Talk:Polyamory/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Loyalty vs Fidelity

I've got issues with this section, and I don't really know how to best go about clearing it up. The specific place I have issues is in saying that Loyalty is more important than Fidelity to Poly-folk. On the one hand, I don't want to speak for anyone but myself, at the same time, I suspect I'm not alone in feeling that it is in fact the reciprocal that is true. My objections as described to a friend:

In an individual relationship, loyalty may be critical. At the same time, I have had some amazing connections with people, although the relationship could only be categorized as a "fair-weather" arrangement. So long as it is understood by both partners that this relationship is not going to last through the hard times, there need be no sorrow when the hard times come.

On the other hand, if we have made an agreement, it is something I will rely on. Not all the time, certainly, but there will be a time when my feelings, choices or plans will be based, in part, on that agreement. If that weren't a possibility, making the agreement would have been pointless. While you might happen to know that 99 times out of 100 I don't really care about this particular agreement, if I happen to be counting upon that agreement at the very time you decide to violate it, I get [hurt]. Therefore, I trust you won't violate our agreements. If you find one to be an imposition, I expect you will bring it up with me, and we will discuss a possible suspension or discontinuation of that agreement. If you simply break the agreement without consulting me, sooner or later, I am going to get [hurt], and therefore, I can't feel safe in our relationship.

Before I take it out or reverse it, I want to hear why it's in there the way it is, at the same time. Maybe we can make Fidelity and Loyalty seperate sections, perhaps mentioning specifically that in the context of polyamory, they aren't the same thing.

--Davi

Yes, I'm not very comfortable with that claim either. Outside this article, I had never heard the "Fidelity is nothing, what matters is loyalty" quote. Googling, the only other place I can find it is this Times article, which seems to be using 'fidelity' to mean 'sexual monogamy' - not the same meaning this article offers. I think the claim and the quote should probably be removed, and the bit on loyalty clarified to note that not every poly relationship is intended to carry the same obligations as the 'standard model' monogamous one. --Calair 03:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it confusing, too. I suspect that the meaning of the words is not very clear. "Fidelity" could mean sexual fidelity, but as well as "keeping agreements". "Loyality" could mean "pursuing the happiness of the relationship" or "maintaining the relationship to a specific person, regardless what other demand". I think it may also be defensible that somebody starts a new relationship, finds out that it isn't very compatible to an old relationship, which has not found stability and trust in a reasonable amount of time, and decides to give up the first relationship. This wouldn't be loyal but it could be in line with the truth between these persons. I think that the common denominator is "integrity".

In general, terms of this type should be defined in a clear way, if they are used to describe polyamourous concepts. (Joise) --84.137.134.165 17:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed that quote and rewrote some of the rest. Hope it works better now, comments welcome. --Calair 01:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Listing people

NB: Archive 2 contains complete version of this section as of 26/1/06. Took the liberty of editing & summarising to prune the version remaining on the current Talk page. Some duplication between archive and Talk for sake of clarity. --Calair 01:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think discussions like the two recent ones on Earhart and RAH are going to come up often enough that we ought to be systematic about how we list people in Polyamory#Famous_polyamorous_people. In particular, I suggest some criteria:

• When somebody is added to this list, that should be supported by information on their individual page. (Rationale: it's unkind to pique somebody's curiosity and then leave them dangling.) Where their polyamory isn't commonly known, it should be backed up by cites. (See Cite_sources#When_there_is_no_factual_dispute.)

• Cheating doesn't count, even if all participants are aware of it. There have been plenty of men whose wives had no good alternative to tolerating their philandering (Charles Dickens for one), but it's a long way from 'full consent'. OTOH, if somebody makes it clear to prospective partners that they're poly, that should count.

• Being the partner of somebody polyamorous shouldn't automatically qualify. Calair 00:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Summary of archives: Cites provided in old Talk

Robert A. Heinlein, Amelia Earhart, Dieter Wedel, Bloomsbury Group (inc. several specific members of that group), CT Butler - cites provided, see Archive 2.

Summary of archives: Proposed, insufficient evidence

See Archive 2 for further discussion of these people.

Ezra Pound, William Wilkie Collins, Charles A. Lindbergh, François Mitterrand: Multiple relationships confirmed, partners' consent not confirmed.

Emma Goldman: spoke in favour of 'free love' but appears to have meant a serially-monogamous version. Made poly-friendly remarks but does not herself seem to have been poly. [1] (End summary of archived material - --Calair 01:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

More Poly Candidates

Pretty sure:

• Bertrand Russell, Mathematican, Constance Malleson and Miles Malleson

• Vita Sackville-West, Harold Nicolson, Diplomat, and Violet Trefusis

• E. Nesbit, Hubert Bland, und George Bernard Shaw

• Etty Hillesum, author of a nearly mystic diary, killed 1943 in Auschwitz, and Julius Spier, Psychochirologist, Source: An interrupted life: the Diaries of Etty Hillesum 1941-1943 (translated by Arnold Pomerans, New York, 1983)

• Book listed in Resources for Triads "Three in Love : Ménages à Trois from Ancient to Modern Times", by Barbara and Michael Foster and Letha Hadady reviews famous ménages à trois in history. They have a pretty broad definition of the term, which literally means "household of three." The authors are a long-term triad themselves. The book covers, among many others, Alexandre Dumas, Casanova, Friedrich Nietzche, Salvador Dali, Anais Nin, Henry Miller, Voltaire, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, Pablo Picasso, Emile Zola, and Greta Garbo. It seems we're in good company!

• William Wilkie Collins, Caroline Graves, and Martha Rudd

Sackville-West, Nicholson, and Nesbit are already in the article. We need to be wary about including ménages à trois, because a lot of them were forms of 'tolerated cheating' that would not be considered 'polyamorous' by modern standards. For instance, my understanding is that Eleanor Roosevelt was very unhappy about FDR's affair with Lucy Mercer; AFAIK, Eleanor & Franklin's relationship was more of a political partnership than a romantic one by the time Ms. Hickok came on the scene, and I'm not aware of FDR's ever okaying her relationship with Eleanor. Wilkie Collins was on the list at one stage but I removed him for similar reasons (see discussion elsewhere on this page). --Calair 11:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the authors of the book themselves should be added to the list? Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 11:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• John Noyes was a pastor who founded a group who practiced "complex marriages." Added here to review opinion if this qualifies as polyamory before adding to the main page. --LezChap (no login yet)144.59.12.138 07:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The Oneida Society certainly had a long-term nonmonogamous arrangement going. I think whether it counts as 'polyamory' hinges on the question of consent. This bit from the OS article, in particular: "The more senior members, male and female, had the right of first marriage to virgins of the opposite sex, both for spiritual and sexual indoctrination. Subordinate males and females had little choice but to accept the marital arrangements." It also indicates that although in theory every male was married to every female, Noyes had some involvement in determining which relationships formed, and that part of the reason for the group's eventual disintegration was his seeking a sort of droit de seigneur with the girls. --Calair 08:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thus the discussion I wanted to start here -before- editing the main article. I agree with your arguements here. Seems to me like a debate of Theory vs Practice. (Thoughts added after this first edit) I think it should be included. We're using Polyamory in the broadest sense, and every member of the Oneida Society, from what I can see, was free to leave. They knew the "complex marriage" was a part of the Society, and even if it was manipulated in practice, they knew they what they were getting into when they joined and didn't leave.LezChap 02:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That may be so for the ones who joined the society from the outside - but what about the children who were born into it, and expected to sleep with Noyes at age 14? Even if they were physically able to leave, they presumably wouldn't have been able to take any property with them (it was communally-owned), which is a pretty major obstacle. As per recent discussions on Dickens, Wilkie Collins, the Roosevelts, and various others, I don't think a multi-partner arrangement that persists because some of its members have no good alternatives should be grounds for inclusion. --Calair 07:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Ireland, in her book "What Women Want", indicates that she is involved with both a man and a woman. It doesn't seem too far a stretch to read into it (in context) that they both know, as evidenced in part by her inclusion of the information in her autobiography. --Joe Decker 16:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I added Patricia Ireland. There didn't seem to be any reason not to. AMProSoft 22:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not completely sure:

• Franz Hessel, Henri-Pierre Roché, and Helen Grund. Source (not seen): Manfred Flügge: "Gesprungene Liebe : Die wahre Geschichte zu 'Jules und Jim'". 1. Aufl. Aufbau-Taschenbuch-Verl., 1996. ISBN 3-7466-1333-7

• Bertolt Brecht, German playwright has been mentioned

• Carol Queen, sex radical, sexologist

--84.137.161.211 02:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Warren Buffett, married until her death to Susan Buffett, but lived with his "long-time companion" Astrid Menks [2]

Interesting - hard to tell from that article whether it was a poly relationship or a very civilised relationship between separated exes. Any sources with more detail? --Calair 23:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Lowenstein's book "Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist", p. 226ff. talks a bit about the transition of "Susie" moving out. Left to himself, Buffett was mystified about why she had left and miserably lonely. He burst into tears on the telphone with her. Susie, soothingly, explained her move as an evolutionary adjustment--not a total break. They still could talk on the phone, travel together, even share regular vacations in NY and Laguna Beach. She talked and talked to him. They were still husband and wife, she assured him. But the gist of it was, "We both have needs." This citation is concluded with a footnote (8), which on p.44 reads "Peter Buffett; Tom Rogers." The chapter continues on to describe Susie's pushing him to spend time with different folks, including Astrid Menks. Astrid moved in "within a year" (p.228). Warren's new arrangement baffled his son Howie. It baffled everyone. ..... There was talk that Buffett had hired her as a "cook," but in fact they were a couple from the start. (footnoted to Peter Buffett).

It'd be wrong for me to reprint the rest of the chapter in full, but the book goes on to cite, with documentation, that both Susie and Astrid continued to take care of Warren, that the "trio developed a rhythm" (in terms of their interactions around WEB), Susie and Warren were still said to have "acted like a regular married couple". The picture I get is of two, someone compartmentalized but hardly DADT-ish relationships, which very much falls within my broad view of the term polyamory.

The other references I've found to the living arrrangement are far less direct than Lowenstein but non-contradictory. As an example, Kilpatricks "Of Permanant Value" notes (p.72) that the three send jointly signed Christmas presents, and says Buffett has said that his arrangement with his wife and Astrid Menks is unusual. "But if you knew everybody well, you'd understand it quite well." (Regardie's, Feburary 1986).

