Talk:Open marriage

message: C&Ping my comments from Talk:Polyamory on the same subject: 
Will Smith gave an interview which was widely interpreted as saying they had an open marriage (see e.g. here) but Jada Smith has indicated that he was misinterpreted/taken out of context on this one and Will Smith is rather less than clear on the point in a subsequent interview. IIRC there was another interview with Smith in which he said his intended meaning was not "we're open" but "open marriage would be better than dishonesty", or words to that effect, but I can't find that one at present. --Calair 09:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Will and Jada

message: *I have exercised the Wikipedia philosophy of  being bold and made major revisions to the Open marriage article. 
*The topic of open marriage is broad enough for several articles. Reorganizing the main page to summarize the various articles will help readers find the information they seek more easily. It will also allow contributors to write new articles on open marriage and easily integrate them into the new page. This strategy has gone over well with the Monogamy article and the Attachment theory article. 
* I released the articles a little early due to my upcoming vacation. I will continue to polish and improve the articles after my vacation.
* I have an unfinished article in the works on  Open marriage relationship. This article will look at the various effects open marriage can have on relationships--positive, neutral, and negative. It will contain a few brief notes on relationship maintenance.
* I think the articles I've added have enough verifiable references from credible sources to remove the template for lack of citations. I've removed the template. I'd be happy to discuss if anyone objects. Kelly 07:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the new article on relationship maintenance. That's the last article I plan to add, although I will go back after my vacation and improve some of the existing articles (including the addition of some figures). I hope no one objects to removing the emotional issues section. I think those are now covered in the relationship maintenance article and the jealousy management article. Kelly 06:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Got a cite for that? --Calair 13:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision July 26, 2006

message: Joseph Goebbels cheated on his wife, a lot even, but that's not the same as an "open marriage". An open marriage provide consent of both partners, which sure was not given with Magda Goebbels.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.47.170 (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph and Magda Goebbels did NOT live an "open marriage" 

message: To my count, there are 4 separate articles aside from this one that are basically expanded sections of this article. There's Open_marriage_relationship, Open_marriage_styles, Open_marriage_jealousy and Open_marriage_incidence. I understand separating a long section into it's own article, but each section in this article has it's own separate article, each of which don't really justify having their own page. I suggest merging them back into the main article. 174.112.6.146 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has this subject has been splintered into several articles? 

message: The articles Open marriage, Open marriage relationship, Open marriage styles, Open marriage acceptance, Open marriage incidence, and Open marriage jealousy ought to be merged into Open relationship.
The destination article clearly encompasses the subject matter of all six articles. These are content forks, and these have in fact become interleaved and self-referential; for instance, sections have been added to Open marriage simply to justify the existence of other articles, and likewise sections have been put into the smaller articles to point back to each other.
When the merge is completed, the significant redundancies can be readily removed, leaving a single credible destination for the topic.Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed merge 

message: Set aside for a moment that most of the articles appear derivative right from the title. The fact is that most of the content is of little (perhaps no) interest to Wikipedia users.
*Open relationship
**page views in past 30 days: 25,246
**number of page watchers: 76
**number of redirects to this page: 4
**page creator: Branddobbe
*Open marriage
**page views in past 30 days: 17,027
**number of page watchers: 113
**number of redirects to this page: 2
**page creator: Kerada
*Open marriage relationship
**page views in past 30 days: 929
**number of page watchers: <30
**number of redirects to this page: 0
**page creator: Kc62301 merged to Open marriage
*Open marriage styles
**page views in past 30 days: 1,980
**number of page watchers: <30
**number of redirects to this page: 0
**page creator: Kc62301 merged to Open marriage
*Open marriage acceptance
**page views in past 30 days: 429
**number of page watchers: <30
**number of redirects to this page: 0
**page creator: Kc62301 merged to Open marriage
*Open marriage incidence
**page views in past 30 days: 544
**number of page watchers: <30
**number of redirects to this page: 0
**page creator: Kc62301 merged to Open marriage
*Open marriage jealousy
**page views in past 30 days: 410
**number of page watchers: <30
**number of redirects to this page: 0
**page creator: Kc62301 merged to Open marriage
Clearly, defunct editor Kc62301 was a serial forker, spawning questionable articles to support his own theories of interpersonal relating (e.g., Outline of relationships). Most of them show a tiny visitorship, most of those likely arriving from the superior articles in hopes of further enlightenment. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: supportive evidence for merge

message: The Definitional issues subsection of Incidence ought to be relocated higher in the article, possible at/near the top, as these conditions are fundamental to determining what the hell the article is supposed to be about. resolved (though it could benefit from editing/sourcing) Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still possible that Incidence — after getting its blockquotes removed — would be much more appropriate near the top of the article. (This would be even vital if there were links to educated guesses of the prevalence of "open marriage" closer to 2018.)Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  necessary changes/repairs: notes for helpful people 

message: The article as it stands relies too significantly on one book, namely Taormino's Opening Up, inarguably raising the yellow flag of POV doubts, not to mention whether it might have advert or fansite bias. Since that book is a marketing brochure for open relating, rather than any sort of scholarly study, the article relies heavily on a primary source; I'd say the flag becomes red.Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  single-sourcing 

message: The article seems to equate open marriage with both swinging and CNM ("consensual non-monogamy"). This at least is highly misleading and must be removed.
Open marriage is a type of open relationship, but not all open relationships are married or even marriage-like. An open relationship can be an example of CNM; not all examples of CNM are open relationships. Open marriage is not equivalent to polyamory just because they both can fit CNM. Swinging is not CNM except in a very limited technical sense.
A DADT open relationship is not polyamorous, because of the intentionally limited communication — giving initial permission (consent) is not the same as keeping regularly informed. A DADT open relationship is not necessarily consensual: they do not talk about it, so consent cannot be established.
Not all CNM is open. A relationship can be non-monogamous without being open, e.g. group marriage and polyfidelity.Nkofa (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points all around.  There is significant crossover from various communities, but as noted, they aren't always interchangeable.  This page really needs a clean up in general.--Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 01:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology is not interchangeable.