Paul Dolan himself admits to misunderstanding the study. It's not just someone else's claim, it's himself who retracted.

Paul Dolan (behavioural scientist)

Dolan retracted his erroneous statement stemming from the “spouse present” misunderstanding, acknowledged it in a published response, and notified The Guardian, which published a correction. In addition to this, he informed his editor so that the book could be revised.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/4/18650969/married-women-miserable-fake-paul-dolan-happiness

https://pauldolan.co.uk/happy-ever-after/prof-paul-dolan-on-how-peer-abuse-and-singlism-get-in-the-way-of-happy-ever-after.html Ellie96s (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

" I regret the error but am happy that it was spotted. It is one of the many advantages of analysing publicly available data. Whilst some people have sought to discredit my whole book based on this one mistake, it must be noted that it accounts for about one half of one percent of the text in Happy Ever After (about 400 words out of around 80,000), and it in no way affects the substance of any of my arguments about the nine social narratives discussed in the book (of which marriage is one).

It is also worth saying that there are data to show that married people report happier marriages when their spouse is present during the survey interview."

Your source have Dolan claiming that the particular error done not changing anything in his conclusion provided in the book. Whole content of the Dolan's source is Dolan defending his prior statements about it, insisting that they are still true, despite "some people" are trying "to to discredit the whole book based on this one mistake", that is not give an actual ground to do so, according to him. It out of scope right now if he is right about it, or the error done is actually should significantly affect the conclusion; point is that Dolan not retracted anything related to your removal edit, as you wrote here, he still claim it.

Vox source describe how the error was found by Kimbrough and retracted by Dolan, while quoting Dolan still claiming that "... The substance of my argument that marriage is generally better for men than for women remains." Kimbrough disputes it, as well as some other Dolan's claims, including the statement you're about:

"Next, the claim that “healthiest and happiest population subgroup are women who never married or had children.” The ATUS lacks data on *ever* having children, but I can compare never/ever married with and without children in the household. This doesn’t back up his claim."

From the Dolan's source it could be read that the claim about it was made based on results of another study; if true, then Kimbrough's objection tying it to misrepresentation of another study is dubious. Here I must say that more data than you provided is needed, those two links are not enough, need a data from the Dolan's book itself. But in essence Vox's source whole content is that Kimbrough do claim that due to an error he found, and due to that "Dolan’s other claims also “fall apart with a cursory look at the evidence”", according to him Dolan's conclusions are wrong. Dolan insisting that error is insignificant and his conclusions are still true. It is " just someone else's claim" (Kimbrough's) indeed by now.

Also note that the claim we're about here in context of article is very tangential to the mentioned retracted error overall. First time it appears as example of "Dolan’s other claims [that] also “fall apart with a cursory look at the evidence", without much elaboration. The way it presented in Vox article, Kimbrough present it as a conclusion from the same study with retracted error. From Dolan's words it could be read that it's from some other study, making it unrelated to retracted error at all. This is the place to actually address about the mention you're trying to remove: who is misinterpreting it, Dolan or Kimbrough? By now it reads as Kimbrough found the actual error, that error was accepted and retracted, and according to him there are other errors too, ones not accepted and retracted yet. We cannot derive that they would also be accepted and retracted too merely on a basis that it already happened once. The claim that Dolan made a verified mistake, thus everything else from him somebody want to call as mistake are mistakes too is not seems to be serious, and it strongly disputed by Dolan. ~2026-39266-17 (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

If Dolan is pointing at another source, then that is the one that needs to be cited in the wiki article as well as by Dolan in his own refutal. If there isn't a concrete source that you or Dolan can point to, then it is baseless and cannot be in this article. The guardian article cites only the ATUS study which doesn't back up the claim "and those who never married or have children are among the happiest subgroup in the United States."

The claim by Dolan is made in chapter 4, figure 10 which Dolan says the numbers show

Married people are happier than other groups "but only when the spouse is physically in the room" during the interview.

When the spouse is “absent” married women become “fucking miserable.”

Separately, "never-married or childless women" have the highest pleasure/misery scores across the whole survey (the “healthiest and happiest subgroup” as he quoted).

The exact qoute by Dolan in Happy Ever After (page 72 & 73) is

page 72

"The average reported ‘pleasure’ for each group is shown in the graph below.