I feel like inherently have a fairly strong POV on this, but I hope it's based on data, and that it is clear what brings me to the conclusion. I have read extensively on WEB, and have not found a citation I considered contradictory. --Joe Decker 16:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the Lowenstein book would be a good citation to support listing here, then. If you've got the time to work some of it into his article, that'd be great. One of these days the list probably should be replaced by Category: Polyamorous people; when it does, it'll be good to have the documentation already on their individual pages. --Calair 02:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed Will & Jada Smith from the list. 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[3] and Will Smith is rather less than clear on the point in a subsequent interview[4]. IIRC there was another interview with Smith in which he said his intent 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 03:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Heinlein

In the intro explaining what polyamory is, it is stated: "Although the words are often treated as synonymous, 'polyamory' is not the same as 'open relationships'." With this in mind, I think it is odd that Robert Heinlein is listed as an example of a famous polyamorous person. The only evidence cited, as far as I can see, is in the archived discussion of this issue, where one author has written that he had an "open marriage" in private (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Polyamory/Archive2#Heinlein). Even if this were true -- and this is the only source I'm aware of that makes such a claim -- Wikipedia's explanation itself indicates that this would not be sufficient to deem Heinlein polyamorous. There is certainly no evidence that he was "part of more than one long-term, intimate, and, often, sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved." As a result, I think Heinlein should be deleted in the absence of any other supporting evidence.

65.11.229.149 02:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree the two don't quite mesh; I'm not sure whether the problem is with listing Heinlein, or with that definition of polyamory.

I think just about all who would self-identify as 'polyamorous' consider the 'more than one' and 'consent' parts of that definition to be vital. But 'loving', 'long-term', and 'intimate' are all subjective and hard to evaluate (if A and B have been close friends for twenty years and slept together twice in that time, is that a long-term relationship?) Note MGZR's commentary on the word, a little lower down, which does not include the 'long-term' requirement and seems to imply a fairly broad interpretation of 'loving'.

While there are quite a few poly relationships that wouldn't be considered 'open relationships', I think most open relationships would find more than a few people willing to count them as poly. In Heinlein's case, while it is of course dangerous to assume that a man's fiction must reflect his own life, his sympathetic and repeated descriptions of unarguably polyamorous relationships do make it more plausible.

I would be happier if we had more info than 'a biographer said he was in an open relationship', but I'm also reluctant to apply the article's definition absolutely strictly because I don't think there's complete consensus on some of its elements. --Calair 07:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To follow-up on my original post, I should add that I'm no expert on polyamory. I came to the page to see if I could find a good definition of it. I'm a Heinlein fan, though, and was very surprised to see him listed. My interpretation of his writings is that he considered it a perfectly acceptable practice (as I do). However, it goes without saying that many people do not consider it acceptable, so I think you should be very careful about listing someone. The evidence cited here is extremely vague, and as far as I know is uncorroborated. Unless anyone can find a more detailed explanation about what Robert James meant, of if something similar has been written elsewhere, I think Heinlein should be removed. At the very least, a parenthetical should be added next to his name with a bit of an explanation, rather than the current situation which simply states that he was polyamorous.

Ask a dozen polyamorists, you'll get thirteen different definitions ;-)

On the definition to be applied for the list, I think we're better off using a broad brush (more along the lines of MGZR's description than that currently in the intro). Not because I have any particular views on what 'true polyamory' is (other than a fertile source of pointless semantical argument :-) but because it's a more testable one, relying less on subjective hard-to-document elements.

In the same vein, I think it might be a good idea to turn that list into "polyamory and/or open relationships" because of the difficulty in reliably distinguishing the two. More detailed information on specific people, if available, should be provided on their own pages.

On Heinlein specifically: Googling webpages, I couldn't find anything but references back to James' afterword. Googling newsgroups was more productive: see e.g. this thread. Robert James (posting as DocJam00) says that he has 'extensively substantiated' the claim of an open relationship between RAH and Leslyn in a 16k word article in the Heinlein Journal. (From their website, that looks to be in issue 9 with a followup in issue 11). The comment he's responding to actually uses the word 'polyamorous', but a few posts down he clarifies:

I would agree here -- they had an "open marriage" not a polyamorist marriage, so far as we know. But there is significant evidence (letters, as well as Ginny's interviews with me and others) indicating quite clearly that Leslyn and RAH were in an open marriage... (Another poster later notes that 'polyamory' may include 'open marriage'; no further discussion on that point.)

I don't have access to the Heinlein Journal. But we can presumably accept James' word that his article does indeed claim an open marriage, and if that information comes from personal letters and interviews with Ginny it seems pretty credible. I didn't come across anybody disputing James' claims while I was searching (note that those articles were published a couple of years before Ginny died), although I did find plenty of complaints about Spider Robinson's intro to FU:tL.

I'd be happier if I could see the actual article, but publication in the Heinlein Journal and apparent lack of any argument seems like pretty good backing for the 'open marriage' bit; whether that qualifies for listing here depends very much on the criteria for listing.

Heinlein's own entry acknowledges the open relationship with Leslyn; it seems to be relying on the FU:tL mention rather than the Heinlein Journal articles. If anybody here can get a copy of the HJ, that might offer an avenue of improvement for RAH's article too. --Calair 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your research efforts on this. I think at some point they plan to put the Heinlein Journal online, at which point I might check it myself. Until then, I'll leave it to your judgment as to whether Heinlein stays in. I have no objection to including him if it turns out he engaged in something that could reasonably be called polyamory. My suspicion, though, is that it was just some casual swinging.

OK, I've substantially rewritten the beginning of the article to better explain the range of usage (I hope), and clarified that the list follows a wide definition. If RAH & Leslyn's partners were friends, which is what James claimed IIRC, they should fall under that broader definition. I expect one of these days the list will be replaced by a category, and then the criteria can be given in a bit more detail on the category page. --Calair 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think your new description adds clarity. Thanks Calair. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 04:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

CT Butler

minor thing: CT Butler got listed as founder of Food Not Bombs. as far as I can recall, he, at most, co-founded Food Not Bombs, so I just re-edited his mention to say "CT Butler of Food Not Bombs". not the ideal solution, but the best compromise that came to my mind.

According to the bio at foodnotbombs.net, "In 1980, C.T. and a group of friends formed the Food Not Bombs collective in Cambridge". So he was definitely a co-founder; I don't think crediting somebody as 'founder of X' automatically implies that they were the only founder. --Calair 07:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is still often read as having an implicit "the" in there. I boldly changed it to "CT Butler, a founder of..." — Saxifrage ✎ 09:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking :-) --Calair 09:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

New Unitarian Univeralist Comment in Article

Someone recently inserted this into the article:

Unitarian Universalism is probably one tradition that is most open to and accepting of polyamory.

Beyond the grammatical error ("most open"), should this comment be included at all? It's my understanding that the UUA has taken no position on polyamory, but it is probably safe to safe the UUs are more accepting of polyamory, and there is even an organization, the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (http://www.uupa.org/) that is decidated to poly issues. I think this issue might have come up before on a previous talk page. --Jakob Huneycutt 19:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the UU, being the liberal (in the original sense) organisation that it is, doesn't take a position on anything that is a matter of personal choice. The existence of the UUPA is about as great an endorsement by the UU as they can make, I think. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it can be considered any sort of endorsement. The UUPA's page says that "UUPA is an independent organization, not affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist Association." This UUA news release confirms that: "the UUA has never supported the legal recognition of polyamorous relationships, nor has this issue ever been considered by any official decision-making body of the Association... Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA) is a “related organization”; unlike associate member organizations and independent affiliate organizations, related organizations are not endorsed by the UUA board of trustees."

As the UUPA acknowledges here, the UUA's response to polyamory has been mixed. Some churches are poly-friendly; "Elsewhere, polyamorous UUs have not found themselves quite so welcome. Proposals for adult religious education programs on nonmonogamous lifestyles have been rejected in UU churches in California, Washington state, and North Carolina. While some UU ministers have been said to perform joining ceremonies for polyamorous families, other ministers reportedly have refused to do so." IIRC there were some blowups and hurt feelings about this last year, when a UU minister refused to allow a poly-UU group to use church space (or something of that sort). See this article for an example of UU opposition to poly.

So I think the UU mention as it stands is not really terribly helpful; IMHO it should be either removed or expanded. --Calair 23:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be inopportune to expand the comment at this time. Y'All have sussed out the truth rather well. UUPA receives no official recognition or status from the UUA; it's just a bunch of us poly UUs who have joined together to make our voices heard. Many of the UUA's official Indepedant Affiliate organizations, such as CUUPS, started out in the same manner. However, there are some significant stubling blocks that lay in UUPA's path to becomng officially affiliated with the UUA, and most of them involve education and politics, so I'll shut my mouth now. :) I'll remove the comment. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sapiosexual on AfD, again

Since no one objected to me mentioning it here before, I thought I'd once again draw people's attention to the fact that Sapiosexual has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapiosexual (2nd nomination). Myself and many other polys I know self-identify using this word, so I thought others' here might be interested in weighing in on it. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 21:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Religious objections

Reverted some recent edits to this section, following a similar revert by Saxifrage. I think there's room for explanation of religious objections to polygamy/polyamory, but it should be to the point and worded to avoid coming across as POV.

In particular:

"Most major Christian religious denominations... view the sexual act as sacred since it reflects the covenant of love and fidelity that Christ gives to the world." This is one of those cases where including a fact can still come across as POV, because inclusion implies relevance. The only relevance here would be if this was a point of difference with polyamory - and since many polyamorists do spiritualise sex, this is not an implication that should be made. It would be better just to cut to the explanation of why these denominations' concept of sacredness involves exclusivity. (The fact that Christ's covenant is for the whole world, not one specific person, makes this all the more confusing in this context.)

"However, the Christian church sees the New Testament as having revoked polygamy. (See Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:1-2; Luke 16:18)." Firstly, I know the qualifiers get tiresome, but there are branches of Christianity that don't take that stance; also, AFAICT, those passages appear to be concerned with the issue of divorce rather than plural marriage.[5][6][7] There may well be interpretations or alternate translations of those passages that oppose not just divorce but polygamy - but if so, we should be referencing those interpretations/translations rather than pointing people at passages that don't appear to discuss polygamy or polyamory at all.

And while there's quite a bit of overlap between polyamory and polygamy, it's probably best keep the material more directly concerned with polygamy in that article and point to it from here rather than duplicating discussion. --Calair 03:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur, and that was almost exactly my thinking when I reverted those changes. Especially coming from an anon IP user, it smacked of proselytising. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't get the impression that it was intended that way, mind you. It looks to me like it might have been an abridged version of a longer explanation from elsewhere, and when doing that it's easy enough to miss noticing that a sentence that was quite innocuous in the original has suddenly picked up a different slant in its new context. --Calair 05:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I interpretted the final few edits to be changing words to give more POV bias against polygamy (chaning words like "continues" to "persists" and syntax formats in the rest of the edits (seen at compare edits). Good Faith or not, this belongs on the Polygamy article and not here. I'll revert if I catch another similar edit before ya'll do. LezChap 01:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reworked this section, trying to underline the distinction (and direct polygamy-specific discussion to Polygamy) while still acknowledging the connection between the two.

If anybody was wondering, BTW, the "committed relationship closely resembling marriage" bit is intended as a nod towards the churches that give some sort of recognition to 'not-officially-marriage-but-close' monogamous relationships. In particular, I know several that would be relatively accepting of a committed monogamous gay couple, but wouldn't view a triad the same way. --Calair 03:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional comments regarding POV and recent edits to this column: In my opinion, parts of the article are written from specific POV that are meant to endorse and legitimize polyamory. Specifically, the values of polyamory are stated to be fidelity and loyalty, respect & truth, etc. Perhaps individuals that practice polamory believe this to be true; however, I do not. The revision that Saxifrage reverted to characterized monogamy as "rigid", this in itself is clearly NPOV and reflects a complete misunderstanding of how Christians view sexuality. In editing the article, I was attempting to convey an accurate Christian perspective of sexuality. How do you expect to talk about a Christian objection to polyamory (or polygamy) without talking about how Christians view sexuality? Hopefully not by dismissing Christian ethics as "rigid". It seems ironic that my edits to a section entitled "religous objections" must be NPOV, given that the rest of the article clearly is not NPOV, and that religious objections are necessarily NPOV. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to say that Christianity accepted polygamy until the middle ages. Specifically, the Council of Toledo (400) specified that men that keep a concubine in addition to a wife should be excommunicated. Additionally, the Catholic catechism specifically references the New Testament listed above as having revoked polygamy, and this interpretation is fairly common across Christian denominations.

I think you may have misunderstood the article, rather than the other way around. Saxifrage's revert can be found here. That version of the text used the word 'rigid' exactly once, and not to characterise monogamy. Here's what it said:

"Those [denominations] that allow non-monogamous relationships usually limit this to one rigidly-defined form of marriage - most commonly polygyny."

This is clearly not a POV characterisation of Christian attitudes to monogamy... because it's not about monogamy, but non-monogamy.

I think I originally wrote that sentence, and when I did it was in the context of "most major religious denominations". The intended point was that just because a religion permits nonmonogamy in some form doesn't make it friendly to polyamory overall; for instance, the FLDS might allow a man to have a dozen wives, but a woman who wants two husbands is out of luck. I don't think 'rigidly-defined' is a particularly POV way to describe the fact that religious forms of nonmonogamy typically place far more restrictions on possible relationship configurations than polyamory does, nor was it ever intended as a comment on the ethics that underlie those restrictions, but I'm willing to take suggestions for alternate ways to phrase that observation.

Somewhere along the way, probably inadvertently, it ended up in a narrower context referring only to Christianity (see edit here). IMHO, that was unfortunate, because nonmonogamy is uncommon (though not unheard of) within modern Christianity, but AFAICT it is still an accurate description of those Christian groups that do practice nonmonogamy. It works better as an observation on religions in general, though, and I've restored it in that context.

On the question of first-millennium Christian acceptance of polygamy - I think this is a point that would best be resolved on Polygamy, and this page should reflect whatever consensus (or lack thereof) that one achieves on the matter. At present it's a bit murky, so I'm going to leave that for somebody with a better grounding in the facts. --Calair 04:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (But have added a citeneeded tag, which I should've done a week ago.) --Calair 01:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

On the values you have issues with, it clearly states in the articles this is the values WITHIN Polyamory. In many cases, it compares it to the way monogamous mindsets (NOT Religious mindsets) often view the values in order to give a better understanding as to how they are often adapted to the poly mindset. This is done to make the article user-friendly to the majority of those who use Wikipedia (it is assumed they'll closely follow the averages in society, and the average person in this day and age is monogamous). An encyclopedia is to give you a general overview on a topic the average person knows little to nothing about...and in this context, I think it fulfils that purpose.

Calair's comments above about the use of the term "rigid" are correct...it defines how many religions have (in the past and in some cases presently) looked at non-monogamous relationships...they spell out specifically how they will be arranged with no flexibility in them...that's a rigid framework. On a side note, it's part of the reason I identify as polyamorous...Polyamory, as long as I'm fulfilling my promises negotiationed with my current partners, allows me to enter into a relationship where and when it forms...that's freedom and flexibilty I find is required in reality.

If I'm not mistaken, this article was been marked as NPOV in the past, and it was cleaned up to (close) to the current version to get that tag removed. I'm see anything blatantly approving of Polyamory any more then you see your edits as blatantly calling this choice of life wrong and immoral. It throws information to the reader...and references and resources for more information so the reader can make an informed opinion. There's nothing inherently wrong with this other then it goes against your personal beliefs, which you connect to a large religious body with similar/matching beliefs. *wishes he has spellcheck on this computer* LezChap 04:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Bias on Polyamory page

Thos is one of the most biased articles I've ever seen! It makes it seem like 90% of people support polyamory!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.34 (talk • contribs) .

Could you please be more specific? I would have thought the "religious objections" section alone makes it abundantly clear that this is not the case. --Calair 07:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

(I reverted the above user's blanking of the 'counter-criticisms' section, since it didn't seem to be related to this comment - that section is about how polyamorists view monogamy, not about how many people do or don't approve of polyamory.) --Calair 07:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

While I don't think it's as bad as this user said, there are bits that describe things in a "for/against polyamory" way, that could probably be changed to more of a "why some people choose it and others don't" tone. I may make some changes to that effect, once I can figure out exactly what a better wording would be. --Ian Maxwell 23:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: text below moved from within the 'Heinlein' section by me. --Calair 02:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I say this as a polyamorous individual- this article seems very positive toward poly. It seems POV, but I can't think of what specifically I'd do to change it. Any thoughts? Pope Guilty 04:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You'll find some discussion of this in the archived talk pages (see links above). IMHO, part of it is that the only people who take enough interest in polyamory to edit this article are in favour of it; it's not like, say, gay rights, which has a much higher profile and attracts serious opposition. The article reflects that lack of opposing POV. --Calair 10:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Are there particular examples you have in mind which you think are POV? Also, do you mean "positive" in the sense that it portrays it as better than monogamy or whatever (which is POV), or in the sense it doesn't mention criticisms (which I don't think is POV - it's not up to an encylopedia to criticise, though it might be notable to mention specific examples of people or organisations against polyamory - I think part of the issue here is that polyamory isn't well known about, so there isn't any significant opposition as such in the same way that people are against homosexuality for example). Mdwh 00:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I just went to have a look and can't find any real examples. It just 'feels' a little off, I guess. *shrug*Pope Guilty 00:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

just randomly browsing wikipedia, I have to agree. It reads a bit more like an editorial in favor, only bringing up weak criticisms and then drawing conclusions disagreeing with those criticisms. I do not know the subject well enough to know what the 'strong' criticisms are, but there always is SOMETHING, even on the most drab subjects, and it would be exceedingly odd if something as potentially contreversial as this didn't have strong criticisms. Novium 08:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Key word being 'potentially'. If/when anybody mounts a serious campaign for poly rights, I'm sure there will be a lot more criticism to discuss here. At the moment, though, polyamory is barely on the political radar; on the rare occasions when it does get mentioned, it's usually as a footnote in discussion on polygamy (e.g. here). --Calair 02:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It does seem very positive - but you can only work with what you've got! It's impossible to describe a fundamentally wonderful thing in an non-positive way after all. User:StudentSteve 02:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, "a fundamenally wonderful thing," written of course by Steve. I think the primary problem with this article may be that it is primarily written by male users. I'm not female, but I do know that women consistently rate fidelity and exclusivity as more important in relationships then men do. If men are going to be writing the article, it's not very surprising that they would come out in favor of it, afterall we would be doing little more then following our "instincts."

Also it discusses the division of labor benefits of having a Polyamorous household, my question here is: Why stop there? Have five women and two men! However, very few men (I'm guessing) would hold this out due to the jeously issues, especially if they're the Alpha male types. Just a thought.

One more thing, part of the Polygyny article states "some men and women never obtain mates in monogamous cultures." - Interesting statement to say the least. It's like saying "however others point out that N.Korea is not bad, afterall, there are also starving people in America"(!). Both are misleading and completely unecassary statements which offer no new information. I don't see the relevance...Hvatum

Meh. Arguments from biology generally miss the mark. I know as many (if not more) polyamourous women than I do men. Apart from that, what does the polygyny article have to do with this? — Saxifrage ✎ 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is describing polyamory. That it has done. Of course, explanation takes space prior to discussion of pros and cons. Now... if it's believed that the views of notable speakers or groups, or research, critical of polyamory, have been omitted, then they would of course need to be added, and should be. Citations please? FT2 (Talk) 03:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A specific example of bias: the section "Polyamory as a Lifestyle." The article on marriage does not purport to list what the ideals of marriage should be. It is biased for this article to sound like it is dictating what the ideals of a polyamorous person should be. I think having those topics in the article might be helpful to describe methods of polyamory, but don't call them ideals. The article is too preachy. Polyamory is not a dogmatic philosophy with tenets that can be listed as in this article. 68.251.149.248 03:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are certaily claims made without sources. Feel free to question specific claims that muight be contestable or need sources, and to remove it if it can't be justified in a timely way. Metamagician3000 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I reworked the bit on BDSM connections; I think this is more neutral and better-verified now, so I've removed the tag there, but feel free to re-add it if it needs more work. --Calair 05:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Polyamory section in Queer Culture

I suggest to extend the section on Polyamory in the article on Queer Culture, e.g. adding the Poly Pride Flag and the Hearth-with-Infinity Symbol. --134.106.240.79 11:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (Joise)

Factual errors & NPOV (again)

Added factual dispute and NPOV tag. This article by and large purports to be factual, but does not contain citations. Much of it is opinion. Factual errors have been pointed out several months ago, but not corrected. To be blunt, much of this simply is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Please pursue activism elsewhere.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.93.161 (talk • contribs)

I agree that the 'values' and 'criticisms' sections need to be more encyclopaedic (in particular, supported by citations); the former had already been tagged for that, and I've now tagged the latter as well. Possibly they should be removed altogether, or greatly pruned.

However, the only thing I could see in above discussion that looked like an uncorrected 'factual error' was the unsupported claim of pre-Middle Ages Christian polygamy, which I've now removed from the article. If there are others, please indicate what there are.

Likewise, it would be helpful if you could indicate what parts of the article you consider to be POV. We have had several anon editors make complaints of POV and then vanish after the issues they raised were discussed here; we have no way of knowing whether you're the same anon with the same objections as before, or a completely different person with quite different objections. --Calair 07:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a muchly recurring theme, but I (being poly) agree with the overly-positive NPOV / non-encyclopaedic complaint. I think the general problem with resolving this is precicely that there aren't any blatant POV statements. But also the fact that there aren't a lot of anti-poly folks editing makes it hard to avoid party line. (Not to encourage anti-poli sentiment, natch.)

Attempting to offer a solution, I see two overarching issues which might address this. First, the article as a whole could be tightened up. A lot. A number of points seem to be made in a very roundabout way which makes them come across as "well duh, it's simple logic" or otherwise trying to convince the reader, instead of a more concise "poly practitioners believe X (take it as you will)". In particular the section on Values within polyamory seems particularly bad about this. A restrucuring of the section might help.

For example, fidelity & loyalty could probably be combined with trust, honesty, dignity, & respect. From my personal views all those many terms discribe different facets of the same basic issue of trust. Since issues of trust, communication/negotiation, and non-posessiveness all come down to ways of making poly work (or any relationship IMO), it could be brought up that these ideals, more than just ideals, are a means for countering common complaints/issues with polyamoury such as jealousy, cheating, etc.

