Talk:Open relationship/Archive 1

Old talk
what's the dating equivalent of this? Where you're free to date other people because you're not exclusive/going steady yet? (unsigned)

The short paragraph on O.R.F.F. should be removed or sourced. I have never encountered it in any published work on open relationships and suspect it's highly localized or idiosyncratic slang rather than a generally used term. 76.191.206.169 (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Polyamory, non-monogamy, and LGBTQ"
Why are these three repeatedly referred to as a set here? LGBTQ doesn't belong. --99.255.76.36 (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and since this comment has stood undisputed for some time now, I'm gonna fix it. 217.159.233.210 (talk) (User:CarlJohanSveningsson too lazy to sign in) —Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC).

False friends
There is a slightly humorous misnomer or "false friends" in for example how Estonians frequently translate their word for "common-law marriage"/"cohabitants" ("vabaabielu" in Estonian) to "open relationship". Many Estonians may on social networks like orkut or facebook describe themselves as in an "open relationship/open marriage" when they are in fact cohabitants, and then are infuriated by unsolicited sexual advances from men from all over the world. There are some mentions of this online, and it would be nice to substantiate it properly to justify a mention of warning for this misnomer. 217.159.233.210 (talk) (User:CarlJohanSveningsson)

Open Relationship
I disagree with the article's definition on open relationship. I think an Open Relationship means there is nothing hidden between the couple, if one is having a problem they will voice it openly rather than hold it in and suffer, if one of them is thinking of cheating or has cheated (obviously regretting it) they will talk about it. An open relationship, to me, means to have open communication, to be transparent with no secrets so that the couple could work together as one without confusion.

I think this needs a disambiguation. Imagine a kid telling their boyfriend "baby I just want an open relationship" and then suddenly he looks this up on google to find out what she means; "Oh, she wants us to be able to be with others too! cool deal" he thinks, unknowing that Wikipedia just made him into a cheater. 50.47.140.38 (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Polyamory is nothing but another term for an open relationship or a non-monogamous relationship so why all the weasel words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.247.198 (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary To Do List
Definition

Primary Uses Origins Others' feelings on the entire topic of open relationships and quotes
 * where people most commonly use this title
 * where it is found in society
 * places such as social networking cites
 * how have open relationships become to be what they are today
 * history of open relationships
 * how have they impacted society
 * statistics
 * how many people are there who currently classify their relationship status as open
 * how many people in the past have classified their relationship status as open
 * prospects of how many people will classify their relationship status as open and whether or not the term will survive past this current time period

Other notes: Matthew and I will be sharing the work load equally and where ever we can find data that fits any of our criteria we will be adding in to the article

Our resources are subject to change but we will primarily be using Google Books and other various databases such as scholarly journals and recent studies Marikathrynarnold (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC) MatthewSniscak (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a good start with the outline, but I'd like to see some sources you plan on using as soon as possible. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reviews
Your work so far is pretty good. You need to add more in text citations though.

KazzandraT (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I really like the topics you've picked for your outline, especially statistics on open relationships. It will be interesting to see what statistics say about open relationships.

Kemarcinko (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking good so far. I think another good topic to add are common sets of negotiations in open relationships, more on the different styles of open relationships, and just generally fleshing out the article. I'm curious to see how this article will turn out. Leishanda G. (talk) 8:02, 2 October 2011

I like what is on the page right now. All the definitions/interpretations are interesting to me because until now I've confused "polyamory" and "open relationships" but this page clears the terms up. The outline looks solid, but I also think another heading or two would help the article like Leishanda suggested. Maybe you could add something about other countries' views on these terms or if they are supported or frowned upon in certain cultures or religions. In a soc. of marriage class, religion can be frequently applied but I think it could work into this topic more than others. I'm sure you know this, but you need some more citations/definite sources. Definitely going to be checking back to this page periodically to read up on what you post though, sounds very interesting. Eaj15 (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback. I know neither Matthew nor I ever thought about the importance of things such as cultures, religions, or even class for that matter. Each of these things would effect how people view open relationships and it would help better demonstrate how open relationships are represented in our society today. I can't wait to actually find the time to dedicate to this page and really start hashing this article out. Your feedback is greatly appreciated and I'm sure it will be of much more help once this page really starts coming together. Marikathrynarnold (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you guys have done a good job on your article so far. I think it's important that you listed a number of interpretations for the term, since as we saw in class, people can have differing opinions on the definition of certain terms. It's also good that you chose to include a picture of the 'polyamory symbol;' visuals often make things more interesting. I would continue the way you guys are working, and perhaps add information on polygamy, religion, and legal information, which could be of interest to you/your topic.Ntj2 (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Summary
Thanks so much guys; this really helps! Mari-Kathryn and I obviously have much work to do on our topic of open relationships. We've been getting a lot of good feedback and ideas from other groups, such as more specific topics regarding open relationships, and other ways to focus on particular aspects of our topic. I believe we're going to better structure our "To-Do" list and come up with some new ideas regarding open relationships, such as the roles of different cultures and religions as Mari-Kathryn discussed earlier. Thanks for the feedback though, hopefully we have been somewhat helpful as well! MatthewSniscak (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review
This is a really interesting topic. The idea people choose committed partners while still being open to other partners is an interesting concept. I definitely think your group should have a history section on this topic. Maybe even mention "key parties" from the 60's-70's era and parts of that culture. Reading what you have already planned looks like you're going to greatly improve upon the original page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crmatthews89 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review
I think this page is on to a good start. I would suggest exploring the reasons as to why two people may have an open relationship. Such as being away at college, living in two different places, or one partner wanting to save their self for marriage but the other partner not wanting to (that may be a stretch, but my point is there are many different reasons). I hope you take the different cultures route too, because i think that would be very interesting. Good luck. Jade.Richardson (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Reversion
I have bulk reverted the recent changes due to the fact that there are what appear to be OCR errors and that there are numerous [1]s and [2]s scattered throughout the text. This leads me to believe that the added text was copied wholesale from a work which may have been copyrighted. – RobinHood70 talk 23:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that this text was not copied from any outside source, but since I am working on editing this with a partner he was expected to do the revisions of making those numbers into the links to the sources in which I received the general information. This is part of a group project for a class and in order to help us make the group project work the deal was for him to do the formatting of the page and for me to supply the information due to the fact that I am not skilled with the formatting aspect of wikipedia.
 * Marikathrynarnold (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair enough. – RobinHood70 talk 06:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Preeeliminary review
Since I see a lot of work has been done over the past few days, here are few issues from a quick overview about issues that need to be addressed before GA (a more detailed review will follow within a few days). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * per Manual of Style/Lead section, lead should be a comprehensive summary (abstract) of the rest of the article, and should not contain new information. It does not seem to me like your lead is falling short of that.
 * the article does not have enough blue links, per Manual of Style/Linking it needs to be wikified
 * sentence "The negotiation should begin from a neutral place and with both parties in a stable place of mind.[2]" suggests it was copied from another Wikipedia article (which is fine) but that the reference was not copied
 * "Some Statistics" is problematic; why should only "some" statistics be included? Needs to be retitled, and restructured, also by rewriting from bullet to paragraphed prose style
 * existing footnotes are terribly formatted; on the bright side this can be easily fixed through this tool I mentioned in our syllabus and wiki guide, please fix this issue ASAP

