![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
This also is missing the criticism of the religious basis of marriage validity, it is a marriage is religious belief. That impacts the civil rights and religious freedom of groups like Atheists; therebing no god, there is no religion, there is no truth in religious described reltionships.
The disclosure and transparency is not required for a the belief and practice of Polyamory. All that is required is consent of sexual encounters.
Since many sexually based behaviors begin with the same behavior - seeking a partner, it is premature to judge consent. Especially where a member may form the belief of Polyamore after being inside a marriage, before the new belief was expressed. People have the right to change and grow personally, even if it's not encouraged by a portion of society. As the LGBT+ community shows that the negative aspects of disclosure provide justification to not disclose the belief (severe objections and critical response), especially to a marriage partner who does not share that belief; or where the importance of the domestic situation is more important than disclosure, like protecting tranquility for the sake of dependents. The luxury of a simple divorce may not be in the best interest of the child in a marriage. And the choice of a closet polyamore to sacrifice happiness is a choice that is valid. Further a marriage my be an economic survival method and there for prejudicial, and economically discriminatory. So describing Polyamory as serial non-monogamy is just inaccurate. Removing the religious underpinnings of Pollyamore is required or else there needs to be a new term for this.
"Protected Polyamory" or "Reserved Polyamory" or "Private Polyamory" or "Select Poly" are terms which can make a distinction between consent and disclosed vs no consent. Disclosure and consent with all partners is not a basis of a being a Polyamory. 35 million members of the recent data dump are proof that there is a great segment of society that does not believe disclosure or consent of all partners is required. The reasons include, that sexless marriages carry little if any risk, re response to a non-monogamous partner to equalize a double standard for equalization of rights, as a freedom of speach issue that people are not property and in defiance of a religious precept of marriage among many others.
But no matter how it's described there are many subcategories of Polyamore that is defined on its face by sex. This includes the fact a married member may only be having sex with one partner - even if it's not their spouse. In that regard, there is not Polyamore, but Polyrelational with or without consent, with or without sex, with or without love per-se.
The discussion of this in generally is objectionable to romantic concepts of marriage, but because the law allows what is essentially a contract of terms, it can not override the basic civil rights of an individual. a group contract may have terms, but they are sub to the primary individual rights. Laws reflecting this are updating in modern society. Sourcing Special status by the Supreme Court regarding LGBT+ status.
Wikipedia which does not include this separation in distinction, discriminates against this protected class and violates religious freedom and civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.231.62.169 ( talk) 17:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
On 17 July 2015, the Symbols section was edited to remove discussion of the polyamory pride flag, with the comment that the removal was of "extensive discussion of some guy's flag design, cited only to his own defunct home page." While the cited page has been removed, it has been archived at The Internet Archive. Moreover, a quick web search on "polyamory pride flag" reveals it in wide use via merchandise, and is almost universally included in catalogs of pride flags. At the very least, where the actual design of the flag is not used, the blue-red-black color scheme has been adapted for use with other polyamory-related symbols. At the very least, a discussion of the color scheme and its origins is warranted. MusicInHarmony ( talk) 15:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
~~~~
.@ Scott: I see you moved the infinity/heart symbol to the bottom and replaced it with "something more dynamic." I agree that an image of people is more dynamic than a symbol, but the symbol is more universal than any individual or grouping of individuals. Other groups have their symbols at the top of the page, even those as obscure as, say, Lojban. Admittedly, polyamory is more of a movement than a group, but I still think the symbol is a better representation than a photograph of a specific event. I'm not worked up enough about this to undo your work, but I'm wondering if I can persuade you to :)
Alternatively, can we find an image that keeps our subcultures straight (so to speak)? Let's not risk conflating gay pride with polyamory...
Best regards,
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 19:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The cited source is not a reliable source. Whilst onus is on those including information to provide a reliable source, I would note that even a trivial Google books search reveals references for decades before 1988, and the same site being used as a source for this claim also ran an earlier article which cites the Macmillan dictionary as evidence of usage as far back as the 1960s. ~Excesses~ ( talk) 15:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
This article makes little mention of societies throughout history which widely accept(ed) non-monogamous relationships. A good starting point could be the article on polyandry, which lists dozens of societies (both historical and extant) which practice non-monogamy. Richard☺Decal ( talk) 19:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest modification of the current last two Values: Gender Equality and Non-Possessiveness.