Second issue is that the article seriously underplays a lot of the contention over the definition of "poly". The earlier sections (terminology, forms) tend to sweep this under the carpet with "well not everyone agrees but $VAGUE_GENERAL_DESCRIPTION". In so doing it presents the poly community as a single unified force instead of as a community that that is still wrestling with the very fundamental precepts of what defines the community. Poly disputes don't tend to be violent or sectarian, but there are definitely a number of very heated discussions over it.

Again, if there was more upheaval it'd be a bit easier since there would be relatively solid schools to describe and contrast. Perhaps giving a few common specific examples of definitions and indicating disagreement and shades between them (i.e. to an extent, pretending there are schools) would be better than trying to fit all of them into one definition. An alternative approach would be to pick out specific points of contention to highlight.

Hope that helps. ~ Winterkoninkje 09:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that rather than restructure the 'values' and 'criticisms' sections it might be better to remove the uncited parts, i.e. almost all of them.

IIRC, I originally created the 'criticisms' section (ironically enough, trying to make the article a little more balanced). I think just about anybody who hangs out in poly communities would agree that the sort of issues discussed there do come up pretty often and are important to a lot of polyfolk, which makes them relevant to the article. In that sense, I don't think the discussion there actually is POV-pushing; it's people who know what it's like, giving an (IMHO) accurate description of their observations.

But without verifiable sources, it's original research. Other editors shouldn't be expected to accept a 'Trust me'. It should be possible to back up some of the stuff here by citation - books like 'The Ethical Slut' would be a good starting point - and that might make what remains a more useful section, since it would give some information about who believes what and where they disagree. --Calair 02:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that may be best. Personally i'd like to see some things other than (i.e. in addition to) The Ethical Slut being cited, but I can't think of anything off hand. ~ Winterkoninkje 22:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, a range of sources would be best - TES was just the first one that came to mind. I don't have Anapol's "Love Without Limits", but that might also be a good source of quotes. --Calair 11:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I dispute NPOV tag from Anon user

Removing NPOV tag until a registered user is willing to complain about NPOV issues. --Atom 18:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed ~ Winterkoninkje 22:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the removal, but less because of anonymity than the lack of explanation. Hit-and-run tagging or this sort is unhelpful even if it comes from a registered editor. (Although with a registered editor, it's easier to ask for an explanation.) --Calair 11:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think NPOV should be added back in. Don't have a lot of time, but I'll try to explain as excruciatingly as possible.

First point: the article defines polyamory as a neologism. According to wikipedia's guide, (follow the link to neologism) articles on neologisms are discouraged because 1) wikipedia is not a dictionary & 2) original research is discouraged. Much of what is listed on the article is original "research"/opinion rather than facts.

Let me deconstruct the article for you.

Polyamory, in its broadest usage, is the practice or lifestyle of being open to having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved. Persons who consider themselves emotionally suited to such relationships may define themselves as polyamorous, often abbreviated to poly.

Not too bad so far, but can these definitions be found anywhere? Is there even a broad general consensus as to what "full knowledge and consent" means?

[[Image:Polyinfiheart.gif|frame|A heart interlaced with an infinity sign is a common symbol of polyamory]]

Again, says who? Is the suggested symbol really common among poly folks, or is this web page the only source that defines it as such. And if polyamory is a large part of the San Francisco gay pride event, why does the parade's web page not even mention it?

Where does the article claim that polyamory is a large part of the parade? I missed that. --Calair 08:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

Polyamory is a neologism and a hybrid word: poly is Greek for many and amor is Latin for love.

Undisputed facts. Finally.

It has been independently coined by several people, including Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart whose article "A Bouquet of Lovers" (1990) is widely cited as the source of the word (but see below)

Who cites this article as the source of the word?

Please familiarise yourself with WP:POINT. While verifiability is an important principle, insisting on citations for every last trivial point as a way of attacking the article is disruption. Googling on an obvious search string, e.g. '+polyamory +"bouquet of lovers" +coined', would very quickly have found you plenty of examples of people citing 'Bouquet' as the word's source. --Calair 08:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is important, and I would think this would be especially the case for an article that is classified as a neologism. (With the thought being that if the issue is still developing, not everybody is familiar with basic sources and that also stating "information" can lead it to become fact.) Maybe a lot of time has been spent in tracking down but there is a lot of statements in this article of the following tone:

"Because of the heightened trust and self-determination required for a polyamorous relationship" (I'm reading this statement as saying that heightened trust and self-determination are required for polyamorous relationships. Definitely NPOV, and opinion.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.93.161 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. It might be reasonable to note that that sentiment is a commonly-expressed opinion, preferably with citation, but in its current form it's inappropriate. --Calair 05:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of what I'm objecting to are statements like this:

"Unlike the general case of swinging, polyamorous relationships also involve an emotional bond, though the distinctions made between swinging and polyamory are a topic open to debate and interpretation."

Here the thesis is that "polyamory involves an emotion bond, swinging does not", but then backpedaling occurs as everything is open to interpretation".

What is the point here of making a concrete differentiation between swinging and polyamory if that differentiation is actually under debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.93.161 (talk • contribs)

The point here isn't to make a concrete differentiation. Both these terms are fuzzy at the edges, and in their broader usages have a degree of overlap; that doesn't mean that they are identical. By way of parallel, there is no precisely-defined wavelength at which light stops being 'blue' and starts being 'green'; at 500-510 nm, it can reasonably be described as either or both. But we still find it useful to have separate words for the two concepts, and can make all sorts of statements like "Blue light has a shorter wavelength than green".

In this case, some relationships can be classed both as 'polyamory' and as 'swinging', but the two terms emphasise different aspects. --Calair 05:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that it says polyamorous relationships, where as swinging implies things like group sex and exchanging partners (actually, I'm not sure it's fair to say that swinging is without emotion - I think the point being made is that polyamorous relationships are romantic relationships, where as having group sex isn't a romantic relationship). However, things get confusing because both polyamory and swinging can refer to as lifestyle rather than just the act, and it's possible people may be involved in both. Furthermore, what counts as a relationship is often difficult to define, which is why it's hard to distinguish. I mean, can you give me an absolute sure way of telling what is a "romantic relationship", and what is, say, just "having regular sex with a close friend"? Mdwh 10:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the values section seems to be NPOV. Statements such as "Most polyamorists emphasize respect for all partners" are subjective. Surely polyamorists are aware that monogamists generally feel that having sex with more than one person does not respect their partner. (Note: I wouldn't argue with a statement that says, "most polyamorists believe they emphasize respect for all partners.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.93.161 (talk • contribs)

No, the statement does not claim that polyamorists are respectful, just that it's what they emphasise. There is nothing inherent in the definition of respect that relates to exclusiveness (or in general, what you do with other people) - respect is how you view and treat a person. Mdwh 11:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I also wonder why STDs and the negative impact of divorce/single parenthood on kids aren't mentioned as a pitfall of polyamorous relationships, especially when lifelong committment may not be seen as a common goal. (Unfortuantely, step-parents place children at a higher risk of sexual abuse. Maybe the effect might be mitigating if both biological parents are in the home, but there is a real risk in inviting extra adults to stay in the same house with your kids.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.93.161 (talk • contribs)

Largely, lack of verifiable information to indicate that they are a particular problem in polyamory. I'd like to avoid getting into methodology debates here, since they're not likely to yield anything helpful to the article, but suffice it to say that on both STDs and child-rearing, polyamory has both cons and pros, and there's not terribly much information about how those balance out. --Calair 05:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

, and Jennifer Wesp who created the Usenet newsgroup alt.polyamory in 1992.

Do you have citations for this? I don't think there should be wikipedia articles for every usenet group that exits.

If you check the 'external links' section, you'll see a link to an archived copy of Wesp's control message creating alt.polyamory. Nobody is suggesting that there should be articles for every usenet group out there, and AFAICT nobody has ever created a page for alt.polyamory, just a redlink. (Which I agree is unnecessary, and I've removed it accordingly.) --Calair 08:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I added that section, and the redlink for alt.polyamory. I don't think there should be an article for every newsgroup, but if someone wanted to create one for this newsgroup, I think it's worthwhile - this newsgroup actually did coin the word (unfortunately not well cited & researched enough to make that assertion quite so boldly in the article, but it is fact). A newsgroup whose creation both coined a successful new word that is now in mainstream dictionaries, and catalyzed the creation of community and a variety of real world groups & organizations, is worthy of an article. I'd like to add the redlink back. --Cos 23:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

However, the term has been reported in occasional use since the 1960s

Again, can you cite this?

, and even outside polygamous cultures such relationships existed well before the name was coined; for one example dating from the 1920s, see William Moulton Marston.

How could these people have defined themselves as polyamorous if the name didn't exist? Or were they simply having affairs? How do you know whether their partners embraced or merely tolerated their spouses' infidilities?

Those questions have already been addressed on this very talk page. If you look at the 'listing people' section and the archives as linked from there, you'll see that there has been no little discussion about distinguishing between poly and 'tolerated cheating'; I've removed quite a few people from the list (e.g. FDR, Wilkie Collins, Charles Lindbergh, Francois Mitterrand) for want of evidence that their partners consented to these other relationships.

In Marston's case, for instance, checking his article would have told you that after his death in 1947 his two partners (Elizabeth and Olive) continued to live together for another forty-odd years, until Olive's death in the late 1980s; during that time, Elizabeth (who was more than capable of fending for herself) worked to support the family, Olive included. That seems like pretty good evidence that Elizabeth wasn't just 'tolerating' her husband's infidelities. --Calair 08:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't check each article. But for instance, Amelia Earhart is listed. While her does indicate that she had an open marriage, there is nothing that indicates polyamory (at least on her wikipedia page) I would suggest that if you list individuals, that you be prepared to prove polyamory with citations and not expect people to follow a discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.93.161 (talk • contribs)

I agree with that principle - indeed, that's what we've already been doing (see my comments in 'listing people' and the note that appears when editing that section of the article). An open marriage of the sort indicated in Amelia Earhart is a type of polyamory, as it is defined in that section.

But, while I agree that people shouldn't be expected to go to a discussion page for citations, they should check past discussions before raising allegations of POV or requesting an article be nominated for deletion. --Calair 05:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The word "polyamory" does not actually appear in "A Bouquet of Lovers", referenced above. The article uses "polyamorous", but its original version introduced the term in hyphenated form, "poly-amorous". The article consistently uses "polygamy" as the counterpart to "monogamy". This indicates that at the time, the author was not yet using the word "polyamory", and did not consider "polyamorous" an established word either. There are no verifiable sources showing the word polyamory in common use until after alt.polyamory was created. The older term polyfidelity, a subset of polyamory, was coined decades earlier at Kerista.

alt.polyamory participants collaborated on a FAQ (frequently asked questions) post that was updated periodically, and included the group's definition of "polyamory". The latest version of the FAQ on polyamory.org, dated 1997, has this definition:

Again, this qualifies as original research. It isn't appropriate.

2). What's polyamory, then?

(Glad you asked that. ;-) ) Polyamory means "loving more than one". This love may be sexual, emotional, spiritual, or any combination thereof, according to the desires and agreements of the individuals involved, but you needn't wear yourself out trying to figure out ways to fit fondness for apple pie, or filial piety, or a passion for the Saint Paul Saints baseball club into it. "Polyamorous" is also used as a descriptive term by people who are open to more than one relationship even if they are not currently involved in more than one. (Heck, some are involved in less than one.) Some people think the definition is a bit loose, but it's got to be fairly roomy to fit the wide range of poly arrangements out there.

In 1999, Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart was asked by the editor of the Oxford English Dictionary to provide a definition of the term (which the dictionary had not recognised). Her definition was:

"The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved."

This term was meant to be inclusive, and in that context, we have never intended to particularly exclude "swinging" per se, if practitioners thereof wished to adopt the term and include themselves. As far as we have understood, swinging specifically does not involve "cheating," and it certainly does involve having "multiple lovers"! Moreover, we understand from speaking with a few swinging activists that many swingers are closely bonded with their various lovers, as best friends and regular partners.

The two essential ingredients of the concept of "polyamory" are "more than one" and "loving." That is, it is expected that the people in such relationships have a loving emotional bond, are involved in each other's lives multi-dimensionally, and care for each other. This term is not intended to apply to merely casual recreational sex, anonymous orgies, one-night stands, pick-ups, prostitution, "cheating," serial monogamy, or the popular definition of swinging as "mate-swapping" parties.

I'm a bit confused. It seems that Oxford didn't actually include a definition of polyamory. If a dictionary can't agree on a simple definition, how can an entire encylopedia article be agreed upon?

It's quite common in sociological topics that usages differ, and no one definition of a word satisfies absolutely everyone. (Just look at the arguments over whether Mormons and Catholics are 'Christian', or whether 'lesbian' includes transwomen.) This fuzziness is a nuisance, but it doesn't mean those words are valueless. Again, if you look through the talk page/archives, you'll see a fair bit of discussion on this topic.

As for the OED, they have a fairly slow update schedule that gradually works through the alphabet. Last quarter, for instance, they added about sixty words between 'piminy' and 'pleather'[8], so it may well be 'polyamory' just hasn't come up yet. (They do also have 'out-of-sequence' additions for particularly heavily-used new words, but 'polyamory' probably isn't common enough to warrant that.) --Calair 08:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

However, no single definition of "polyamory" has universal acceptance.

This is one of my points.

Note that there are many words that don't have a single universally-accepted definition but are nevertheless important and deserving of entries in Wikipedia - see e.g. conservatism. --Calair 05:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is generally agreed that polyamory involves multiple consensual, loving relationships (or openness to such), but beyond that the term is ambiguous as the word love itself. A relationship is more likely to be called "polyamorous" if it is long-term, involves some sort of commitment (e.g. a formal ceremony), and involves shared living arrangements and/or finances, but none of these criteria are necessary or definitive.

Did this sentence really say anything substantitive?

For instance, somebody who has multiple sexual partners might form strong 'loving' friendships with them, without feeling romantic love for them. Whether such a person identifies as "polyamorous", or as a swinger, or uses some other term, often depends more on their attitude towards other "polyamorists, "swingers", etc., than on the exact nature of their relationships. Different terms emphasise different aspects of the interaction, but "swinging" and "polyamory" are both broad in what they can refer to. This allows for a certain degree of overlap.

No facts here. No references. Same for rest of article.

Symbols of polyamory

Although a number of symbols have been adopted by polyamorous people, none have universal recognition.

If you folks can't agree on a common symbol, isn't it premature to write an article for your cause?

The purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to advocate causes, but to describe phenomena. AFAIK there's no universal symbol for atheism either, but that doesn't stop it from warranting an article. --Calair 08:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Whilst you may be some valid criticisms, what you say isn't really related to NPOV - more other things such as requiring sources.

As for it being a neologism, polyamory is including in dictionaries [9] and has been mentioned in mainstream media (e.g., [10]). There is nothing wrong with articles on words that are/were neologisms if the usage can be backed up with reliable and verifiable sources.

I agree about having a "common symbol", this should probably be removed.

As for the San Francisco gay pride event, the article doesn't claim polyamory is a large part of it.

It's not that some people used the term polyamorous before the term existed(!), rather that there existed people who had multiple relationships.

Whilst you might criticise it for not being notable, I don't see how quoting a FAQ is original research?

Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart's definition was "The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved." I'm not sure what you mean about the OED not including the term.

Many words have their definitions in dispute (e.g., Atheism is a classic example), but it would be absurd to suggest we can't have an article as a result. Instead, we just include the various (notable) definitions.

And your last comment is just silly. Is there a symbol for monogamy? This isn't about causes, it's about documenting facts.

The rest of your comments relate to sources, which yes we should find. But I can't see any POV issues in your criticisms, so I'm removing the tag. Feel free to put in {{Fact}} tags where appropriate. Mdwh 04:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

True, there is no symbol for atheism, but the atheistic article does not attempt to attribute a symbol to their cause. I'm concerned that this article would have more of an effect to define a symbol for polyamory rather than simply state facts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.93.161 (talk • contribs)

I've already fixed it to say that there is no one symbol for "their cause". Not that polyamory is really a cause as such. Mdwh 11:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Chinese interwiki

Someone just added an interwiki to zh:. However, there's no page on zh: by that name. Shouldn't we wait until our Chinese friends have actually written an article before adding links to it? The Wednesday Island 22:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to leave it to the judgement of the frequent authors. However, two observations:

1. One upcoming Chinese term is 多元之爱 or 多元之愛的實行者, as in [11], [12] , [13] and [14].
2. Specifically for Asian languages, it can be extremely difficult to find a term which is neither contained in dictionaries, nor in everyday use, nor can be induced from the English or Latin/Greek terms by phonetic rules. Even in Europe, most people have no idea that such a word as polyamory exists. The idea is that the link could be helpful to start the Chinese version. --84.137.188.99 23:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC) (Joise)

If you want to start the Chinese version, write a stub on the Chinese version in Chinese, or ask for it on their requested articles page. Don't interwiki to a page that doesn't exist. The Wednesday Island 01:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Broad Definition

The article began with a definition of polyamory "in its broadest sense", but actually excluded some very common forms of practicing polyamory. Particularly, often there will be a committed long term couple who are not very open to having any serious relationships with other people, but are not monogamous: they'll have sex with friends, and/or date other people casually. I've known people to do that in poly communities and both identify as poly and be considered poly by the rest of the community. Any broad definition of polyamory ought to include such arrangements within the bounds of the definition.--Cos 23:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, dating people can still come under some form of relationship. The problem with "not sexually exclusive" is that it's way too broad, including things like one night stands with other people. Mdwh 23:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not "too" broad, it's exactly the intention. If members of a committed couple can have one night stands with other people, without anyone involved having to hide that fact, then they're poly, regardless of whether they have any other actual Relationships. The "broadest" definition did not include this as a possiblity, and that's a bug, not a feature.--Cos 05:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There are scientific publications, popular media, and Web sites devoted to polyamory and swinging that contend one-night-stands are not polyamory because they are focused on sexual gratification rather than emotionally involved relationships. The sources to which I refer are verifiable by Wikipedia standards and have been published in the Wikipedia article on Open marriage styles. Arguments about definitions need to be kept to sources that stand up to Wikipedia verification policy. Kelly 06:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"There are [sources] that contend one-night-stands are not polyamory because they are focused on sexual gratification rather than emotionally involved relationships." - this shows that you're missing my point in two respects.

1. "One night stands are not polyamory", in and of themselves. *Relationships* which allow for one night stands with other people, or that allow for "friends with benefits" with other people outside the relationship, are polyamorous relationships. And in the case of friends with benefits, it's not even a one night stand.

2. "There are [sources] that contend..." - but even if these sources actually contend something which contradicts me (which is not what you're asserting, see point #1), there are also sources that support what I'm saying. At most, you can demonstrate that this point is in dispute. However, the passage in question said "broadest usage". Regardless of the possibility of dispute on this particular margin of the definition, the "broadest usage" of polyamory clearly includes the situations I'm describe.

So, the passage as it now stands is factually incorrect. Cos 22:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly - do you have reliable sources for this usage? Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient.

Also, with the people you know, are you saying that they do not allow the partners to engage in anything more serious than say one night stands (or casual emotionless-sex)? A key part of the definition is of being open to. Polyamory doesn't require that you have to have multiple partners for you to be labelled such (after all, even some single people identify as poly).

But the idea that people are poly even when they are not open to more than one relationship is not something I have come across, and is way too broad. Mdwh 12:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out the Open marriage styles article for how these issues were handled with respect to open marriage. I am getting ready for vacation, but plan to significantly expand the section showing that the polyamorous style of open marriage and the swinging style of open marriage have psychological bases upon my return. Note also the section on community implications. This is important. The word "polyamory" does not refer only to a class of relationships. Nor does the word "swinging" refer only to a class of relationships. The words "polyamory" and "swinging" both refer to communities of people who may or may not be involved in the classes of relationship typical in each community. Kelly 00:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Polyamory, in its broadest usage, is the practice or lifestyle of being open to having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time, or of having one such relationship that is not sexually exclusive, with the knowledge and consent of all partners involved. Persons who consider themselves emotionally suited to such relationships may define themselves as polyamorous, often abbreviated to poly.

I thought it read pretty well, but you said that it was not "broad" enough. Your edit brings in the "having a relationship that is not sexually exclusive". I don't see how that broadens things. We have already said that it is about having more than one intimate relationship with the full knowledge and consent of your partners. Isn;t that saying that you are having more than one relationships that is not sexually exclusive?

If you are saying that you have one relationship, and that by agreement that it is not sexually exclusive, then that is really an open relationship, and not polyamory. It would not be correct to try and blend an open relationship and polyamory as they are different types of relationship types.

Swinging would also be a different relationship type that is not polyamory, but might be more about having a relationship that is not sexually exclusive.

The type of relationship you describe above, of a couple not being open to serious relationships, but are okay with having sex with friends is really more akin to swinging, or an open relationship. Polyamorous people and swingers have some small overlap in communities that I have been involved with, and there is mutual respect, however they generally eschew one another because they have different philosophical orientations. I'm not going to argue either side, but I point out that it seems to be the case. Many polyamorous people would not want someone to say that polyamory was a subset of swingers, and many swingers would not agree that they were a subset of polyamorous people. They are, it seems to me, different philosophies.

More importantly, most people who identify as polyamorous would not say that your wording would fit their definition of polyamory correctly, I think.

What are your thoughts on this? Atom 11:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You wrote, "If you are saying that you have one relationship, and that by agreement that it is not sexually exclusive, then that is really an open relationship, and not polyamory. It would not be correct to try and blend an open relationship and polyamory as they are different types of relationship types." - that is completely false. "open relationships" is not a separate and distinct category from "polyamory". Some people think there are differences between the two, but I doubt you can cite a single good source for the claim that the two are distinct and have no overlap. On the other hand, you could certainly find sources claiming that they are just two terms for the same thing, or that one is a broader superset of the other - in both directions. There's no concensus on that point.

So, putting aside the non-issue of whether it's an "open relationship" or not, the question is, "is it polyamory". And my answer is: yes, it is. When discussing definitions, there are people who say it isn't, but that doesn't interfere much with the fact that relationships of this sort are often referred to as poly, and that people having relationships of this sort often say they're poly.

Now, obviously, there's not complete consensus on this point. We can certainly find some sources that show the disagreement. But the passage in question literally said "in its broadest usage". It us absolutely unchallangeable that the "broadest usage" of polyamory includes relationships where a couple intends to stay a couple, but is not sexually exclusive, and one or both partners have sex with other people.

In light of this dispute, I'm going to try a different edit, this time making clear that the definition in the opening paragraph is not the broadest usage, rather than focusing on fixing the definition itself. Cos 22:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Pruning unsourced material in 'Criticisms'

An anon recently added several paragraphs[15] to the 'division of love' section. I deleted this material because it was drifting into the territory of original research - it reads more like one editor's thoughts on the matter than verifiable reporting from secondary sources. But looking at the section, I can hardly blame the anon; there's a lot of unsourced material of the "I and several of my friendsmany polyamorists/anti-polyamorists believe..." variety (some of it my fault) and it needs to go. I'm going to go through this section and try to cut it back to more solidly factual stuff; feel free to re-add deleted material if accompanied by adequate cites.

I'd also appreciate it if somebody could back up the Values section with cites; I know a lot of the material in there can be supported, because I've seen it in books like TES, but my copy is out on loan, and a large uncited section just encourages everybody to add their own personal philosophy of polyamory. --Calair 08:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Polygyny has been an accepted alternative to monogamy by the major world religions throughout most of human history, until the past few hundred years. It was accepted in the early Catholic church and other Christian sects, but has declined in acceptance since the point which Catholicism forbade priests to marry, or to have multiple wives, in the 1600's.

I don't like repeatedly reverting edits, I don't think these should be re-added until that cite can actually be provided. I have concerns about their accuracy (see discussion at clerical celibacy, Catholic Encyclopaedia on celibacy, and canons of the First & Second Lateran Councils, as well as 1 Timothy 3:2 & 12 and Titus 1:6 for why I'm sceptical). Given that a cite for such claims was requested more than a month ago, I don't think it's enough to say 'cite coming soon'; wait until the cite is here before re-adding the claims. --Calair 13:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, if you don't like reverting repeatedly, then don't. There is a multitude of information in this article that needs to be cited, but is not. Why is it that the particular one that you disagree with is the only one you;ve objected to? I edit numerous sexology related articles, and many of them need a great deal of cleanup and cites, this one is only one of many. Atom 22:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The only one I've objected to? If you check the article's edit history - or even just this Talk page and archives, or even just this section of the Talk page - you will see that that's not remotely true. Here are some examples of edits in which I've worked to remove uncited material, replace uncited claims with cited ones, identify material that needs citation, or remind others of the need for citation: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. If you scroll up to Talk:Polyamory#Listing_people and the archived discussion on that topic you'll see more examples of me pestering people for cites.

Yes, there is still plenty of material in the article that needs citation (again, if you check discussion here, you'll see that I have previously pointed out that need in some cases). I simply do not have the time to polish every last facet of this article, and even if I did I would be hesitant - this article is a collaborative effort. (Also, I am more likely to stand on verification for unlikely-sounding claims that conflict with other material I've seen.)

When I find uncited material, my preference is to look for verification and add it[33]. If I can't verify the existing material, I'll try to come up with something in a similar vein that can be verified.[34] If I can't do either of those - as with your claims - I will tag it as needing citation and/or weaken the language to something that is less likely to be disputed. Deletion comes way down the list, usually if a request for citation has gone unheeded for some time; now that I check the article history more carefully, I actually first requested a cite for the claim of Christian polygamy up to the Middle Ages as early as May 8. That's more than three months ago, and I still haven't seen a cite for this stuff; I don't think I'm unreasonable in deleting That's more than three months ago - surely long enough for somebody to produce a supporting cite, if such a thing exists? --Calair 03:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Other wikipedia articles, reference the same material. It is not a secret that priests in the early church were married, and some had multiple wives. The church was, like other abrahamic religions, fine with Polygyny for a long time. The decline in Polygamy/Polygyny is directly related to the influence of the church when it changed its position. I would say that this is common knowledge. I'd say most catholics you ask, and every priest would acknowledge that priests were allowed to marry in the earlier part of the church. Perhaps many members would not be as damiliar that Polygamy was allowed, but nearly all priests are aware of that. Atom 22:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that priests were allowed to marry in the very early days of the church. What I am disputing is your claim that this state continued until the 16th century, and that it permitted not only marriage but polygamy, either to priests or to anybody else. If these things are 'common knowledge' - which they don't seem to be among many people who I'd expect to know about such topics - you should be able to find a reliable, verifiable source to support it. --Calair 03:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Although the new advent is extremely biased towards one view, it still has a great deal of detail on Polygamy and Polyandry:

[35] "Polygamy (many marriages) or, more correctly, polygyny (many wives) has been, and is still much more common than polyandry. It existed among most of the ancient peoples known to history, and occurs at present in some civilized nations as in the majority of savage tribes."

"The principle peoples among whom the practice still exists are those under the sway of Mohammedanism, as those of Arabia, Turkey, and some of the peoples of India. Its chief home among uncivilized races is Africa. However widespread polygamy has been territorially, it has never been practised by more than a small minority of any people. Even where it has been sanctioned by custom or the civil law, the vast majority of the population have been monogamous"

"One deviation from the typical form of secular union which, however, is also called marriage, is polyandry, the union of several husbands with one wife. It has been practised at various times by a considerable number of people or tribes. It existed among the ancient Britons, the primitive Arabs, the inhabitants of the Canary Islands, the Aborigines of America, the Hottentots, the inhabitants of India, Ceylon, Thibet, Malabar, and New Zealand. In the great majority of these instances polyandry was the exceptional form of conjugal union. Monogamy and even polygamy were much more prevalent."

"The verdict of experience and the voice of nature reinforce, consequently, the Christian teaching on the unity of marriage. Moreover, the progress of the race toward monogamy, as well as toward a purer monogamy, during the last two thousand years, owes more to the influence of Christianity than to all other forces combined. Christianity has not only abolished or diminished polyandry and polygamy among the savage and barbarous peoples which it has converted, but it has preserved Europe from the polygamous civilization of Mohammedanism, has kept before the eyes of the more enlightened peoples the ideal of an unadulterated monogamy, and has given to the world its highest conception of the equality that should exist between the two parties in the marriage relation. "

Now, if that doesn't show an agenda, and extreme bias, I don't know what does. And this information, skewed as it is, is from non-monagamies chief foe, catholicism. "Moreover, the progress of the race toward monogamy, as well as toward a purer monogamy, during the last two thousand years, owes more to the influence of Christianity than to all other forces combined."

I am at a loss to see how any of the above supports the claim that Christianity permitted polygamy. AFAICT, from start to finish it describes polygamy as a non-Christian phenomenon, and depicts Christianity as furthering the cause of monogamy. --Calair 03:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting also is: [36] "Neither polygamy nor divorce can be said to be contrary to the primary precepts of nature. The primary end of marriage is compatible with both. But at least they are against the secondary precepts of the natural law: contrary, that is, to what is required for the well-ordering of human life. In these secondary precepts, however, God can dispense for good reason if He sees fit to do so. In so doing He uses His sovereign authority to diminish the right of absolute equality which naturally exists between man and woman with reference to marriage. In this way, without suffering any stain on His holiness, God could permit and sanction polygamy and divorce in the Old Law. "

Note that the 'Old Law' is basically the Old Testament; in Christian theology, it is superseded by the New Law (Jesus's teachings and the rest of the New Testament), which was well before the 16th century.[37] --Calair 03:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[38] "under no circumstances is polyandry compatible with the moral order, while polygamy, though inconsistent with human relations in their proper moral and social development, is not absolutely incompatible with them under less civilized conditions"

[39] "Gregory X (1271-76) further decreed that bigamists should be deprived of every clerical privilege and the right to wear the clerical garb and tonsure under penalty of excommunication. The Council of Trent finally forbade bigamists to exercise functions attached to minor orders, even though these functions were, on account of the necessity of the times, allowed to be performed by laymen (Sess. XXIII, c. xvii, de Reform.). "

[40] "While monogamy was the prevailing form of the family before Christ, it was limited in various degrees among many peoples by the practice of polygamy. This practice was on the whole more common among the Semitic races than among the Aryans. It was more frequent among the Jews, the Egyptians, and the Medes, than among the people of India, the Greeks, or the Romans. It existed to a greater extent among the uncivilized races, although some of these were free from it. Moreover, even those nations which practised polygamy, whether civilized or uncivilized, usually restricted it to a small minority of the population, as the kings, the chiefs, the nobles, and the rich. Polyandry was likewise practised, but with considerably less frequency. According to Westermarck, monogamy was by far the most common form of marriage "among the ancient peoples of whom we have any direct knowledge" (op. cit., p. 459). On the other hand, divorce was in vogue among practically all peoples, and to a much greater extent than polygamy. "

Again, these are conservative Catholic Dogma, and so not to be intepreted as factual, although honest view certainly based on facts. Clearly even the Catholic church admits that Polygamy existed before Christ, and after Christ within the church. It suggests (as is probably true) that monogamy was much more prevalent than polygamy or bigamy. Likewise the church sows its history of abolishing plygamy aned bigamy. (which suggests that it existed prior to that point.) And it clearly suggests that Polygamy was common in the ancient world.

I have no argument with any of those points. But that's a far cry from the claims made in your edit: that polygamy was accepted in the early Church, or that the prohibition against Christian priests marrying came in the 16th century, or that priests were ever permitted to be polygamous. --Calair 03:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally, however you choose to interpret your own source, or agree or not, it is Wikipedia policy that to maintain NPOV that we let people with conflicting or competing interpretations of the data both express their views. There needs to be no conflict here. You express what you feel to be the facts, and I will express my intepretation of the facts.

Atom 22:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood Wikipedia policy. WP:OR actually specifically forbids people from adding their own interpretations to an article. Even when based on verifiable facts, an interpretation shouldn't appear in an article unless the interpretation itself can be attributed to a verifiable, notable source.

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight says, in part (emphasis mine): "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all... If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." --Calair 03:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, although this discussion has concentrated on Christianity, the claim referred to 'major world religions' in general; while polygamy in Islam is obviously well-documented, it would be nice to have some sort of citation as to when it fell out of favour in Judaism, not to mention the other major world religions. --Calair 04:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality?

Although the section does give two sides of the coin there are more opinions than just those two opinions. The specific section is also unsourced please give more points of view and refrence the points of view.--Lucy-marie 18:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? — Saxifrage ✎ 22:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

its is a direct refrence to the section the stub is posted above.--Lucy-marie 22:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I gathered that much. Could you be more specific about the "more opinions" and what "more points of view" you'd like to see? Why I ask is, your first comment above doesn't say anything useful to other editors for improving the section you tagged. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section altogether; I'm not sure quite what the NPOV objection was about, but it's been waiting on verification for a while, and as much as I know the contents to be true I can't find a way to make this section compatible with WP:OR and WP:Verifiability. Sadly, published research seems to lag well behind 'common knowledge' on a lot of this stuff; you'd be hard-pressed to find somebody involved in poly communities who hasn't heard the 'more evolved' line, but it hasn't shown up anywhere citeable that I can find. --Calair 01:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up. The section contianed Information well known with in the community but Is unverifiable. I thank you for remoing the section as, as you said it struggles to conform to the rules on original research and verifiability.--Lucy-marie 09:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As Discussed Here -- link to Yahoo that Requires Login

One of the links says "as discussed here" and the footnote requires that someone have a Yahoo account and login.

Yahoo Groups are fine for reading, but the opinion should be found somewhere else so that readers can follow more easily, like an encyclopedia, and not login to other services.

24.55.47.135 23:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That link appears to be being used as a reference for the information that follows. You're right that it's a pain to require a login, though that's not always good reason to not use a particular reference. (Many legitimate research papers are only available by subscription, for instance.) In this case though, the link isn't eligible to use as a source because it's an email message, which doesn't qualify as a reliable source that we can use. I've removed it and tagged the paragraph as needing a citation. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Length?

WOW! I'm new around here, but this is by far and away the LONGEST article I've seen yet. (Which doesn't *really* mean much...<g>) Does it fall within the length guidelines (whatever those actually are)? Laurie Fox 11:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is 49k (try clicking edit). However this is the actual size rather then readable text. Given the article has a list, quite a few external links and quite long footnotes, the size of readable text is likely to be significant smaller... According to our guidelines, if it were 49k this means it doesn't necessarily have to be split Wikipedia:Article size. However it's getting close to the level where a split should be carefully considered. Taking a quick look at it, I don't think a split is warranted anywehre except perhaps for the list. Perhaps there is some cruft that could be culled, not sure about that since didn't read it well. There are a number of longer articles BTW, take a look at George W. Bush which is 110k nominally (altho that's very extensively referenced so it's definitely quite a bit shorter in terms of readable text). Nil Einne 18:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Values section placed into "summary style". You like? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

BLP

Just a recommendation. When considering candidates for the list, remember Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Obviously if the person isn't living like Robert A. Heinlein then it's not applicable but for people like Karlheinz Stockhausen, in the absence of clear evidence, cited evidence, we should exclude them. Although some people may have no problem with being labelled polyamorous even if they aren't others may be offended and it could be libellious. The fact we make it clear we use the term losely helps, but we still need to be careful. At the very least, we need clear evidence IMHO that the person is unlikely to find it deeply offensive (i.e. we need statements which seem to indicate they support the concept even though they may not be themselves) Nil Einne 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been trying to keep the list pared down to those that can be solidly documented (see verification discussions above and in archives) but I haven't had the time & energy to do this as much in the last couple of months.

In any case, I think it's probably time to replace this list with a category that can simply be added to the appropriate biography pages. This would probably improve the accuracy of such categorisation, since the editors following Stockhausen's page will probably know the details better than those here. There are some very similar issues involved with a similar list over at Open marriage, and I wonder whether it would be best to combine into a single category (e.g. 'consensual nonmonogamous relationships'). Thoughts?--Calair 12:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also a question of what consitutes a polyamorous lifestyle. All in all it's best to follow the idea that we only state it of them if they have, or some credible source has. In essence, agree with the above by User:Nil Einne and User:Calair. A category "people having a consensual non-monogamous lifestyle"? May be best to propose an idea here for "BLP/relationship style recognition criteria" and seek RFC consensus? That could then cover all similar lifestyle descriptors that emerge in future - polyamorous, bisexual, BDSM practitioners, or whatever. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think an RFC would be a very good idea here. Objectively defining the category is tricky and it would be good to get as much consensus as possible before creating it. I'll see if I can work up something today, keeping existing precedents from Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality in mind, and post it later. --Calair 22:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you post it here at the end, for brief discussion, before throwing it at people unfamiliar with the article. Just so we can look for issues and check the ideas that come up ourselves, 1st? Also see my comment below about a possible way around the whole issue? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well being Polyamorous isn't illegal, and nothing that most people would be offended about. Claiming that someone is polyamorous, when they are not might be incorrect, but not slander or libel. However, I agree that our current policy of not claiming someone is polyamorous unless we have a clear citable reference makes sense. Atom 15:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You want to read the comments to this article on it. It's not defamatory as such, but it is something that some people will be clearly sensitive, defensive or private about, or view as problematic if stated about them or associated without their concurring, whether true or not. So we need to consider the above issues not just assume everyone is as okay with it as some might assume. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could resolve it this way: If someone is polyamorous, there are probably two formats. They either have (or verifiably have had) multiple concurrent consenting relationships, in which case we don't need to label them, we can just say they were associated with X and Y at the same time. Or else they did not have multiple consensual relationships, but they identified as polyamorous anyhow, in which case we should be able to find a quote to support it.

So how about we rename the section people known to have had multiple consensual relationships, and only cite people as polyamorous if we can name specific concurrent relationships they had, such as "married to X and maintained a relationship with Y" or "lived as equal partners to P and Q", unless they themselves claimed the label and we can cite a source. That's far more satisfactory than just claiming they were "polyamorous" without details. Plus using facts not labels avoids the possible pejorative concerns. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)}

I think providing facts of that sort is a very good thing, and should be done in the relevant bio articles. But I've also seen quite a few people on poly forums etc. ask things like "are there any historical examples of polyamorous people?" and using lists (or categories) makes it much easier to find that sort of information.

Of the two, I think categories are better than lists because they put the claim on the person's own bio page, where it will probably get better fact-checking than we can provide here. It also encourages editors to provide some explanation of that category in the body of the relevant bio article, which IMHO is the best place for it.

I'm not sure I see the benefit in drawing a distinction based on whether we know who their relationships were with. If we can document that they had relationships of this type, making a category of this should not be terribly objectionable. (Although I would go for 'consensual nonmonogamy' rather than 'polyamory' because the latter has a bit more baggage.)

There's also the issue of people like Amelia Earhart. AFAIK there's no evidence to show that she did have relationships outside her marriage with George Putnam, but her prenuptial letters to him make it pretty clear that she was retaining the option (and giving him the same freedom). To my mind, it seems reasonable to describe that as consensual monogamy, at least in principle, even if we don't know whether the option was exercised, but it is a little tricky. Perhaps the best option is to have a deliberately broad category that encompasses all this stuff, and makes it clear that people need to read the articles to figure out exactly how they fit into the category? Will think about these issues some more before I draw up the RFC (and will post up a draft here first). --Calair 02:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's a draft:

Proposal: to create a category titled 'Consensual nonmonogamy' (or something similar) to cover people who have had/advocated/written about such relationships, as well as other articles pertaining to this subject (e.g. Swinging, Open marriage, The Ethical Slut). Category description would read something like this:

A consensual nonmonogamous relationship is a form of intimate relationship in which at least one person voluntarily agrees for their romantic/sexual/marital partner to have other such partners. This category includes articles about consensual nonmonogamy and people who have had such relationships, as well as notable advocates, critics, and commentators on consensual nonmonogamy. It does not cover relationships in which a person has multiple partners who have not willingly agreed to such an arrangement (cf infidelity), or societies in which polygamy is already the norm.

Rationale: Various 'modern' forms of nonmonogamy have attracted public attention in the last few years. One of the most commonly-asked questions about these types of relationships is "any famous examples?" and Wikipedia should help people answer that question. At present the articles on polyamory and open marriage both have lists of famous practitioners.

Unfortunately this sort of topic tends to attract media speculation and exaggeration (see my comment at Talk:Open_marriage#Will_and_Jada for an example), and it's human nature to want to claim famous figures as "one of us". This has caused an ongoing verification problem with these lists, with people being added (often the same ones, over and over) on the strength of inadequate or misunderstood sources. This is particularly problematic when the people identified are still alive, since WP:BLP is very clear on the importance of verification in such cases.

Replacing these lists with a category would mean that any such identification is done on the person's own bio page. This would improve standards of verifiability, since the best place to find editors who know the details of John Doe's relationships and have a good grasp on the relevant sources is on his bio page, not on Polyamory. It would also encourage editors to integrate this information with the person's bio, making that page more informative, which is far better than a terse mention in a list in a separate article.

Comments? --Calair 05:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Looks decent enough to me, as long as a category that combines philosophical articles, bios and critics isn't confusing (I think it should be OK??). I'll probably comment more when I've thought about it, but for now my only query is the wording "or people who have had such relationships". Maybe "...who have been credibly reported to have had...", perhaps? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems okay to me as long as it is understood that BLP allows us to be ruthless about taking individuals out of the category where there is no strong and well-sourced explanation within the article. Metamagician3000 05:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I noticed the following was removed from See also:

The band Breaking Benjamin released a song titled 'Polyamorous' on their album Saturate.

In other articles I have seen a section called Trivia that was used for this kind of cultural reference to a topic. I suggest we add a Trivia section at the bottom of this article, below See also.

Another candidate for this section would be the song 'Trinity'. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 19:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I know a lot of articles still have them, but separate 'trivia' sections are generally deprecated (see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles and Wikipedia:Trivia). There are far too many cultural references to polyamory to list them all in the article; notable ones should be worked into the discussion (as is done with e.g. Heinlein's novels, which introduced a lot of people to the idea) but we don't have the space to include everybody's favourites. --Calair 00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A possible alternative would be a separate article: "Cultural use of the term 'Polyamory' " or some such? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the ones in that list don't actually call it 'polyamory', so that title might not provide enough for an article. Something like List of songs about polyamory could work, or (being lazy) we could just link to one of the lists already out there on the web. --Calair 13:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:Trivia suggests that placing Trivia in a section that is NOT labeled Trivia can be ok. The real kicker is whether or not the items under it add value to the article. I think it might be of MUCH MORE value to the article if we took some quotes from these song lyrics, inserted them into the article to illustrate a specific point, then referenced the song with a proper ref tag. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 15:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"Media and cultural [or: Societal] attitudes to ..."? I think a content fork would be valuable here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to create such a page at Cultural references to polyamory but it is already tagged for deletion. If anyone wants to help me by adding to it or adding references I could use the help. AMProSoft 21:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Content split-out

I've split out two major sections into their own articles, and created a category Category:Polyamory for the polyamory related articles thus created:

• Values within polyamory
• Terminology within polyamory - definitions, terminology, history of terminology, as well as all kinds of polyamory-related terminology related to primary/secondary, triads and quads, open and closed, etc.

These were the two long sections which were heavy work to read; by summarizing them in the main article (and slight reorganization) the polyamory article is now a bit easier to read, and additional content related to terms and values can be added without worries as to the length of the main article.

It also helps keep the main article length down a bit.

The intro is now structured:

• What polyamory is (definitions)
• Polyamorous people (how they see the term)
• Basis of polyamory (its values)
• Science and cultural views about polyamory

Edit: I can see a future article "Polyamory and the law" on the horizons too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone link me to the policy regarding moving onfo on talk pages? Now that the famous poly people list has been split out, can all of the related sections on this talk page be moved to the talk page there? Can the trivia section on this talk page be removed eventually? What is the method for talk page clean up of long resolved issues? AMProSoft 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Normal procedure would be to move old Talk to an archive page as per WP:Archive - this makes it easily accessible should the same issues come up again in the future, while keeping the active Talk page manageable (and this one could certainly do with some archiving). Note that some of the older 'famous poly people' discussion is already in the existing archives for this page.

I don't know whether there's a policy as such, but pasting a copy of the relevant discussion to the Talk of the new page seems sensible and unobjectionable to me - as long as the pasted section is clearly identified as such, that should be fine. --Calair 13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested cleanup

I think a lot of the direct quotes framed in the article text take away from the prose, and should be included as references. It's also quite long, and some points seem to be repeated several times. Finally, I think it would benefit from additional referencing, and also making clear which statements each reference is intended to support (inline citations vs. dumping a list at the bottom). Seraphimblade 05:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The prose itself also needs a good cleanup - which is easier to deal with. I'll attend to that aspect over the next day or so. Metamagician3000 08:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, there's more to do, but a lot of the prose should now be clearer as well as more concise - I cut back a lot of what seemed to be wordy expression of ideas, hopefully without changing the meaning. I think we should do another layer of this to have the flow right. There then seems to be a lot of material that looks like original research, which we need to address somehow, as well as issues about long quotes and so on. I'll leave this for a day or two, and I'm open to ideas. Metamagician3000 09:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I see we're making good progress. The big issue I now have with it is the enormous amount of what looks like original research. Metamagician3000 02:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Tackle it a few at a time, as is being done, rather than in bulk. A number of the (many) uncited statements seem reasonable and probably can be cited. Common experience is that knowledgable people's edits often reflect and match research (not least since research usually supports what's said by knowledgable people) even if it wasn't written that way. The article doesn't seem to state much that's controversial in the field. My $0.02. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't think that there's a lot of material that should be challenged. It's just a matter of article improvement, not of disputed material. At least in the main. Metamagician3000 05:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm proposing to remove the cleanup tag. The article is still imperfect, of course, but it has been cleaned up a lot in the last two months, and is now at a good standard of presentation. Metamagician3000 10:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm now going to remove the cleanup tag, having given notice. The article still has flaws - some unnecessarily long quotes, need for more citations - but it is well-presented. Metamagician3000 23:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Section on Philosophical Aspects needs cleanup. "Realistically, however, they will be forced to think about it a lot in the same way non-religious people in religious society will be forced to frequently consider theological matters, regardless of 'inherent interest' to them" is an entirely unsourced statement, and has become worse following a recent edit. Possible total rewrite needed if sources cannot be found --Careless hx 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a statement of editorial opinion, in which case it should be deleted. Metamagician3000 01:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Use vs. mention

Be careful when changing the first sentence of this article. The article is not about the word polyamory, but about polyamory itself; therefore it shouldn't start with "Polyamory is a term..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ian Maxwell (talk • contribs) 00:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I think this is a fair point. Metamagician3000 10:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Forgive me if this has been mentioned already but this Annalee Newitz article in New Scientist may be a useful source - a respected journalist discussing the concept: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125591.800.html.

There is alsp a fleeting reference to the idea in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, who is not entirely hostile but rather sceptical, or at least that is how I understood him. That might be useful somewhere, some time, if we are disussing the views of outsiders. Metamagician3000 11:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of unverified chunks of material

I've deleted the following large chunk of unattributed rumination: Still, without more disciplined academic study in this area, the question is currently open. There is simply not enough consistent and high quality research at present comparing monogamous relationships with polyamorous ones, either in terms of longevity (as a measure for those relationships which do make a "life-long" commitment), in terms of satisfaction with the results, or in terms of meeting the expectations of those participating. Though some research results suggest that provided both partners are emotionally capable of the outlook required by polyamory, those relationships are more capable of duration than classical monogamous partnerships. It may well be true, but unless this viewpoint has been published in a reliable source we cannot include it in the article. By keeping here, I'm offering it as a resource for anyone who can find a source for this thought or something similar and wants to include something like it back in the article. Metamagician3000 01:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also deleted this: Amongst other species of mammals, social pair-bonding and stability are not usually found to be strongly related to sexual monogamy. For example, only 15% of primate species are socially monogamous, while for mammalian species in general, the figure is 3%. Genetic testing of offspring has confirmed sexual monogamy (previously believed to be the norm) to be very rare in both birds and other mammals, including species such as swans, songbirds, wolves, and others that had previously described as "faithful" or "mating for life". It was sitting there with a citation tag for a long time, and no citation was ever given. More fundamentally, it is not clear what connection we are supposed to see between what animals do and a conscious social practice by humans - such as polyamory. Not only do we need a citation for the material; we also need a citation for any claim that it is relevant (e.g. to the acceptability of polyamory). Without such an independent discussion of any connection, reported in a reliable source, this is looking like original research. Metamagician3000 09:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to bite, but I find this reasoning somewhat astounding. We spend our whole lives being told be everyone that monogamy is the norm, and are shown that even in the animals there are strong examples of monogamy. When a contributor here gives info opposing that view you say "it is not clear what connection we are supposed to see"? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 16:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, we would need citations to include this info--second, wikipedia is not for drawing conclusions and doing original research. If there is a paper on mammal pairing and polyamory in humans then it is okay, if the citation however is only about mammal pairings but excludes the human connection that is not okay.Lotusduck 16:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I have no objection to including the information if there are sources for it and its connection with/implications for polyamory. If someone has stated the argument that BillWSmith just stated, I'm more than happy to see it included in the article; I'm not running an anti-polyamory agenda. But we are not here to do original research, and something can be original research if it makes out a novel argument, explicitly or by implication, even if the actual facts are cited (which they are not in this instance, but they probably could be). The argument itself has to be made explicit and attributed to a report in a reliable source. Metamagician3000 23:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Still very long and unwieldy

I appreciate the slow steady progress this article seems to me making, but it seems to me that the article could really benefit from a smidge of "be bold" and a bit of a merciless hacksaw.

• I think it may be time Famous Polyamorous People became a category rather than a section in this article and it could be made the #1 spot under see also.
• I think A LOT of content needs to be clipped from the criticisms section as much of it is rambling and has little to do with the specific criticisms it purports to describe.
• I would like to see a section added on how Polyamorous people find one another, dating practices and the like, I think a lot of people arrive at this article curious about that kind of thing. That might be a space to reinclude things like the UUPA and other religion based groups for Pagans, Wiccans, Christians and what have you. Also conferences like Loving More, Twin Oaks and whatever other annual conferences are relevant. I would also suggest including mentions to websites like PolyMatchmaker and some of the other sites that are notable.
• A section on Polymedia would probably be in order: the Polyamory Weekly podcast and Loving More Magazine and the like.
• Personally, I think the information on monogamy in animals should be reincluded with a cite to "The Myth of Monogamy" by Barash and Lipton, but not have it's own section. A brief NPOV line about it in the research section would surely suffice.
• Most of all, I just think there is SO much text in this article that does noting to advance the article, is of very limited interest to people, or seems out of sequence and completely disrupts the flow of the article.

Do these kinds of changes make sense to people or would there be major objections. I would be happy to start making changes of this nature if people agree they need to be made and others don't want to take the initiative to do it first. AMProSoft 22:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! We can always revert you. ;) Metamagician3000 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll make them one by one over time then. For easier reverting.  :) AMProSoft 23:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

More seriously, I'd like to see a more concise article. I've been trying to do a few things - get information out of notes and into the text, or delete it if it's superfluous; remove material that looks to be in breach of our policies, while keeping stuff on the talk page if there is some prospect of restoring it with better citations, etc.; try to cut down some of the long quotes where they can be summarised; generally copyedit and wikify. It's quite a big job, the way the article was written, and I've only been able to do it gradually. If you can help do all that, I'll be grateful.

I'm a bit worried about restoring any of the stuff on animals unless Barash and Lipton actually make some connection with polyamory - we're really not here to synthesise arguments of our own but must attribute them. But if they actually make a point that's relevant and back it up with this kind of information, we can include the point and cite it to them, including the info they rely on. However, we shouldn't include some peripheral point that they might make and try to make our own argument about how that, in turn, has implications for polyamory, which I think it's very tempting to do, because there's not a lot of work by the high-profile evolutionary psychologists like Barash that explicitly comments on polyamory, though they do say all sorts of things that one might be tempted to extrapolate (contrary to NOR).

I'm not sure about the other points, but my general feeling really is go for it. If some of us don't like some of what you do, we can have a discussion, but seeing a revamped version by someone tackling the whole article afresh might help a lot. Metamagician3000 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and converting 'famous poly people' to a category is long overdue - I'd intended to do it a while back (see discussion above), but then I got distracted by Real Life. --Calair 02:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like good work so far. :) Metamagician3000 09:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I converted external links to categories, but think maybe that should be reverted. I don't know if there are rules against drawing undue attention to external links. I also wasn't sure whether or not there was any reason for not including polymatchmaker. It is probably the most well known poly site and the most linked to in articles and blog entries on polyamory, so I was curious if it was deliberately discluded in externals and should be just made reference to in the text of the article. AMProSoft 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Amer. vs. Brit. spelling

Standard Wikipedia practice is to edit articles to be consistent in spelling usage. As I understand it, while there is no preference in Wikipedia policy in which spelling system (e.g., American spellings vs. British) so long as the article is consistent. Based on counts of the words "recognised (-zed)", "centre (-ter)", it seemed apparent that most contributions to this article had been made in the American style and so I made the article consistent (or have attempted to!) and have no beef with folks who prefer the British spelling, if folks prefer that, go for it, but please don't simply revert these changes, instead go ahead and make the article entirely consistent with British spelling. Thanks!--Joe Decker 18:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Manual of Style on American vs. British spelling --Joe Decker 18:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that articles should be consistent, but I'm not so sure about changing the spelling on quoted text as was done with the 'Poly 101' reference (which was linking to the wrong article, but I'll fix that). --Calair 02:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I agree entirely, I blew it.  :) --Joe Decker 06:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Went and made the corrections, I think, thanks for the assist! --Joe Decker 06:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Symbols of Polyamory

I removed the Poly Pride Flag from Symbols of polyamory because I've never encountered it before and can't find any evidence that it's actually used to represent the poly community by anyone other than the fellow who added it to the article. Feel free to restore it if it is in fact a recognized symbol among polyamorists, but please don't revert the other changes (removal of self promotion and other unrelated content) that were made on the same edit. 71.243.159.244 10:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Private yahoo group references

I reformatted a few references using the ref tag, but found that there were references to some yahoo groups which require group membership to read. These aren't directly against Wikipedia:Verifiability but work somewhat against its spirit. If some other archive source for these could be found, it would be better.