Jump to content

Talk:Significant other

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

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)

Content from significant others, now redirected here. Charles Matthews 07:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Significant other" refers to one's partner in a romantic relationship. It is a gender/sex neutral term, and often thought of as PC for boyfriend or girlfriend,but can also be applied to legally recognized married spouses(husbands or wives). The "significance" is an indicator of importance in the partner's life, but also signifies the romantic or sexual bond, while explicitly failing to indicate the sexual orientation. With the development of homosexuality and non-traditional sexuality and relationships and the heated political and ethical issues surrounding them, the community of liberal or left-of-center have begun to refer to their romances using this neutral terminology in order to be sensitive to the concerns of discrimination against non-traditional relationships. This term fails to differentiate the variety of human romantic relations, thus reflecting the position that each of these variations is equally legitamite and fundamentally the same.

Just wanted to clarify that homosexuality was never "developed" since it occurs naturally. Exclusive homosexuality? Perhaps. But the same thing can be said about exclusive heterosexuality in the context of societal pressure due to religious influence Von Karma (talk · contribs) 06:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the term "significant other"

[edit]

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)[reply]

It's in a posthumously published work, as the article clearly states. — Graf Bobby 16:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • What exactly does the statement The phrase was first noted to have been coined by John Sullivan mean? First noted to have been coined? This seems to be a tortured locution to suggest that Sullivan coined the term without actually saying so, since it appears Sullivan did not coin the term if other cited references are to be trusted. And who did this first noting? This reference (added on 2009/05/05) to a television situation comedy writer offers no cited reference to support the claim presented, so deletion should be considered. 2009/05/14. 70.59.21.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Edit notice debate

[edit]

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)[reply]

The above comment from "13:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)" might have some risk of causing confusion or otherwise being unclear ... partly because (it seems) it was not posted until "13:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)" even though, (as explained in more detail in the next two sentences ... the sentences about the DIFF listing), the material it is talking about [being "subject to a deletion debate"] [QUOTE:

The edit notice for this page

] had ALREADY BEEN DELETED weeks earlier (on 23 October 2008). The DIFF listing -- (the DIFF for the edit resulting in the "Revision as of 11:10, 23 October 2008") seems to indicate that the "edit notice" mentioned above (and recited in a "blockquote") WAS DELETED at 11:10 on "23 October 2008". That DIFF listing -- (the DIFF for the edit resulting in the "Revision as of 11:10, 23 October 2008") -- can be seen using the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Significant_other&type=revision&diff=247217344&oldid=245565755 easily. "Case closed" ... (one might say). --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NMPOSO?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
[edit]

I find there is two type of links based on

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].

--TX55TALK 17:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse

[edit]

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)[reply]

Not all people that are deemed as a 'Significant Other' are actually a spouse. It's kind of like 'why not call all Avians Chicken' then blaming those pesky Taxidermists ("DAMN YOU BIOLOGY!"). From what I've read of the article it seems more akin to a Psychologist's term that's been co-opted by general public than anything PC.

on Another Note, is the 'Only Fools and Horses' point keeping in line with Neutrality, I thought it was unclear ~Maus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.217.228 (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split article? (WINAD)

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

overreach

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Significant_other&oldid=1252173184"