The first part of the Gender Equality paragraph is fine, observing that it's a common characteristic of polyamory to grant all genders equal rights, in contrast to some other forms of non-monogamy. The rest of the paragraph giving examples and a concept that any assymetry (even a negotiated one) is temporary, seems more questionable and less universal, so I would nominate that for deletion. It would be good to cite a reference for the retained portion of this paragraph.
I would nominate the value "non-possessiveness" for deletion. It's true that a portion of the polyamorous community has that value, but it does not seem to be close to a universal characteristic as phrased. Quite a few polyamorists have agreements which could be interpreted as "possessive" in that they may restrict the freedom of partners to engage in whatever sexual or romantic relationships they desire. So I think this is a value which polyamorists are nearly as likely to omit as to endorse, and as such it does not belong in this list.
The earlier values in the list do seem to be common enough to be "typical" or "characteristic" and could be retained as is. They also have references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.130.110 ( talk) 04:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified the intro section to the Polyamory article.
Most of the changes were intended to make this section more concise. I have also added several citations to support claims that were previously unsourced. Beyond those changes, I have also added an acknowledgement of the contested nature of the term "polyamory", with supporting citations, and removed the claim that "Although sometimes misperceived as a relationship orientation (much like gender or sexual orientation) it is not". In fact, some believe that polyamory should be considered an orientation or identity. I have changed the text to indicate this ("some believe that it should also be considered an orientation or identity") while adding relevant citations for support.
See my my edit here.
PostScarcity ( talk) 00:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I removed some original research from the Polyamory#Geographical_and_cultural_differences section.
1. In the Polyamory#Geographical_and_cultural_differences section, User:Shantoo had added the following:
"The practice of polyamory is as diverse as the people who practice it, even within one relationship cluster individuals may have different ideas and practices than the rest of the group but it can still work if every individual is committed to the key components of trust, loyalty, mutual respect, honesty and compassion. Even though these key concepts can each be interpreted differently, as long as they are understood and agreed upon within a poly cluster and everyone adheres to them, then cluster should work. Every relationship that has these core values can arguably to be considered polyamorous, therefore as in all romantic relationship, geographic and cultural differences only impact on external forces such as legal or social issues but will not stop people practicing polyamory."
This is original research. If User:Shantoo wishes to explain "the impact of Geographical and cultural differences on the practice of polyamory" (as was noted on the original edit summary) then they should do so by drawing from existing research on the subject.
PostScarcity ( talk) 13:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I removed an external link added by PolyTany because I believe it is inappropriate for Wikipedia, based on External Link guidelines. For example, social networking sites are among the "Links normally to be avoided" and the external link is primarily a social networking site. Here is the link in question (see edit in question):
- Everything you always wanted to know about polyamory from Polyamory Dating.
It's worth noting that I am not the first to remove this link. History of its removal:
PostScarcity ( talk) 23:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
---
Hi PostScarcity, thanks for letting me know that your remove the link. I would like to ask you why? because the page I added is relevant to the Polyamory. I also read the guidelines and I will be appreciate if you tell me why am I wrong. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolyTany ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
---
Hi PolyTany, Wikipedia is not a link directory and it is not a place for the promotion of your personal projects. The External Link is also primarily a social networking site, which is listed among the "Links normally to be avoided" in the External Link guidelines. Please read what Wikipedia is not. You may want to submit your link to the relevant category at the Open Directory Project (dmoz.org) and link back to that category from the Polyamory article using the dmoz template.
PostScarcity ( talk) 00:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear all, please follow the rules in not biting the newcomer ;) I am a PhD student in the field of sexuality and I noticed the "dubious - discuss" link on the current page regards swinging. Everything therein seems to be listing the differences between swinging and polyamory as if comparing apples and oranges (which should not, unless I'm horribly misinformed about fruit, appear on each other's pages). There is currently no academic basis to consider swinging a form of polyamory.
