Talk:Infidelity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infidelity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
March 2006
I propose that this article is amended to reflect the more widely-understood definition of infidelity, i.e. sexual unfaithfulness. The current i am a chicken and would like to eat some pie now Also isn't the rest of the definition of sexual infidelity a bit on the woolly liberal side?? --Thoughtcat 08:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree on the religious definition. I don't think it's what people expect to find here. I can't really argue with the wooly liberal thing, but I was trying to stave off complaints from polyamorists that not everyone who has sex with person B while in a relationship with person A is engaging in infidelity—I think it's an NPOV issue. That said, I'm a wooly liberal myself, so I will readily admit to the possibilty of having gone too far in the other direction and being unable to recognize it.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 20:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Better article elsewhere
This article is, frankly, not very complete or encyclopedic - it is barely more than a stub. The subject is dealt with far more fully and in a far more encyclopedic way over at Incidence of Monogamy. I think this page should just be a redirect there. No useful content would be lost.
(Actually I made the redirect to a full article at Adultery.
DanB†DanD 05:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Merge Affair and Emotional Affair
I suggest re-opening this page and merging the contents of the other two into this one. Then apply careful links to some related topics in order to faciltate the reader's research of this area viz: Adultery, Affair, Emotional affair, Mistress (lover), Friendship, Monogamy, Incidence of Monogamy, Forms of nonmonogamy such as Polyamory, Polygyny. Platonic love and Romantic friendship as well as Human bonding, Human sexuality, Interpersonal chemistry, Intimate relationship, Intimacy, Emotional intimacy, Physical intimacy. And the related topics for example: Lovemaps, Love styles, Romantic love, Love (scientific views). Then there are the Sugar daddy, Transactional sex, Enjo kōsai articles and the series on Love.--Ziji 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Begun merge with See Also sub-header
Please don't delete any of the links in the sub header, even if they offend. It has taken me ages to find them. It is not yet complete. I have tried to make this list useful to any one from any culture or religion researching the topic through wikipedia. I have included incest because some extra marital affairs could conceivably be statutory rape in some cultures, a concensual crime in others and depending on the proximity of relationship (eg 1st cousin, step child) or variation of age of consent or differing cultural defintions of sexual contact --Ziji 04:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm coninuing a merge by steath - have moved the section on office romance from Affair back into it's own article and wikified it, placed it in a broader context. In the process reduced Affair by one section and at same time edited and improved Affair, which now might stand on its own?--Ziji
(talk email) 22:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Definition
At this moment, infidelity is defined through definitions of fidelity, perhaps somehow the result should be that the word is defined through its proper denominator? As one can see, there's more fidelity definition in this Infidelity article than there is in the actual Fidelity article, which is rather a stub than a good article. How do we cope with definitions of words that are their opposites?
thedarkestclear Talk 20:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Operationally? Would it help if we defined each type, such as sexual infidelity, by its acts and effects - always a bit long winded but can be done without reference to fidelity per se? I checked the fidelity article - you are right it is a stub and this article defines fidelity better as well.--Ziji (talk email) 22:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe. Check the first sentences:
(1) Infidelity is literally a breach of faith. (2) Fidelity, derived from the Latin word for faithfullness, is the principle of not deceiving one capable of being deceived. (3) Infidelity is a breach of good faith that applies in a number of other contexts (for example religious). (4) In the context of this article about close relationships, the infidelity referred to is also called cheating, defined as "any violation of the mutually agreed-upon rules or boundaries of a relationship".
(1) and (3) are the same, whilst (2) is defined from fidelity instead of infidelity, and (4) overlaps (3) with a confusing of context. These four points could be put in one to two sentences, followed by the fact various contexts can exist (as with any concept). I'll give it a shot.
thedarkestclear Talk 09:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe. Check the first sentences:
Merge
Ziji, I noticed you're working on Emotional Affair and other articles on the subject and you suggested merging that article into Infidelity, how is your stance on this now? I saw you placed and removed Emotional Affair's merge tag, and you're now looking how to place articles such as Office Romance etc. Either case, Infidelity is the subject that contains the core of this subject: a breach of connection between two parties, other articles such as Emotional Affair, Office Romance etc., rather are various ways of "interpreting" that core (for example a physical or emotional breach, or both). Henceforth, what'd you think about merging anyway, or at least keeping a to the point core, apart from interpretations (for example in subdivisions). All the information concerning the core problem is divided over different articles about the same subject, either case. How would you see it?
thedarkestclear Talk 16:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi darkestclear. I am still of the view that the core (and separate) articles are Infidelity and Adultery. The rest are as you say, variations. I have made Office romance more in the org psych/sex harrassment realm and that may not merge so well into Infidelity. But the rest definitely belong here. Do you have the time for the merge and tidy up job?--Ziji (talk email) 00:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ziji, I agree with your view and I do have the time to have a look on it. Step one is to take out all definitions of one subject out of other articles that use these definitions reversedly ("let's first say what it is NOT", or "infidelity is the opposite of fidelity, and fidelity is......"), put them to the right subject and work on from there.
thedarkestclear Talk 09:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ziji, I agree with your view and I do have the time to have a look on it. Step one is to take out all definitions of one subject out of other articles that use these definitions reversedly ("let's first say what it is NOT", or "infidelity is the opposite of fidelity, and fidelity is......"), put them to the right subject and work on from there.
Having done some more work on the six articles: Affair, Emotional affair, Adultery, Infidelity, Office romance and Extramarital sex, the one most needing styrict editing remains Affair. I would prefer to merge it into Infidelity but the problem is where to put those affairs which do not breach faith or a covenant of monogamy. 'Affair' remains in common usage and often where infidelity or adultery would be more accurate. On balance I now think these 6 related articles are a better solution than two on Infidelity and Adultery. I will now go and slice into Affair. Any thoughts?--Ziji 
(talk email) 00:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits
I have made a number of small and larger edits to the page after some time being away from the page. I would like to add a new section about children conceived in or witnesses to an affair. And perhaps a little more about the recent changes to Family LAw in Australia, that introduces a new risk to extramarital affairs of 2 or more years duration - that is that they may be considered defacto by the court. Children conceived in an affair may apply to the court for assistance--Ziji (talk email) 07:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I have often thought that there are many types of betrayal that are not explicitly sexual or romantic/emotional attachment. Withdrawal of affection (emotional and physical) is certainly a betrayal, and can be a causal factor prompting sexual or emotional betrayal by the spouse experiencing the withdrawal. We can argue semantics, but if we're trying to get at understanding ... it's a bit more convoluted that clear cut definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.118.21.16 (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Unsupported assertions
This article violates policy in many ways. Just to concentrate on lack of support, the first sentence begins: "Infidelity is any violation of the mutually agreed-upon rules or boundaries of a relationship..." This un-footnoted statement is not only controversial but poorly written. (As written, it means that if I have agreed to clean up the dishes each Tuesday dinner but fail to, I have committed infidelity.) The second paragraph begins "There are two types of infidelity: sexual and emotional." This blanket statement also has no footnote. But it's controversial: if you ask ten people for a definition of infidelity, I'll bet the majority respond by referring only to sexual infidelity. The largest area of disagreement would probably be in the definition of sexual infidelity. Under "Different Types of Infidelity" the third sentence reads: "There are five types of infidelity." The footnoted source is the personal opinion of one Cathy Meyer; moreover, Ms. Meyer is misquoted. What she actually says is, "Below is a list of reasons for infidelity." She makes no claim that there are not, say, twenty-nine reasons for infidelity, or for that matter six billion. In any case she is no Kuebler-Ross. A glance at the footnotes shows that most sources fall into the categories of personal opinion or journalism; only two (from the Mayo Clinic public website) appear even vaguely academic. In sum, this article is a string of unsupported personal opinions and should either be completely rewritten or deleted.C. Cerf (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
