Talk:Polyamory

Remove More Than Two?

So I saw on the Wikipedia page More Than Two under the section “Criticism” that the author of More Than Two, Franklin Veaux, has been accused of abuse and the book has been seen as potentially helping abusers. (Hard to summarize how: read it on the book’s wiki page.) Should we remove the book More Than Two from “Further Reading” on the polyamory page and stop using it for references on the polyamory page, where it is currently cited as a reference twice? 72.94.88.14 (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

To settle this I will give a week from now for objections and if no objections I will remove More Than Two from cited references and find less controversial reference(s) to replace it. If you object please say so here below my writing this.72.94.88.14 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this about a discredited author or is there actual harmful stuff in the book? Please provide relevant citations about why the book is harmful. If we are just going to remove a book based upon bad actions on the part of one of the authors, that is just cancel culture, which is in effect against Wikipedia's policy against censorship.

I glanced at Eve Rickert's five year anniversary post. It states:

More Than Two came out of love. It was written by two people who, at the time, loved each other deeply, in the ways that each of them knew how, and wanted to help other people. (At least I did. And I actually do believe that Franklin did, too.) And yet what came out of that love…has caused harm.

And yet…and yet…it’s also helped people. I know it has; I believe it has—people have told me so. I hope it’s helped more people than it’s harmed. I don’t think it’s a bad book. But it was bad for me.

It appears to be a lot more nuanced than 72.94.88.14 presented here. If it is about an author's misconduct yet it is an important text to the subject, then leave it it. If the book itself has been thoroughly discredited, then I would support leaving it out. But as of now, I am unconvinced that it should be removed. Perhaps we can craft an explanatory footnote to clarify the reservations in the article.

Peaceray (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I hope it’s helped more people than it’s harmed. That sounds to me like it does do harm. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

References

The co-author's post seems to imply the content of the book is or at least could be harmful. In regards to the potential "cancel culture" issue, I would like to offer an analogy: Say there was a book written about stock market investing. If the author is later panned by the media because they got in a drunken fist fight, then removing it might be seen as cancel culture, because the misdeed of the author has nothing to do with the book's subject matter. On the other hand, say the author comes under criticism because they one, have no degree or work experience in anything related to economics or investing, and two, lost a sizeable amount of money in a poorly-planned investment. In the latter cause, that's not cancel culture. The reason being it brings the reliability of the book into question, even if no one publically comes forward to say they lost money using the book's advice.Legitimus (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Two third-party essays with analysis/discussion of harm caused by the book: "MY LIFE BELONGS TO ME" - Reading the Polyamory Narratives of Franklin Veaux Against the Relationship Testimony of Two of His Ex-Nesting Partners by Kali Tal We need to talk about poly by Karen Pollock

Also worth noting perhaps that the alleged survivors of Veaux’s abuse have made explicit requests that More Than Two only be shared with a caveat about the allegations—though they have not requested a boycott of Veaux’s collaborative work: I Tripped on the (Polyamorous) Missing Stair - see #11 And that Veaux’s website of the same name, along with all other solo work on polyamory and BDSM, NOT be shared at all: A message from the polyamory #metoo survivors - see “For polyamorous communities”

Seems like a footnote at least would be in order. Removing a book from a “further reading” section doesn’t seem like censorship, but the choice of which books to include does seem rather subjective. 2001:569:BF14:F00:C187:6F59:DC36:E33B (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I just feel like, you can’t include every book in Further Reading, so why not only include ones without controversy? Aside from the accusations, More Than Two doesn’t say anything about polyamory that’s missing from the other books in Further Reading, and the two times it’s used for a reference could easily be replaced by equally reliable references that aren’t controversial. Why bother with a book that’s going to need footnotes and justification when so many equally good ones don’t?72.94.88.14 (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi editors. Please see this edit made five days ago with the summary Undid revision 1117794178 by Peaceray (talk): this is already in the references. Further discussion of source on the talk page. I self-reverted when I realized that the book is used as a reference. There is no need for the superfluous inclusion of a book in Further reading when it already appears in References. This is regardless of the quality or value of the book.