People who are married do not experience significantly more pleasure relative

to people who have never been married unless their spouse was also present

in the interview. It appears that people are more likely to say they feel happy if

their spouse can hear what they are saying. Or it could simply be that their

spouses put them in a better mood, which influences how they recall their

experiences yesterday. (My money is on the former.)

When the spouse is present at the interview, people who are married are

also happier than people who are divorced. When the spouse is not present,

however, there is no difference in pleasure between the married and the

divorced. In fact, as long as married people’s spouses are absent for their

ATUS interview, there are no significant differences between people who are

married and any other group. Have we really deluded ourselves to think

married people are genuinely happier? It certainly seems to be a story that we

tell our spouses."

page 73

"The results for misery are shown below. People who have never been

married experience less misery than the divorced and separated. Better not to

have loved and lost then, it seems. Married people with their spouses present

for the interview report being less

miserable than married people without their

spouses present, which again suggests that people report better experiences

when they otherwise risk offending their spouse"

The entire claim of Dolan rests on his misunderstanding of ATUS. If he pointed at other sources in his refutal, then it's on you to provide them. Ellie96s (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it is confusion over sourcing. You're trying to remove something that you see as wrong, but not provide a valid reason for remove. Source here is not even Dolan's book, but Guardian article, that still keep the claim that Dolan claims that "never married or have children are among the happiest subgroup in the United States". And they do it after amending their article to "remove remarks by Paul Dolan that contained a misunderstanding of an aspect of the American Time Use Survey data". They see that the claim they are doing is still up, despite some error fixed. Dolan also doing the same claim in the link of him you provided, that the error mentioned doesn't change overall conclusion. It's not about if he is right or not on it, it is about that despite his position is challenged it still presented by him, and Guardian also don't feel a need to retract a whole article of them.

Now the thing I'm totally unsure is if the questioned claim is worthy addition for a start or not. My point is that you provided no reason for removing it yet, as you started that it is invalidated due to misinterpreted study by him, then that he retracted the questioned claim on his own. Neither seem valid, especially the one about retraction, that is directly contradict both sources you provided in support of it. In short for this part: I'm not saying that Dolan's claim is right, I'm saying that his claim present, published, and, for some unknown for me reasons, present in an article here. And that I think its presence is worthy questioning for importance overall (but as I got, Dolan's opinion on a subject seems important for somebody who added it, and kept it, while not for me), but on other ground that you're provided yet, as they're not shown neither that it unsourced, or that it disproved, only that it challenged. Maybe you will add a mention about challenge to it instead of removal?

Now something addressing some particular things from response:

If Dolan is pointing at another source, then that is the one that needs to be cited in the wiki article as well as by Dolan in his own refutal.

Source here is article of Guardian, not even Dolan's book itself. Guardian feel that his opinion on it worthy mention, and somebody, who put it in this article thought the same, looks like. I'm unsure about it, as I wrote already above, but my point is that is slightly different things. As I got you challenge Dolan's methodology or conclusions, that he is wrong, in short. But that you removing is that some source is fine enough with his methodology or conclusions to report it. Their opinion may be challenged as unimportant, and I think it's the way here, but not simply removed, because you think it's wrong. Dolan's own refutal not mentioned here at all yet, beside you're linking it as a source, presumably supporting your claim about him retracting his position on a subject, that he's defending there instead (successfully or not is out of scope yet, again).

If there isn't a concrete source that you or Dolan can point to, then it is baseless and cannot be in this article.

Mostly the same, just to clarify that source article pointing at is a Guardian's article, that is fine with the way Dolan can point to. I'm not sure if that pointing to Guardian's article is needed indeed, but it is trivial to point on it, that's why I'm not see the reasoning for removal as valid.

The guardian article cites only the ATUS study which doesn't back up the claim "and those who never married or have children are among the happiest subgroup in the United States."

Guardian's article only mention "that "Dolan’s latest book, Happy Ever After, cites evidence from the American Time Use Survey (ATUS)", making no claims that its the only one used in book. Moreother, the claim of "The healthiest and happiest population subgroup are women who never married or had children,” he said." appears there prior mention of that particular book at all. In Guardian's article they mention that he "said it", on a some convention as I got, and it related to his book, where he supposedly do show it, and that mentioned book cite a particular study. But there is no claim that this cited claim derived from that study results. Why it matter that Dolan said it, and could he actually back it up is unclear for me, again, as I said above. But its different thing from "Guardian's article not provide a direct cite backing his claim"; it does not indeed, it reporting him doing so.

