Talk:Polyamory

Quote

Perhaps include this quote:

If spouses did not live together, good marriages would be more frequent -Friedrich Nietzsche

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.13.181 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 2 August 2009

Removed pride flag symbol and explanation

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 While the cited page has been removed, it has been archived at The Internet Archive.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)

@MusicInHarmony: Thanks for posting here, as I requested in my reply to you on Twitter. While the flag may be in use in places as you describe, material on Wikipedia is required to be referenced to reliable, secondary sources, which typically take the form of printed books, newspapers, or online publications by reputable institutions. As such, the existence and design of the flag would need to be discussed in one or more of those before it can be covered in this article. I also need to point out that as the creator of the flag in question, you have a conflict of interest under our editing policy, so please read that before making any edits on the topic. Thank you.  — Scott • talk 16:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've had to undo the changes you just made - blogs aren't considered reliable sources, and this one in particular derives its material on the polyamory flag from an older version of this very article, which is circular reporting. I also notice that the user account Aemok has suddenly started editing this article after being dormant for seven years. I'm assuming good faith, but please be aware that it could be taken as a sign of recruiting external assistance to get your way. Thanks.  — Scott • talk 18:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Scott As a national sex educator and researcher I have to disagree with the removal of the mention of the poly flag under the symbols section of this article. Much like the leather or gay pride flags the poly flag cited to Jim Evans' is a symbol which is nearly universally identified within the poly and ethical non-monogamy communities, along with the poly heart, as a symbol of polyamory. By your reasoning ALL of the symbols in this article should be removed. Since research and publishing in the history of polyamory is relatively new there are fewer options for citation though it does not make it any less accurate. If you are going to remove information from a page you should consider making sure you are consistent with your editing choices. The changes were made without external influence as I am currently working on a pride flag representation project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemok (talk • contribs) 18:15, 26 January 2016‎ (UTC)

@Aemok:, I believe this is your post above?

Without wanting to sound rude, your qualifications as a sex educator and researcher don't actually carry any weight on WPedia. Because anyone can edit this encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles are all about reliable (secondary) sources. If those are not available, then any editor can legitimately remove the material. Now, I think we'd all be happier if you could find reliable sources for the removed material and were therefore able to reinsert them, and as a sex educator and researcher I'm sure you can find them if anyone can!

If you feel unsourced material should be removed, you can certainly do that. My general preference is to add a "citation needed" tag unless I have reason to believe something is actually false, but that's a matter of preference rather than policy, as far as I know.

(I modified the formatting of your post slightly to keep the indentation smooth. I hope that's OK)

Best regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Septegram Yes, sorry that was my post. Forgot to check formatting and no rudeness taken. I absolutely understand from an academic stand point why reliable citation, and not just the word/opinion of someone who works in the field, is needed. Had a citation needed tag been used in the removal or edit I would have absolutely understood. Instead it was removed because a single paragraph describing the design of the flag was noted as "extensive discussion of some guy's flag design." Every flag is designed by "some guy." I have since updated the citation to match another on the page also discusses in detail the Poly Flag in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemok (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Aemok, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~.

I've removed your addition once again, because the reference that you provided is not a reliable source. If you can find a reliable source, please re-add the material to the article. Otherwise, it can't be included.  — Scott • talk 12:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it could have been left up with a "citation needed" tag, at least temporarily. Aemok, do you think you can find a reliable source? If not, I think it'll have to stay gone.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Symbols vs. People

@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 problem is that there's no evident reliable source for the infinity heart to merit it having such prominence. The CNN reference is extremely weak - it doesn't discuss the symbol at all, but only mentions it briefly. It's better for us not to imply anything about any particular symbol without good reason to. I also think that it's highly unlikely that our readers would be confused simply because a sign saying polyamory happens to be at a pride event in a photograph.  — Scott • talk 20:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

*sigh* I suppose you're right. I just don't have to like it LOL...

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 22:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the term "polyamory"

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)

I have no idea why you're adopting such a didactic tone rather than attempting to talk like a normal person, but whatever. Your pedantic approach to this issue could easily be resolved by rephrasing the material to discuss the word's multiple coinings, but I really don't care enough.  — Scott • talk 15:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Historical precedents for polyamory suggestion

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)

Note: I found this has been previously suggested in the archives a few years ago... Richard☺Decal (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Values section in the main article

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)

Updating the definition

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:

• From the Polyamory Society: "Polyamory is the nonpossessive, honest, responsible and ethical philosophy and practice of loving multiple people simultanously."
• From the nonprofit Loving More: "Polyamory refers to romantic love with more than one person, honestly, ethically, and with the full knowledge and consent of all concerned. Polyamory often involves multiple long-term committed relationships, either separately or together, but it can also come in many different forms."
• From the More Than Two website: "A polyamorous person is someone who has or is open to having more than one romantic relationship at a time, with the knowledge and consent of all their partners. A polyamorous relationship is a romantic relationship where the people in the relationship agree that it’s okay for everyone to be open to or have other romantic partners. Polyamory is the idea or practice of being polyamorous or having polyamorous relationships."
• From the book When Someone You Love Is Polyamorous: Understanding Poly People and Relationships by Dr. Elisabeth Sheff (glossary, p. 39): "a relationship style where people have more than one partner with the full knowledge and consent of all their partners."
• From the book More Than Two: A Practical Guide to Ethical Polyamory by Franklin Veaux and Eve Rickert (chapter 1, pp. 7-8): [Polyamory] "means having multiple loving, often committed, relationships at the same time by mutual agreement, with honesty and clarity."

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)

Oh, and let's not forget the OED definition: "The fact of having simultaneous close emotional relationships with two or more other individuals, viewed as an alternative to monogamy, esp. in regard to matters of sexual fidelity; the custom or practice of engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the knowledge and consent of all partners concerned." Margareta (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)