Klesse, C. (2006). Polyamory and its “Others”: Contesting the Terms of Non-Monogamy. Sexualities, 9(5), 565–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460706069986
Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Consensual Nonmonogamy: Psychological Well-Being and Relationship Quality Correlates. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 961–982. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.942722
Moors, A. C. (2016). Has the American Public’s Interest in Information Related to Relationships Beyond “The Couple” Increased Over Time? The Journal of Sex Research, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1178208
Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13(6), 748–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460710384645
Mogilski, J. K., Memering, S. L., Welling, L. L. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). Monogamy versus Consensual Non-Monogamy: Alternative Approaches to Pursuing a Strategically Pluralistic Mating Strategy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0658-2
Conley, T. D., & Moors, A. C. (2014). More Oxygen Please!: How Polyamorous Relationship Strategies Might Oxygenate Marriage. Psychological Inquiry, 25(1), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.876908
https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460706069986, https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460706069986
In fact, I do believe any researcher daring to do so would be heavily criticized.
In short, I think the page could be improved by removing this link. Please see the referenced articles which all discuss swinging and polyamory.
-- 80.112.188.158 ( talk) 12:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Compersion (or, synonymously, frubble) is silly. A feeling of compersion is much more specific than a vague "feeling of happiness at others' good fortune." At least mudita is a Buddhist concept AND focuses on joy… though again not directly relevant to polyamory.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
17:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Polyamory. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Polyamory. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Given the high standard of research claimed hereabouts, I move to simply strike all unsubstantiated claims as they appear. For instance, consider the following (my emphases) --
Looks to be at least ten sources short of credible.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
19:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The current definition of "polyamory" on this page is unsourced and is not in keeping with current writing on the topic. The following definitions are from prominent books and websites:
None of these definitions refer to a single relationship with multiple people, as described in the definition currently in the lede: "Polyamory...is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships involving more than two people..." Each of these definitions refer to multiple partners or multiple relationships.
Dr. Sheff is a longtime researcher in polyamory and polyamorous relationships and the author of three books on the subject. Her work is therefore a reliable source, and I am drawing on it (and citing it) to propose the following definition:
"Polyamory (from Greek πολύ poly, "many, several", and Latin amor, "love") is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships where individuals may have more than one partner, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved."
I am replacing the definition in the lede and making other minor adjustments as necessary to the rest of the page to be consistent with the new definition.
Margareta ( talk) 01:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
This still cries for clarification: engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the knowledge and consent of all partners.
Is this supposed to mean "all partners know about every other partner", or "all of a person's partners are aware that said person is acting nonmonogamously"?
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
08:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
While the term
polyamory ought to have a clear definition in order to proceed, I am beginning to doubt that laying out a detailed explication at the beginning of the article is proper, or simply serves to bog everything down in jargon, specious claims, and excessive punctuation. I set up my case atthe bottom of this Talk page.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
20:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Margareta has clearly put commendable effort into crafting a proper definition of polyamory. Problem is, it tends to cover up some serious problems in examining the topic in a logical, consistent manner. Therefore, to launch thought I offer five attempts in response. Hopefully, others can see where discussing the concept "polyamory" is perilous if nobody seems to be using the term consistently, and in fact to mean different (even opposing) things.
per Morning Glory:
In stark contrast, polyamory.com says that
per PolyMatchmaker.com:
per alt.polyamory:
per Wordnik.com:
I recommend removing the Forms list entirely. It looks like the case is being surreptitiously made that polyamory is a form of nonmonogamy, yet magically polyamory contains almost all forms of nonmonogamy!! There's plenty of argument (online and in print) over whether many of those are actually polyamory or just "polysorta." This therefore adds to the confusion already surrounding the term polyamory, which I don't believe is a vital part of the WP mission.
Furthermore, the entries overlap heavily with the list that makes up the bulk of Non-monogamy. The info here would be better merged over to that article.