The claim by Dolan is made in chapter 4, figure 10 which Dolan says the numbers show

This part I don't get. Directly later there is a "exact quote" from his book; what is this one about and from then? Same book, but not "exact"? Some other place? Will add here, though, that Wikipedia article add some disclaiming paraphrasing here: " those who never married or have children are among the happiest subgroup in the United States"; of course this way it less challengeable, but source don't use any "among", he is quoted as claiming "The healthiest and happiest population subgroup are women who never married or had children".

The exact qoute by Dolan in Happy Ever After (page 72 & 73) is

The quote doesn't even mention children at all. From it is clear, that after amending the error, it shows that this survey shows that married people are significantly happy, but there is no pairwise comparison for misery in quote; both groups compared to "the divorced and separated", and both fare better than them. As there is a mention about "result shown below", maybe its clear from it, but not from quote provided. Unless those results show a heavy disparity, that quote doesn't seem to back Dolan's claim at all indeed.

The entire claim of Dolan rests on his misunderstanding of ATUS. If he pointed at other sources in his refutal, then it's on you to provide them.

Now important one: it is not shown that "entire claim of Dolan" "rests on his misunderstanding of ATUS" yet. According to him it not changed the overall conclusion, could he back it up or not is another story. Kimbrough in Vox article do challenge that the claim we're about is unsupported by ATUS survey:

"Next, the claim that “healthiest and happiest population subgroup are women who never married or had children.” The ATUS lacks data on *ever* having children, but I can compare never/ever married with and without children in the household. This doesn’t back up his claim."

Problem is that “healthiest and happiest population subgroup are women who never married or had children.” seems to be a direct quote from Dolan, but it's not present in the "exact quote" from his book. As I understand, it's something that he said on convention, but then it have to be shown that it is based exactly on the ATUS data, according to him. In case he doesn't claim that, but it is some kind of general summary by him, the only problem, again, is that his opinion is matter enough for some Guardian to put into their article, and then for somebody else to put in into Wikipedia, because Guardian published an article.

I will not revert to previous condition for sure, at least due to a editorialized weasel "among"'s insertion into the claim, and prior I'll check the book and unamended Guardian's article if I would be able to find them. Still, initial reasoning for removal definitely suffered from the lack of information justifying it, but this latter explanation is a definitely something. ~2026-39404-43 (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Guardian removed two places after that error's retraction:

"“Married people are happier than other population subgroups, but only when their spouse is in the room when they’re asked how happy they are. When the spouse is not present: fucking miserable,” he said."

and

"The study found that levels of happiness reported by those who were married was higher than the unmarried, but only when their spouse was in the room. Unmarried individuals reported lower levels of misery than married individuals who were asked when their spouse was not present."

Another (honestly horrible vague one) source claim of Dolan remained though:

"“We do have some good longitudinal data following the same people over time, but I am going to do a massive disservice to that science and just say: if you’re a man, you should probably get married; if you’re a woman, don’t bother.”"

At least according to him, The entire claim of Dolan rests on his misunderstanding of ATUS. If he pointed at other sources in his refutal, then it's on you to provide them. is not exactly correct. Guardian's article quote of him, despite its vagueness, directly claim that his claim is not entirely based on ATUS. Guardian's quote points to nothing indeed, while article from his site you provided have some numerous cites of papers in it, that he is seems to claim are supporting his position. Are they do it or not I don't know, but it definitely doesn't seem that he base his entire claim on ATUS, and he definitely pointed at other sources in his refutal. ~2026-39404-43 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems that the Dolan's book is not something in a trivial access, but, luckily, it is also not something ubiquitous here, as its not even about a some quote from it initially.

As I noticed that I missed the later revert's description, I'll readdress some older ones together with it then.