Update on article revision
Hello all, sorry for the lack of explaining all of the revisions which I have been slowly working on and plan to have completed by next Monday. As you can see, I have redone the citations to properly be considered wikified, and have slowly been adding more information from other sources. By next Monday, I anticipate on completing the sources that have already been listed with page references. Although I hope to get it done before then, I unfortunately don't foresee that as a possibility due to my extremely busy week this week. Thank you for your cooperation and patience.

Marikathrynarnold (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Update for GA nomination
Hi. I was trying to wikify this article. I'm not sure how to fix the references; it appears in the code as though everything is right in the references section, yet it doesn't look good on the actual article (but it looks fine for a few references, such as the "Wayne Weiten; Dana S. Dunn; Elizabeth Yost Hammer (1 January 2011). Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1-111-18663-0. http://books.google.com/books?id=CGu96TeAZo0C. Retrieved 20 November 2011" article). How do we make all the references look like this one? Thanks. MatthewSniscak (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There are all kinds of different ways to insert references on Wikipedia. I initially converted your edits to one way, but I think it was probably your prof who came and converted it to a slightly different method, so I'll follow that person's lead so as not to create confusion. :)


 * In that method, you would cite every source in the References section using one of the citation templates. If you edit that section, you'll see where there are several Cite book templates already there. If all you're citing are books, then just copy those examples and change the details as necessary, but if you need them, Cite web, Cite journal, and Cite news are also common. Just click on any of the links to get a full description of how to use those. Also, for this method, you must give your reference a name, and it must be unique from all the other references listed (which is usually not too hard, though it can get to be a challenge when you're citing several similar works). Make sure to insert those references before the final }} (which you can see just after the for WeitenDunn2011.


 * Once you've got that in there, go to the location in the text where you want to cite the reference, and add (or change the existing one to).


 * Taking what's currently reference 4, for example, you would use the Cite journal template and add the following to the references section:


 * Don't worry if another editor or bot comes along behind you and alters that slightly - there are a number of recommended content and formatting guidelines in use, so someone might spot a minor issue and fix it.


 * Anyway, once that's in there, you'd go up to the existing citation in the lead section and change the current ref to.


 * There, that's one down...14 to go. Aren't educational assignments fun? :) If you want to go ahead and try the above, and maybe a couple of others, I, your prof, or one of the other editors can look them over when you're done and see if there are any issues before you finish the remainder. – RobinHood70 talk  05:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like MKA got the hang of it. In case you hadn't noticed it, though, there's one citation that's still broken. Note: I just tried to fix it, but the DOI wasn't found. I've left it as is for now, since it at least gets rid of the ugly red error message. – RobinHood70 talk 16:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Janus Report Incorrect
The Janus Report (1993) does not say that 21 percent of people are in open marriages. The Janus report contains different tables reporting the percent of people who have participated in open marriage. One table is broken down by gender and marital status: first marriage men, first marriage women, divorced men, divorced women, second marriage men, second marriage women. Each of these groups contains a different number of people. You can't simply add up the percentages across group. Only around 4-7% of currently married and divorced adults have participated in open marriage. A table towards the end of the book looks at the percentage of people who have participated in open marriage by geographic region. This table is even better because it includes all adults. The data in this table indicates about 3% of all adults have participated in open marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.71.213.2 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 25 May 2012
 * I have removed the entire "Statistics" section on the grounds of it being dated, dubious (for the reasons you give), US-centric and poorly integrated into the article. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   15:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Does this Article Violate POV? Original research?
This article relies very heavily on Tristan Taormino's book, "Opening up: a guide to creating and sustaining open relationship." Taormino's book is based on her personal experiences and an informal, unscientific survey of a few dozen people. If this article is meant to be a review of Toarmino's book, or an exposition of Taormino's views about open relationships, then it should be renamed to reflect as much. By relying so heavily on one person's experiences and opinions, this article effectively adopts Toarmino's POV and the original research in her book. It is not a well-balanced article about open relationships that draws on numerous sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.71.213.2 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 25 May 2012
 * I agree with your comment. When I have finished trimming out the reams of poor-quality verbiage in this article, I will endeavor to identify and remove such material. (I have already done so in some cases.) — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   15:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)