Finally, the list (both, actually) cites no source(s) to justify the inclusion of any of those entries in the list, much less to claim that the list is in some way complete or even representative of the variants.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
19:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
For the use and analysis of a triad relationship in sociology, see
Triad (sociology).
Mmmm... nope. Makes more sense in
Non-monogamy and I wouldn't put it there either. It makes about as much sense as flagging
Troy Polamalu or
Polomolok or
Palomar just in case someone got confused. Please justify.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
01:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
When did that goofy-looking strip of paper appear?? Anyway, let's have a quick run through why I'm planning to remove it sometime this weekend.
At best, the symbol dates back to 2012, and in any case was presented as a symbol of nonmonogamy. In case someone's not yet up to speed, let me point out that "polyamory" and "nonmonogamy" ARE NOT interchangeable.
I might grant it a reprieve IFF someone can provide some provenance — like maybe the name of the designer, its IPR status, date of creation or initial public presentation, prominent usages, and thusly.
I may leave it at Non-monogamy awhile (it's a minor article), but the symbol still needs at least a passing attempt at substantiation else good WP form dictates removal.
However, until it appears in the German article, it's living on borrowed time here.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
16:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Removed. Weeb Dingle ( talk) 20:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I was sure that Kinsey Inst could help clear the fog. Huh. This is all that popped up.
Kinsey Confidential, November 27, 2013
I've removed the opening claim to more than 500,000 polyamorous relationships … in the United States. The actual statement to which this refers (a 2009 Newsweek.com blog) states that "researchers" estimated "half a million" "polyamorous families". Problematic that none of the terms is defined, deadly that the blog doesn't attribute that number to ANY researcher. The WP editor who put this here is either dishonest or inept to have presented this, particularly in the overview. Find me a researcher.
The word typically ought to be forever banned from Wikipedia EXCEPT in a quotation. It almost always indicates baseless overreach. Again, whoever used it THREE times in the opening is dishonest or inept — please don't simply revert this.
In a few instances I have removed "romantic" from romantic relationship(s) as the term is NOWHERE defined (or even linked) despite appearing 13 times in the article. Not helping is that in most instances it's presented as equivalent to (and possibly interchangeable with) sexual relationships, another discussion-critical term that remains unexplained.
As these terms are used to fundamentally define Polyamory, I contend that the article is fundamentally flawed, perhaps fatally so, despite its bulk.
Meantime, in most instances intimate relationship would likely be far superior, accounting more than adequately for exceptional closeness whether sexual or emotional or whatever.
I've begun an effort to remove weasel words. Take the opening statement, before and after:
Potential weasel: tacking to the foregoing …with the knowledge and consent of all partners. If "consent" is to be used, it ought be defined immediately, clearly, succinctly, and more importantly contrasted to assent. (Should a person indicate (explicitly or impicitly) "let me do as I see fit, else we're through," this may achieve assent, but NOT consent, therefore NOT polyamory, QED.) That probably ought to be addressed in the article proper, rather than opening that particular can of worms in the intro then ignoring it. In any case, "consent" is clearly a fnord in this article, so "knowledge" will suffice in theintro, and the fuller definition can be presented and explained in the body..
I've cut However, the meaning of polyamory is also an issue of ongoing debate … (analogous to sexual orientation or gender identity). This doesn't belong in the
abstract (summary) portion, and repeats what is more fully discussed further in. If brought back, please fold it properly into the article.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
A detailed legal theory of polyamorous marriage is being developed. The "dyadic networks" model… Hype, editorializing, overreach. The cited article was published 2010; the term dyadic networks model is hardly well-known (182 hits on Google). Yet it's set up to appear as somehow important here. To me, this exemplifies the flaws throughout the Marriage implications section, much of which cries out to be rewritten or heavily edited or removed outright.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
19:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't bring myself to link mention of a triad to either
Threesome or
Ménage à trois. The former term applies to sex alone rather than emotional relationship. The latter term should be about what we today mean by "triad," but popular usage equates it to "three-way" sex.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
00:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
This also is missing the criticism of the religious basis of marriage validity, it is a marriage is religious belief. That impacts the civil rights and religious freedom of groups like Atheists; therebing no god, there is no religion, there is no truth in religious described reltionships.
The disclosure and transparency is not required for a the belief and practice of Polyamory. All that is required is consent of sexual encounters.
Since many sexually based behaviors begin with the same behavior - seeking a partner, it is premature to judge consent. Especially where a member may form the belief of Polyamore after being inside a marriage, before the new belief was expressed. People have the right to change and grow personally, even if it's not encouraged by a portion of society. As the LGBT+ community shows that the negative aspects of disclosure provide justification to not disclose the belief (severe objections and critical response), especially to a marriage partner who does not share that belief; or where the importance of the domestic situation is more important than disclosure, like protecting tranquility for the sake of dependents. The luxury of a simple divorce may not be in the best interest of the child in a marriage. And the choice of a closet polyamore to sacrifice happiness is a choice that is valid. Further a marriage my be an economic survival method and there for prejudicial, and economically discriminatory. So describing Polyamory as serial non-monogamy is just inaccurate. Removing the religious underpinnings of Pollyamore is required or else there needs to be a new term for this.
"Protected Polyamory" or "Reserved Polyamory" or "Private Polyamory" or "Select Poly" are terms which can make a distinction between consent and disclosed vs no consent. Disclosure and consent with all partners is not a basis of a being a Polyamory. 35 million members of the recent data dump are proof that there is a great segment of society that does not believe disclosure or consent of all partners is required. The reasons include, that sexless marriages carry little if any risk, re response to a non-monogamous partner to equalize a double standard for equalization of rights, as a freedom of speach issue that people are not property and in defiance of a religious precept of marriage among many others.
But no matter how it's described there are many subcategories of Polyamore that is defined on its face by sex. This includes the fact a married member may only be having sex with one partner - even if it's not their spouse. In that regard, there is not Polyamore, but Polyrelational with or without consent, with or without sex, with or without love per-se.
The discussion of this in generally is objectionable to romantic concepts of marriage, but because the law allows what is essentially a contract of terms, it can not override the basic civil rights of an individual. a group contract may have terms, but they are sub to the primary individual rights. Laws reflecting this are updating in modern society. Sourcing Special status by the Supreme Court regarding LGBT+ status.
Wikipedia which does not include this separation in distinction, discriminates against this protected class and violates religious freedom and civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.231.62.169 ( talk) 17:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
On 17 July 2015, the Symbols section was edited to remove discussion of the polyamory pride flag, with the comment that the removal was of "extensive discussion of some guy's flag design, cited only to his own defunct home page." While the cited page has been removed, it has been archived at The Internet Archive. Moreover, a quick web search on "polyamory pride flag" reveals it in wide use via merchandise, and is almost universally included in catalogs of pride flags. At the very least, where the actual design of the flag is not used, the blue-red-black color scheme has been adapted for use with other polyamory-related symbols. At the very least, a discussion of the color scheme and its origins is warranted. MusicInHarmony ( talk) 15:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
~~~~
.@ Scott: I see you moved the infinity/heart symbol to the bottom and replaced it with "something more dynamic." I agree that an image of people is more dynamic than a symbol, but the symbol is more universal than any individual or grouping of individuals. Other groups have their symbols at the top of the page, even those as obscure as, say, Lojban. Admittedly, polyamory is more of a movement than a group, but I still think the symbol is a better representation than a photograph of a specific event. I'm not worked up enough about this to undo your work, but I'm wondering if I can persuade you to :)
Alternatively, can we find an image that keeps our subcultures straight (so to speak)? Let's not risk conflating gay pride with polyamory...
Best regards,
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 19:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The cited source is not a reliable source. Whilst onus is on those including information to provide a reliable source, I would note that even a trivial Google books search reveals references for decades before 1988, and the same site being used as a source for this claim also ran an earlier article which cites the Macmillan dictionary as evidence of usage as far back as the 1960s. ~Excesses~ ( talk) 15:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
This article makes little mention of societies throughout history which widely accept(ed) non-monogamous relationships. A good starting point could be the article on polyandry, which lists dozens of societies (both historical and extant) which practice non-monogamy. Richard☺Decal ( talk) 19:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest modification of the current last two Values: Gender Equality and Non-Possessiveness.
The first part of the Gender Equality paragraph is fine, observing that it's a common characteristic of polyamory to grant all genders equal rights, in contrast to some other forms of non-monogamy. The rest of the paragraph giving examples and a concept that any assymetry (even a negotiated one) is temporary, seems more questionable and less universal, so I would nominate that for deletion. It would be good to cite a reference for the retained portion of this paragraph.
I would nominate the value "non-possessiveness" for deletion. It's true that a portion of the polyamorous community has that value, but it does not seem to be close to a universal characteristic as phrased. Quite a few polyamorists have agreements which could be interpreted as "possessive" in that they may restrict the freedom of partners to engage in whatever sexual or romantic relationships they desire. So I think this is a value which polyamorists are nearly as likely to omit as to endorse, and as such it does not belong in this list.
The earlier values in the list do seem to be common enough to be "typical" or "characteristic" and could be retained as is. They also have references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.130.110 ( talk) 04:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified the intro section to the Polyamory article.
Most of the changes were intended to make this section more concise. I have also added several citations to support claims that were previously unsourced. Beyond those changes, I have also added an acknowledgement of the contested nature of the term "polyamory", with supporting citations, and removed the claim that "Although sometimes misperceived as a relationship orientation (much like gender or sexual orientation) it is not". In fact, some believe that polyamory should be considered an orientation or identity. I have changed the text to indicate this ("some believe that it should also be considered an orientation or identity") while adding relevant citations for support.
See my my edit here.
PostScarcity ( talk) 00:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I removed some original research from the Polyamory#Geographical_and_cultural_differences section.
1. In the Polyamory#Geographical_and_cultural_differences section, User:Shantoo had added the following:
"The practice of polyamory is as diverse as the people who practice it, even within one relationship cluster individuals may have different ideas and practices than the rest of the group but it can still work if every individual is committed to the key components of trust, loyalty, mutual respect, honesty and compassion. Even though these key concepts can each be interpreted differently, as long as they are understood and agreed upon within a poly cluster and everyone adheres to them, then cluster should work. Every relationship that has these core values can arguably to be considered polyamorous, therefore as in all romantic relationship, geographic and cultural differences only impact on external forces such as legal or social issues but will not stop people practicing polyamory."
This is original research. If User:Shantoo wishes to explain "the impact of Geographical and cultural differences on the practice of polyamory" (as was noted on the original edit summary) then they should do so by drawing from existing research on the subject.
PostScarcity ( talk) 13:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I removed an external link added by PolyTany because I believe it is inappropriate for Wikipedia, based on External Link guidelines. For example, social networking sites are among the "Links normally to be avoided" and the external link is primarily a social networking site. Here is the link in question (see edit in question):
- Everything you always wanted to know about polyamory from Polyamory Dating.
It's worth noting that I am not the first to remove this link. History of its removal:
PostScarcity ( talk) 23:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
---
Hi PostScarcity, thanks for letting me know that your remove the link. I would like to ask you why? because the page I added is relevant to the Polyamory. I also read the guidelines and I will be appreciate if you tell me why am I wrong. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolyTany ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
---
Hi PolyTany, Wikipedia is not a link directory and it is not a place for the promotion of your personal projects. The External Link is also primarily a social networking site, which is listed among the "Links normally to be avoided" in the External Link guidelines. Please read what Wikipedia is not. You may want to submit your link to the relevant category at the Open Directory Project (dmoz.org) and link back to that category from the Polyamory article using the dmoz template.
PostScarcity ( talk) 00:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear all, please follow the rules in not biting the newcomer ;) I am a PhD student in the field of sexuality and I noticed the "dubious - discuss" link on the current page regards swinging. Everything therein seems to be listing the differences between swinging and polyamory as if comparing apples and oranges (which should not, unless I'm horribly misinformed about fruit, appear on each other's pages). There is currently no academic basis to consider swinging a form of polyamory.
Klesse, C. (2006). Polyamory and its “Others”: Contesting the Terms of Non-Monogamy. Sexualities, 9(5), 565–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460706069986
Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Consensual Nonmonogamy: Psychological Well-Being and Relationship Quality Correlates. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 961–982. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.942722
Moors, A. C. (2016). Has the American Public’s Interest in Information Related to Relationships Beyond “The Couple” Increased Over Time? The Journal of Sex Research, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1178208
Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13(6), 748–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460710384645
Mogilski, J. K., Memering, S. L., Welling, L. L. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). Monogamy versus Consensual Non-Monogamy: Alternative Approaches to Pursuing a Strategically Pluralistic Mating Strategy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0658-2
Conley, T. D., & Moors, A. C. (2014). More Oxygen Please!: How Polyamorous Relationship Strategies Might Oxygenate Marriage. Psychological Inquiry, 25(1), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.876908
https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460706069986, https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460706069986
In fact, I do believe any researcher daring to do so would be heavily criticized.
In short, I think the page could be improved by removing this link. Please see the referenced articles which all discuss swinging and polyamory.
-- 80.112.188.158 ( talk) 12:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Compersion (or, synonymously, frubble) is silly. A feeling of compersion is much more specific than a vague "feeling of happiness at others' good fortune." At least mudita is a Buddhist concept AND focuses on joy… though again not directly relevant to polyamory.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
17:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Polyamory. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Polyamory. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Given the high standard of research claimed hereabouts, I move to simply strike all unsubstantiated claims as they appear. For instance, consider the following (my emphases) --
Looks to be at least ten sources short of credible.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
19:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The current definition of "polyamory" on this page is unsourced and is not in keeping with current writing on the topic. The following definitions are from prominent books and websites:
None of these definitions refer to a single relationship with multiple people, as described in the definition currently in the lede: "Polyamory...is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships involving more than two people..." Each of these definitions refer to multiple partners or multiple relationships.
Dr. Sheff is a longtime researcher in polyamory and polyamorous relationships and the author of three books on the subject. Her work is therefore a reliable source, and I am drawing on it (and citing it) to propose the following definition:
"Polyamory (from Greek πολύ poly, "many, several", and Latin amor, "love") is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships where individuals may have more than one partner, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved."
I am replacing the definition in the lede and making other minor adjustments as necessary to the rest of the page to be consistent with the new definition.
Margareta ( talk) 01:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
This still cries for clarification: engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the knowledge and consent of all partners.
Is this supposed to mean "all partners know about every other partner", or "all of a person's partners are aware that said person is acting nonmonogamously"?
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
08:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
While the term
polyamory ought to have a clear definition in order to proceed, I am beginning to doubt that laying out a detailed explication at the beginning of the article is proper, or simply serves to bog everything down in jargon, specious claims, and excessive punctuation. I set up my case atthe bottom of this Talk page.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
20:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Margareta has clearly put commendable effort into crafting a proper definition of polyamory. Problem is, it tends to cover up some serious problems in examining the topic in a logical, consistent manner. Therefore, to launch thought I offer five attempts in response. Hopefully, others can see where discussing the concept "polyamory" is perilous if nobody seems to be using the term consistently, and in fact to mean different (even opposing) things.
per Morning Glory:
In stark contrast, polyamory.com says that
per PolyMatchmaker.com:
per alt.polyamory:
per Wordnik.com:
I recommend removing the Forms list entirely. It looks like the case is being surreptitiously made that polyamory is a form of nonmonogamy, yet magically polyamory contains almost all forms of nonmonogamy!! There's plenty of argument (online and in print) over whether many of those are actually polyamory or just "polysorta." This therefore adds to the confusion already surrounding the term polyamory, which I don't believe is a vital part of the WP mission.
Furthermore, the entries overlap heavily with the list that makes up the bulk of Non-monogamy. The info here would be better merged over to that article.
Finally, the list (both, actually) cites no source(s) to justify the inclusion of any of those entries in the list, much less to claim that the list is in some way complete or even representative of the variants.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
19:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
For the use and analysis of a triad relationship in sociology, see
Triad (sociology).
Mmmm... nope. Makes more sense in
Non-monogamy and I wouldn't put it there either. It makes about as much sense as flagging
Troy Polamalu or
Polomolok or
Palomar just in case someone got confused. Please justify.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
01:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
When did that goofy-looking strip of paper appear?? Anyway, let's have a quick run through why I'm planning to remove it sometime this weekend.
At best, the symbol dates back to 2012, and in any case was presented as a symbol of nonmonogamy. In case someone's not yet up to speed, let me point out that "polyamory" and "nonmonogamy" ARE NOT interchangeable.
I might grant it a reprieve IFF someone can provide some provenance — like maybe the name of the designer, its IPR status, date of creation or initial public presentation, prominent usages, and thusly.
I may leave it at Non-monogamy awhile (it's a minor article), but the symbol still needs at least a passing attempt at substantiation else good WP form dictates removal.
However, until it appears in the German article, it's living on borrowed time here.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
16:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Removed. Weeb Dingle ( talk) 20:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I was sure that Kinsey Inst could help clear the fog. Huh. This is all that popped up.
Kinsey Confidential, November 27, 2013
I've removed the opening claim to more than 500,000 polyamorous relationships … in the United States. The actual statement to which this refers (a 2009 Newsweek.com blog) states that "researchers" estimated "half a million" "polyamorous families". Problematic that none of the terms is defined, deadly that the blog doesn't attribute that number to ANY researcher. The WP editor who put this here is either dishonest or inept to have presented this, particularly in the overview. Find me a researcher.
The word typically ought to be forever banned from Wikipedia EXCEPT in a quotation. It almost always indicates baseless overreach. Again, whoever used it THREE times in the opening is dishonest or inept — please don't simply revert this.
In a few instances I have removed "romantic" from romantic relationship(s) as the term is NOWHERE defined (or even linked) despite appearing 13 times in the article. Not helping is that in most instances it's presented as equivalent to (and possibly interchangeable with) sexual relationships, another discussion-critical term that remains unexplained.
As these terms are used to fundamentally define Polyamory, I contend that the article is fundamentally flawed, perhaps fatally so, despite its bulk.
Meantime, in most instances intimate relationship would likely be far superior, accounting more than adequately for exceptional closeness whether sexual or emotional or whatever.
I've begun an effort to remove weasel words. Take the opening statement, before and after:
Potential weasel: tacking to the foregoing …with the knowledge and consent of all partners. If "consent" is to be used, it ought be defined immediately, clearly, succinctly, and more importantly contrasted to assent. (Should a person indicate (explicitly or impicitly) "let me do as I see fit, else we're through," this may achieve assent, but NOT consent, therefore NOT polyamory, QED.) That probably ought to be addressed in the article proper, rather than opening that particular can of worms in the intro then ignoring it. In any case, "consent" is clearly a fnord in this article, so "knowledge" will suffice in theintro, and the fuller definition can be presented and explained in the body..
I've cut However, the meaning of polyamory is also an issue of ongoing debate … (analogous to sexual orientation or gender identity). This doesn't belong in the
abstract (summary) portion, and repeats what is more fully discussed further in. If brought back, please fold it properly into the article.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
A detailed legal theory of polyamorous marriage is being developed. The "dyadic networks" model… Hype, editorializing, overreach. The cited article was published 2010; the term dyadic networks model is hardly well-known (182 hits on Google). Yet it's set up to appear as somehow important here. To me, this exemplifies the flaws throughout the Marriage implications section, much of which cries out to be rewritten or heavily edited or removed outright.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
19:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't bring myself to link mention of a triad to either
Threesome or
Ménage à trois. The former term applies to sex alone rather than emotional relationship. The latter term should be about what we today mean by "triad," but popular usage equates it to "three-way" sex.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
00:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)