I will restate that it seems to be a confusion over sourcing. You're seems to try to remove a Dolan's saying because it is wrong on its own, not misattributed or misquoted or something like that. Problem is about the reasoning provided by you about it in some iterations already; none of them seems valid. It doesn't means that Dolan's saying is true, only that I'm still cannot see a reason justifying removal provided, while argumentation provided is more and more looks like an attempt in "throw and hope it'll stick".

i) It started with Removed erroneous claim that childfree women are happier than otherwise, claim is made by Paul Dolan who misinterpreted a study (with a source provided that is confirming happened misinterpretation and adding more challenges of Dolan's conclusions by Kimbrough). The fact that Dolan misinterpreted a study not directly make some claim of him erroneous on its own; only if it shown that the particular claim is based on a misinterpreted study. Not only it is not shown in provided source, Dolan himself is quoted there dismissing importance of the error, that is very briefly challenged by Kimbrough after. The conclusion of source is that Dolan accepted own mistake, but say it doesn't matter much, while Kimbrough do claim that it is worse than Dolan's attempt in downplaying. It is "something else's claim" only, not something that show "erroneous claim".

ii) So it went to Paul Dolan himself admits to misunderstanding the study. It's not just someone else's claim, it's himself who retracted. Dolan retracted his erroneous statement stemming from the “spouse present” misunderstanding, acknowledged it in a published response, and notified The Guardian, which published a correction. (with an additional source providing a response from Dolan). That additional source consist from Dolan's attempts in defending his conclusions and position on a subject. He is essentially insist there that his retraction of his erroneous statement stemming from the “spouse present” misunderstanding change nothing, according to him. Again, maybe it is actually wrong, and he is not succeed in his attempts, but its directly opposite to your claim here: he is not retracting a claim you're trying to remove. According to a source provided by you, he is strongly insist that the particular claim is still fully valid, despite him admitting and retracting his error. (Worthy mention that Wikipedia article updated to it only almost 5 years after).

iii) Continued as If Dolan is pointing at another source, then that is the one that needs to be cited in the wiki article as well as by Dolan in his own refutal. If there isn't a concrete source that you or Dolan can point to, then it is baseless and cannot be in this article.. But Dolan had pointed to numerous sources (from other authors) that are backing his claim according to him in a source you're provided. Again, if those sources do support his position or not is another story (in very short: I don't know), but it is again contradicting your claim outright, directly from the source you brought on your own. Moreother, he even doing a charge against his critics, that they have even less sources than he does.

iv) And finished as it now as In the authors own refute, he talks indirectly about the balance of evidence being unclear. The authors own interpretation of his misreading isn't a good enough source to make the claim. (with a quote from the Dolan's response). While quoted kind words of him are indeed very uninspiring (in a line "let's be a friends still"), they are not contradicting the claim he is trying to do in his response, in a line of "my conclusion presented are also backed by other sources provided here and in book; the fact that one of the sources turned out to be invalid still doesn't change the balance, as there are superfluous evidence provided". Again, I don't know if it true or not, but it is again contradict your claim in the summary: he is definitely boldly make the same claim in his response despite being challenged.

By now I'm considering to reword that sentence removing the weaseling about "among", not mentioned in the cited Guardian's article, as well as "in the United States", neither claimed there too. And add that all of it is according to Paul Dolan, not some given fact. I'm really not sure why Dolan's words are matter that much that deserve inclusion here despite a need to gradually reworking them to keep plausibility (say, removing the mention that his mentioned claim is indeed based on "analyzing American Time Use Survey" and weaseling), but right now I even less like to be provided with one faulty reason for removal of it after another in a row. Could it be a some good valid reason for a change? ~2026-39404-43 (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

My main point of contention is that the guardian article being used as a source for the claim about childfree women and happiness, isn't substantial enough on it's own. It gives the claim as an opinion.

I think I understand your points and I argued flawly, my pov is that the guardian article isn't doesn't provide a direct study for the statement "and those who never married or have children are among the happiest subgroup in the United States." It's Paul Dolan's opinion from a interview. It isn't enough as it points to the ATUS survey and the book in general without giving a concrete source for the claim. This is where I messed up in refuting it as I pointed at unrelated points in the book.

If the claim is to be included in the wiki article then it should be phrased less concretely, as in Paul Dolan believes xyz or if the claim is used whole then it should point to the sources in Happily Ever After or other works. The other sources that Dolan provided on his webpage should be used instead of the guardian article. I agree with your final paragraph. Ellie96s (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The claim also doesn't appear in the book, it comes from the guardian article who quotes it as coming from the Hay festival. So the guardian article isn't even the primary source for the statement. The only part of the book that I see that directly compares unmarried women's and married women's happiness are figures 8-10 which is why I included that and pointed at the spouse present-absent misunderstanding. That was my mistake. Ellie96s (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Definitely agree (with a reservation for a small comment later). Currently it is a Guardian's article reporting that a professor and book author Paul Dolan just made that claim on a book-related conference. As we know due to that retraction, that claim not based on the ATUS study, according to him; just he thought that that study was a noticeable confirmation of that claim. So while retraction of misinterpreted results of it doesn't refute his claim on its own, according to him, that claim is definitely lost a impact, that is clearly see from the wording he used during misinterpretation of results (really bold, honestly) compared to used later (pretty caution one).

As far I understand this part was added to Wikipedia article as Psychologist Dolan made the case that women who never married or have children are among the happiest subgroup in the United States by analyzing American Time Use Survey. (surprisingly for me with a weasel "among" outright). I'm not sure Guardian's article essentially say so even in original unamended version, and it definitely do no in an amended version of 2021. As article in fact merely report that Dolan claimed that in a public talk, it seems partially unsourced (but at least it correctly said that it "Psychologist Dolan made the case").

Later it turned to Women who never married or have children are among the happiest subgroup in the United States. removing both the valid and one of the invalid sourcing in process. In result it become totally unsourced: there is no stated claim in the article, only that Dolan said so on a conference.

As, according to Dolan in his response, his claim mentioned in Wikipedia via Guardian's article is still valid, and backed up with older papers from other authors he cite there, the question is, why his words on that conference worthy mention? If it's actually shown in a somebody else's papers, why not cite them instead (we do know from the circumstances that his speech that time was backed by his own work's results that time for him, so he didn't mentioned them during it)?

The version removed by Ellie96s is entirely unsourced (while could be always framed as true, due to the almighty "among"), and removal of it fully justified, I think. Not sure that it worthy even as a version correctly reporting that it is Dolan's claim; it is fine for his own page, where it is present. If sources Dolan is citing as backing it up are indeed doing so, they could be used instead (here is part I'm wonder about procedure: if those papers are not in a free access, and somebody would add them as a source claiming they are indeed confirm it, and if somebody unsure, they could purchase an access and check; how it supposed to be solved?).

The claim also doesn't appear in the book, it comes from the guardian article who quotes it as coming from the Hay festival. So the guardian article isn't even the primary source for the statement.

As far I understand it's actually better, according to Wikipedia. Guardian is a secondary source there, and the fact they are bother to quote Dolan for their article (and keep it after retraction) is a more significant than his own claims on his site or even in his book (at least it is how I'm getting it, hope that it's how it is indeed, but not entirely sure). From those sources it seems that the only connection between that claim and book is that Dolan said it in a talk connected to the book, and that it is a conclusion reader could come after reading it, according to him, but it's not a direct quote from it, as you're saying it is not present there (this could be different between original and amended versions, maybe)? ~2026-39402-07 (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't this specific guardian article fall under WP:OPINION in terms of the wording of the claim? As it doesn't give a source for the statement? I've been looking at https://web.archive.org/web/20190525143135/https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/women-happier-without-children-or-a-spouse-happiness-expert to see the differences between the current and former version.

The original according to the wayback machine contains the text "“Married people are happier than other population sub-groups but only when their spouse is in the room when they’re asked how happy they are. When the spouse is not present: fucking miserable,” he said." which was removed from the amended version. Other than grammar the articles are the same. Is this what you meant with your last question? Ellie96s (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't know, those scary blue WS:SOMETHING are keep being more of confusion than help for me still. Not sure what they could do as a source of his statement in this case: audio record from that Hay festival of him saying it? I quoted above two places of difference I noticed between versions. It had a direct mention that eventually retracted claim about ATUS study's findings, but not as a Dolan's words.

Sorry, looks like I wrote it badly: I meant possible differences for book versions there. It stated that he also contacted publisher for book's revision too. Could it be that your access is to the already revised version of it?

Mentioning the book: I really don't like that part of his defense there:

"Whilst some people have sought to discredit my whole book based on this one mistake, it must be noted that it accounts for about one half of one percent of the text in Happy Ever After (about 400 words out of around 80,000), and it in no way affects the substance of any of my arguments ...". Sound really uninspiring: a mistake could be in just one word out of millions in total, and invalidating all the further reasoning as a result. I don't mean it is the actual case there, but this line is really worrying. ~2026-39402-07 (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC)