Talk:Affair

message: You're welcome!
Shanekorte 05:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sure 

message: Office romance merged as requested. SilkTork 22:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged 

message: Anyone have any ideas what to do, if anything should be done, about merging these two articles since they overlap quite a bit. Albert109 17:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Adultery]]

message: Even though they overlap, there is no reason for a full merge.  Affairs and adultry are two different things, although at first though they seem to be the same.  Also, both articles are long enough to warrant having seperate wiki listings.
Instead, I submit that we remove the {merge} template.
:I think this article should be an article referring to the different kinds of affairs, like the Danish one (which I am linking to in the "languages" section in the left menu). The Danish article links to love affairs and affairs like Dreyfus etc. The article being linked to under "Deutsch" (German) only covers love affairs, even though the German wikipedia also has an article simply called Affäre, similar to the Danish one. I think, the interwiki links in general should be pointing to the affair "overview" articles. Apopov (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree with merge 

message: This article seems to be trying to cover two quite distinct meanings of the word "affair" and consequently has ended up as a confusing muddle. How about a split into Extramarital affair (which is already a redirect to this article) and Business affair? Or, alternatively, leave this article at Affair to cover the business and personal meaning of the word, and split off Extramarital affair with a disambig link and a "see also"? DWaterson 21:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. I think Affair should be about the Dreyfus-kind of affair, though and Love affair about the relationship. I don't think the title should imply that an affair has to be extramarital. I think this article has a too negative angle. An affair can be a beautiful thing. The only thing the term tells for sure is that the relationship has a fixed time range. It either lies in the past or is thought to be a temporary state. Graham Greene noted something like this in The End of the Affair. It should of course also be noted that the term is often a euphemism for the illicit kind of relationship.Bgp2000 13:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the title is misleading as the article is mostly about an infidelity that differs from but is related to adultery. Infidelity which used to re-directs to Adultery and there-in lies a problem and perhaps a solution - I suggest merge this page and Emotional Affair with Infidelity. --Ziji 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If we're going to split these as Bgp2000 suggest, then can we first consider the title (addressed above) and carefully how and where to distinguish between it and Adultery, Affair, Emotional affair, Mistress (lover), Friendship,  Monogamy, Incidence of Monogamy, Polyamory, Polygyny, Platonic love and Romantic friendship in a way that differentiates each and leads into related topics such as Intimate relationship, Intimacy, Emotional intimacy, Physical intimacy, and those topics like Age disparity in sexual relationships,  Transactional sex, Enjo kōsai and the like. The area is spread out all over wikipedia and not always interlinked. One way to link it may be as part of the series on Love, to which some are already linked.--Ziji 22:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Emotional affair is now a separate article. With affair and emotional affair, this creates a core of 6 related articles including: Adultery, Infidelity, Office romance and Extramarital sex. I'm an expert in this field and so from my point of view there is a lot of overlap between them. On the Talk:Infidelity page there is a discussion about merging Affair into Infidelity. This is still an option but it's not going to leave a place in wikipedia for those affairs which are not a breach of faith. I think mergng Emotional affair into Affair might work but I think at the moment, the 6 articles stand alone and each can be improved separately. Any comments?--Ziji  (talk email) 23:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split article?

message: There is judgmental language throughout the entry, and especially under the Extramarital Affair heading. In that section, the descriptive material refocuses the topic from "affair" to "marriage" and "adultery." There are prejudicial and unsupported discretionary terms used, such as "infidelity," "illicit," "duplicitous," and "jilted." Rather than considering why an extraneous affair might occur during the tenure of a marriage or how it might be resolved, the section discusses cultural taboos and criminal and civil consequences of an affair. It's very much like discussing car crashes and traffic laws when the topic is the internal combustion engine. Parts of this entry are very moralizing and detrimental to an in-depth discussion of the topic, or, as in this section, any discussion at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanski (talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Extramarital Affair vs. Adultery

message: I've added the cleanup tag - mainly my gripe is with the Office romance section, which is poorly written and not encyclopaedic enough - "they can be intoxicating like a drug" and "Good people in good jobs will throw caution to the wind." etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.108.145.11 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved Office romance into its own article.--Ziji  (talk email) 23:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagged

message: I have just removed an erroneous statement from the article Regarding George W Bush and Paris Hilton. For god's sake whoever added this garbage should show some respect for President Bush.
Spokenwordsegment (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reverting! I've given the user a final warning. In future, you could if you wanted, add  to the offending users talk page. Thanks again! Addhoc (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal