Talk:Significant other

message: Studying what people have been writing at Talk:Boyfriend and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sweetheart, I've been wondering if this is a good article for boyfriend and/or girlfriend to re-direct to. Any opinions?? 66.245.64.202 21:41, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: In this article, Harry Stack Sullivan is credited with coining the term significant other in 1953.  However, he died in 1949.  Gilliamjf 08:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in a posthumously published work, as the article clearly states. — Graf Bobby 16:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this is completely irrelevant. The "posthumously published work" is correct, but it wasn't by Sullivan. The phrase was coined (or at least popularised) by George Herbert Mead, who died in 1931, in his posthumous book "Mind, Self and Society" from 1934. I always felt that "significant other" in the meaning described in the article was initially (and maybe still is) as a tongue-in-cheek reference to that. The fact that some people use it without any sense of irony doesn't speak against it. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the term "significant other" 

message: The edit notice for this page is currently subject to a deletion debate.  The edit notice is the message that appears just over the edit box whenever the page itself is in edit mode.  If you love this notice, hate it, or just would like to comment on it's existance, please come and join in the debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment from "13:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit notice debate 

message: This article currently has a section on the alternate term 'NMPOSO', which apparently stands for 'Non-Married Presumed Obligate Significant Other'. Does anyone have any sources for this term, or is it a neologism? Robofish (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some digging.  All references that Google knows about trace back to either this article or Cohabitation; in both cases, the references were added by the same anon editor on March 22nd 2009.  This in and of itself doesn't mean anything, but judging by his other contributions I wouldn't say he seems to have much interest in sociology or feminism as a whole.  If someone can find a dead tree source for NMPOSO then I'd be happy to have it here (and in fact, would be curious to read more) but on the web at least there doesn't seem to be much.  So I've removed it (and will shortly do the same on Cohabitation [nevermind -- already been done by someone else]).  Eniagrom (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NMPOSO? 

message: I find there is two type of links based on 
* Contents focusing on "Significant other" (including its original and colloquial meanings)
**:en:Significant other
**:ko:중요타인
**:pl:Znaczący inny
**:ru:Значимый другой
**:zh:重要他人
* Contents focusing on "Lover", "partner" or something like that
**:da:Kæreste
**:de:Lebensgemeinschaft
**:no:Kjæreste
**:ja:恋人
**:nl:Partner (relatie)
**:sh:Partner (bliski odnosi)
I think it would be needed to be sorted out on each page. For example, keep only 
ko:중요타인
pl:Znaczący inny
ru:Значимый другой
zh:重要他人
on pages like :en:Significant other, while 
da:Kæreste
no:Kjæreste
de:Lebensgemeinschaft
nl:Partner (relatie)
sh:Partner (bliski odnosi)
on pages like [[:ja:恋人].
--TX55<SUP>TALK</SUP> 17:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link section 

message: Why not just stick with spouse as a neutral term?
I am sick of these "politically correct" jerks in recent years that try to push this "Significant Other" crap.
Bolegash (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spouse 

message: At this point the popular construct of SO and scientific construct of SO merit separate articles. Recall WP:WINAD--"things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by." Each article should x-ref the other for context but they're not remotely the same construct any longer. -PhilipR (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article? (WINAD) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Significant other. 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/20120119230113/http://www2.asanet.org/journals/asr/ to http://www.asanet.org/journals/asr/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I didn't get past the lede before reading that
::Synonyms with similar properties include sweetheart, better half, other half, spouse, domestic partner, lover, soulmate, or life partner.
Firstly, "similar" is a weasel, and weasels (like roaches) usually appear in multiples, so the page likely needs closer attention. At the very least, every bit of the subsequent nonsense NEEDS to be explicitly supported, and probably NOT merely swiping from some dictionary — present some credible scholar.
As to the case at hand, an illustration: if I have a new "boyfriend" (in itself often a weaselly euphemism for sex partner) every month, each might be my lover and sweetheart and maybe even briefly cohabitating domestic partner (three nights in a row counts, right…?), but the rest of the "synonyms" fall away. (People really need to read up on terms like Synonym before they invoke them.) And how is it that "occasional f@ck buddy" is equal to "spouse"?
Besides, if soulmate "means the same thing" in any sane manner, then this article is clearly redundant with Soulmate and should be deleted — please, at least have the decency to choose ONE cogent argument and then stick with it.Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  overreach