![]() | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 Oct, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 July, 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
There are now enough scholarly sources for this term that I believe it qualifies as notable. That being said, there is a lot of uncited material, original research and questionable sources in the article. I tagged the offending areas. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
There have been some concerns about the appropriateness of this article. These break down into questions of Original Research, Neologism, and scholarly content. The scholarly content discussion in 2007 appeared to be fueled in large part by the concept that it was a scientific term or theory and as such needed scientific validation; to substantial degree this concern was reduced by removing an inappropriate Psychology tag; it is being considered more of a cultural term.
It does show up twice in Google Scholar, and is used in at least four accepted theses or dissertations: It is used in at least four accepted theses or dissertations (I have heard of others to be tracked down)
Quoting a comment from the 2007 discussion:
The various sources cited fall mostly into three categories and one exception. A couple treat the subject in some detail, consistent with the usage described in this article, and may provide the main sources if the article is kept. Several others define the term more briefly, also consistent with this article. Some of these might be worked into citations, if they go on to make observations once it's defined (the counseling ones sound interesting). A third group use the term or its acronym in ways quite consistent with this article, but without offering any definition to the reader. (The exception is only a single reference which seems to get "NRE" wrong; written by a non-polyamorist, it recognizes NRE as a common term among polyamorists, but then overtly speculates (incorrectly) about the phrase intended by the acronym, without actually asserting any knowledge of the matter.) Since a major question regarding this article is whether it should still be classified as a Neologism as relevant to the Wikipedia guidelines, the third category (used but not defined in the reference) is of interest, even though not useful for citation to establish meaning. The Neologism guideline, which is to be applied with WP:COMMON, gives the purpose or reason for avoidance of typical recent neologisms as: "because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people". This term is not very recent, is clearly definable, all sources that assert knowledge of the meaning are consistent, some go into detail, all non-speculative usages are consistent, and several print authors no longer even feel it's unfamiliar or ambiguous enough to require definition for their readers (all according to the references available to us and listed elsewhere here). That should apply common sense to the concerns behind the Neologism guideline, and also serve as some evidence of notability.
There is evidence from Google Groups of usage in the current meaning going back to the early 90's, which while not citable to define the term, can give some background as to its minimum longevity.
Since this is a cultural term, it's also used in published popular books. This may help establish that it is well known and relatively unambiguous.
Perhaps someone can work some of these into citations. I believe that all but the noted exception use NRE or New Relationship Energy compatibly with the book, some with definitions and some assuming its well enough known not to need definition. 76.191.206.169 (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The references used in this article do not pass WP:V, WP:RS. Furthermore, the term appears to be an neologism. Please provide better sources for this term. --Mattisse 14:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.aphroweb.net/articles/nre.htm has the history of the long standing acronym. No one in the polyamory uses limerence that I know of and I have joined over 30 USA and world wide polyamory yahoo groups and other sites. I disagree that NRE is a neologism. It has been around since the 1980's and has stood the test of a decade or more. Geothermal 05:54, 25 October 2007
The phrase is used very widely in the polyamory community. Google Groups Search for "new relationship energy" in alt.polyamory or for "NRE" shows many hits dating back to the early 1990's. Other online polyamory forums, mailing lists, etc. will also show plenty of references to this term. Most polyamory FAQs describe it as well, such as the PolyTampa FAQ, the polyamory.org acronym list, and the PolyMatchMaker Glossary. Musqrat 03:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is a link to a book mentioned in the Reference List. http://www.amazon.com/Love-Limerence-Experience-Being/dp/0812862864/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206122849&sr=1-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geothermal (talk • contribs) 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
COMMENT: The exact usage of NRE compared to limerence is subtle and I think in flux. I use NRE to mean the excitement and energy that comes from limerence. In current usage (2007), "NRE" seems to carry overtones of excitement and bubbliness, slightly superficial. "Limerence" carries more overtones of wonder and depth. --Alan7388
No published source material seems available to support the connotations asserted above, which differ greatly from Tennov's descriptions of Limerence and Stewart's description of NRE. The asserted distinction may be assumed to be local to Alan7388's immediate community rather than widespread usage, pending some verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.26.161 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Over months, I've been staring at the final paragraph(s). Bad enough this steals a "related concepts" presentation to do a "compare-and-contrast" with limerence… but it bothered me in some other manner. Then I set aside my Editor hat and read through the entire article as though a casual user. The final thought (wiped of fail tags and broken down to cases) is
It's all so SIMPLE, really: limerence is The Brown Acid, NRE is All The Groovy Stuff. This ought to be a cited example in Propaganda.
For WP purposes, the major problem is that no evidence is offered that would support the (one-sided) conjecture; as a matter of fact, Limerence heavily cites Tennov and her progeny yet is almost entirely lacking all the arm-waving Chicken Little "OMG!!" negativity — e.g., "limerence is first and foremost a condition of cognitive obsession". (The term has also received much better coverage in major media, as opposed to a few special-interest blogs.)
Unless someone can salvage this with MANY good sources — and soon — it will be beaten back to a brief explication of how limerence fits into this discussion. Until that happy day, I'm removing all the tags, because at this point such detail is mere turd-polishing. And any defenders of this article's continued existence would do well to use Limerence as an ideal. resolved
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The concept of open consensual non-monogamy far predates the neologisim "polyamory". Indeed, the latter term rapidly gained favor as a new label for an existing practice. Before the coining of that term, it was often called "open relationships", "open marriage", or "responsible non-monogamy". Early inspirations include the science fiction novel "Stranger in a Strange Land" (1961) by Robert Heinlein, the novel "The Harrad Experiment" (1966) by Robert Rimmer, the movie of the same name in 1973, and the book "Open Marriage" (1972) by the O'Neils. The asserted first uses of the term "New Relationship Energy" predate the widespread usage of the neologism "Polyamory" as a label - but hardly predate the practice or concept which would often be labeled as polyamory today.
It is also not logical to dispute an assertion that the term New Relationship Energy is a hot topic in today's "polyamorous community" by noting that the term NRE predates the term Polyamory. There was no actual assertion that "NRE" was a hot topic in a self-labeled polyamorous community in the 80's, so that may be an inadvertant strawman argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.40.5 (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)