That written, I do think that the reference needs an {{efn}} (explanatory footnote). I think that the book is probably inportant to polyamory & thus should be included as a reference, and that the objections to the book & one of its authors would be very relevant. Peaceray (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Here is the guideline at MOS:FURTHER that guided my self-reversion:

The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section...

Peaceray (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

New flag (November 2022)

Hello, Polyamproud recently conducted a vote (to which 30,000+ people took part) to select a new polyamory pride flag. It has been added to the page, but only with primary sources: I suggest that we wait a little until there are press articles about this new flag. Right now, I do not think this flag meets the notability criteria. Skimel (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The infinity heart is a widely used symbol of polyamory. (from Sexuality and gender identity-based cultures)

I agree. It doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria and might only get there due to controversy. Most of the discussions on the /r/polyamory subreddit point at a flawed voting process with few people voting and no "none of the above" option. (e.g. [1], [2], [3]), it doesn't seem well accepted.

On the other hand I'm surprised not to see the pretty standard infinity heart symbol on this page. --Trougnouf (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It needs secondary sources to be included and should otherwise be removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Reddit is WP:USERGENERATED content & using it as a citation violates the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. I am going to remove the content based on that. Peaceray (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Peaceray (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

References

I don't think Reddit was used in the article, but the only citations were from the group that released the flag which is clearly not any better. Thanks. --Trougnouf (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

That may be true, but sources citing user generated content are basically recursively reflexively citing unreliable sources. At any rate, it is foolish & absurd to think that Reddit can decide what a flag is for the entire polyamorous community. Peaceray (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Along with the {{uw-nor1}} template, I have used this language to warn users who try to post the image of the Reddit flag:

Reddit is specifically designated as unreliable. 30,000 Reddit users, some of whom may not be polyamorous, do not get to decide for the rest of the substantially more numerous polyamorous community. It is definitely too soon for this flag to be notable.

Peaceray (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

While I think it is too soon for the new flag to be opted as the official one, the 30K+ votes were not by Reddit users but by an audience of mostly Instagram users and about 10K users that only signed up for the vote via email and not through Instagram.

The negative comments on Reddit are also predominantly made by users who haven't followed to process and make claims that are disproven on their Instagram page and website. Honema (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I will note that 30K+ is a small proportion of the estimated polyamorous community just for the US. Whatever forum in which the vote took place is perhaps inconsequential until we see an acceptance of this, or any flag, as representing the polyamorous community that is verified by reliable sources. Peaceray (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Also: WP:INSTAGRAM Peaceray (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

yes, agreed Honema (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

References

I agree with you all that the opinion of Reddit users is irrelevant, just clarifying my point that most Reddit users seem to be against the flag. --Trougnouf (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, I have contacted the designer of the flag, Red Howell, who confirmed to me that it was released under a CC0 license. Skimel (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of the flag actually in use in daily life? At events, parades, community meetings, shops, on books, in print, on flyers, or in any sense an organic, grassroots use of this symbol in real life? And how many polyamorous people would recognise what it was without being told?

It's just another proposed flag at this stage. It's misleading content for an encyclopedia article, because it misrepresents a casual reader into believing this is a recognised symbol in use. Wikipedia should not be used a as vehicle for advancing the goal of making this the flag by circular logic (it's the one which wikipedia says is official...therefore more people see it and use it...and so, in turn, it becomes official). We should postpone inclusion until there is evidence of it in common use, or whether it goes the way of all the other proposed poly flags.

If people do want to include it, maybe a section on polyamory symbol & flag controversy, which puts it into context as one of many proposals 2A02:C7F:8B91:8200:91CA:D1E7:F42F:69A8 (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Criticism section

There are serious problems with this article's Criticism section, including some that were pointed out by an IP editor in Special:Diff/1129794578, whose edit summary I would suggest reading. The section contains material that is either totally biased against polyamory or could be reworded or moved elsewhere, and it gives undue weight to negative assumptions about polyamorous people. In an edit, I added the {{Criticism section}} template to the section in an effort to bring attention to this issue, but my edit was reverted. I don't see a problem with having the cleanup template there, as other articles have that template in such a section and the aforementioned IP editor more or less argued against the section and its contents. Are there any objections to adding that template back? HaiFire3344 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. For now, I think the section is fine, as Crossroads said, as long as it doesn't give undue balance to anyone. As such, I think section which notes criticisms from Yasmin Nair should be reduced. I don't believe in "heavily redacting" anything. Brought back Bindel, but moved all of those criticisms into one paragraph, as shown in my recent edit here. Considering there is a section about difficulties with polyamory, why not have a section about criticism too? Anyway, I've directed people to this part of the talk page, and hopefully there can be more discussion here, as I'd say the material in the section has value to the page, although I'm not fully wedded toward the content being in that section. Historyday01 (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

True Definition in way of non-sexually and non-romantic

Polyamory is an approach to relationships that emphasizes the possibility of having multiple meaningful connections with others without strictly focusing on sexual or romantic ties. It is a philosophy or lifestyle that recognizes and encourages the potential for emotional intimacy, love, and commitment in various forms, beyond the traditional monogamous framework. Polyamory can involve deep friendships, platonic partnerships, or chosen family relationships where individuals prioritize building connections based on emotional compatibility, mutual support, and shared values. The key aspect of polyamory is the acknowledgment and acceptance of multiple simultaneous relationships, which can be diverse in nature and dynamics, while respecting the consent and autonomy of all parties involved. 2600:8801:2205:7100:1C90:315:F758:CFFE (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

In the context of choosing to be monogamous with a polyamorous mindset, it means that an individual recognizes and understands the principles and values of polyamory but consciously decides to commit to a monogamous relationship. They may still embrace the idea of multiple meaningful connections and value the principles of open communication, honesty, and consent that are often associated with polyamory. However, they have personally chosen to prioritize and focus on a single romantic and/or sexual partnership at a given time, while maintaining respect for the concept of ethical non-monogamy.

In this context, choosing to be monogamous with a polyamorous mindset often involves open and honest communication with one's partner about desires, boundaries, and expectations regarding the possibility of other connections or attractions. It may also involve ongoing self-reflection and self-awareness to ensure that the decision to be monogamous aligns with one's own needs, values, and relationship goals. By consciously embracing a polyamorous mindset within a monogamous relationship, individuals can navigate their desires and emotions with greater understanding and ensure that their choices are rooted in consent, integrity, and the principles of ethical non-monogamy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgorithmicMirrorOfRemeberance91 (talk • contribs) 02:27 5 June 2023 (UTC)

LGBT

@darknessgoth777 would you mind explaining why a navbox which has this page as one of the listed entries should not be on this page so we can achieve a consensus on what to do? And can you do this here, rather than just immediately trying to reinsert your change? thanks in advance. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi. This is not meant to be offensive at all. Polyamory is not considered a sexuality it's considered type of relationship. Therefore it's not a sexual identity nor is it apart of the LGBT community. LGBT is defined as the community for anyone who is not straight, not cisgender, not allosexual (asexual), and/or not alloromantic (aromantic). DarknessGoth777 (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it doesn't fall under the LGBTQ umbrella. Not everyone who is poly is queer, but polyamory draws in queer people and is seen as "non-monogamous approach to love and dating" and has appeared at pride parades. So it makes sense to include that navbox. Removing it would be doing a disservice to anyone who reads the polyamory page. Historyday01 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Polyamory has been mistaken as a LGBT identity because it has a flag to represent it similar to how BDSM practices also have flags to represent them. But both are generally not considered part of the community due to the definition of LGBT. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

According to who? Who is saying polyamory isn't "generally not considered part of the community"? Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Therefore the flag meant to represent polyamory is not a pride flag because a pride flag is a flag that represents a gender, sexuality, or romantic orientation that is inherently part of the LGBT community. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

See, the main problem with that is that it's explicitly a pride flag. It has been designed and is being used as such. It's explicitly mentioned in the source we cite for the flag. So that, to begin with, is just not true. Polyamory has been part of pride rallies since forever, and as for your other edit, it "not being a sexual identity" depends on whom you ask, see for example this article on the subject. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Exactly and it makes sense it has been part of pride rallies. Historyday01 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I STRONGLY oppose removing the Gender and sexual identities navbox from the bottom of the page. darknessgoth777 appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the LGBTQ community, which is unfortunate considering previous editing on LGBTQ topics by that user. Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)