Talk:Polyamory/Archive 5

Poly is not an orientation
Why is this article in the category sexual orientation? Polyamory is not an orientation, it is a sexual lifestyle choice; polys can be of any orientation. Furthermore, it is misleading to have the sole photograph on the article depicting polys as LGBT people at a gay pride march; there are many thousands of heterosexual polys. F W Nietzsche (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What is a sexual orientation? Before 1976 homosexuality wasn't an orientation, it was a form of mental illness (per the DSM).  So it even wasn't an orientation then.  At the risk of using weasel words, I think that from the point of view of many poly people, they would view polyamory as an orientation.  Some people tend to have multiple mates.  Is that a biochemical motivation they can't help and are genetically predisposed to?  Or are they just willing themselves to do it?  Or is it just life-experience?  I think it's probably some combination of all three that forms a continuum.  So just as homosexual people tend to be attracted to people of the same gender (and sometimes this changes throughout an individual's life), poly people tend to be attracted to long-term loving relationships with multiple people.  Many polyamorous people do happen to be bisexual and see polyamory as the most ethical way to express their bisexuality.  I don't think this discounts or marginalizes the many heterosexual polyamorous people.  I think rather it's polyamorous people identifying with and supporting people in their struggle to obtain social acceptance. --70.3.139.91 (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. I'd like to see less of the "lifestyle" thing. I only know one polyamorous person (that I am specifically aware of), who has much the same problems as homosexuals had (and still have to some extent) - the closet thing, only telling your absolute best friends, fear of reactions etc. If it's just a lifestyle choice, it's a pretty stupid one in a society that celebrates monoamory in a more universal and obsessive way than any other social ideal. My impression is that there is another "poly" aspect to polyamory - a very limited ability do distinguish between platonic and romantic love (and very real annoyance and frustration when the subject is broached). I couldn't live in a polyamorous relationship for long - I have the same inherent expectation of exclusiveness (read: ownership, mutual or not) that other monoamorous people have (however you deal with it), and I would not be able to block or shut off or "cure" the jealousy when this sense of ownership is challenged - an emotional response normal to monos that polyamory doesn't seem to be able to understand, but has to live with amongst the vast monoamorous majority to avoid getting deeply and seriously hurt by the people you love most - so a poly's chosen lifestyle would be one of monoamory.


 * Is it love illiteracy amongst polies, or unnecessary baggage amongst monos? I don't know, and that's POV anyway. The nature/nurture argument will be no easier to solve than in homosexuality, but whatever the cause, it's clinically irreversible if the similarity goes that far. I'm monoamorous and I could never change that; why would I ever think that polyamorous people could? The "lifestyle choice" argument confuses the symptom and the cause.


 * I also wish there would be less confusion between poly/monogamy and poly/monoamory, these are only superficially comparable concepts (much the same way as love and sex are not the same thing). Confusing the two is laziness at best, inflammatory at worst. DDWP (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi all, re that photo, I cringe every time I see it. It's just horrendous, and not a representation of what poly people generally do when you put them in the same place. Most of what they do is talk about relationships, eat food and hold conferences. Most do not, and would not, march in a pride parade. Re orientation, while not listed in DSM (it's not a disease, despite what some would say), it is clearly a way that one is oriented and I think that if looked at honestly will give us a new dimension or at least angle on the concept of orientation. I was polyamorous from around the time many homosexual people know they are what they are, from about the third grade; having never heard of the topic, concept or issue. Dioxinfreak (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is a lot of confusion here. Sexuality and romantic love are being interchanged as if they were the same when they are not. What is this, 1612? and obviously a lot of us agree here too. There should be more emphasis to differentiate all those four concepts. Monoamory, Polyamory, Monogamy and Polygamy. All different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.245.181.225 (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Compersion section
According to the definition of compersion, the sentence: "Compersion is an empathetic state of happiness and joy experienced when another individual experiences happiness and joy..." Should be changed to: "the positive feelings one gets when a lover is enjoying another relationship. Sometimes called the opposite or flip side of jealousy." 71.139.160.140 (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

New source
https://www.yahoo.com/health/should-we-all-be-in-monogamish-relationships-109895587302.html --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on Recent Controversy
Hey, I followed this discussion from the reliable sources noticeboard. This is clearly an issue both sides are passionate about - and unfortunately that seems to be clouding judgements all around and leading to a needlessly heated discussion. It seems like Arbitration might be in order. Overall though, it seems like there may be a bias at work here among some editors to push issues close to them. On one side to defend monogamous lifestyle, on the other to defend a polyamorous lifestyle. Neutral, arbitrated discussion seems necessary.

To be frank however, arguing that adding information about criticism itself constitutes breaking the soapbox policy misunderstands it. There isn't necessarily a conflict of interest simply because an editor holds a position. WP:CRIT is very relevant here. It states: "Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive." Deleting information simply because it may make one uncomfortable is against the spirit of the Encyclopedia. Now what should change, as WP:CRIT notes, is the information should ideally be woven throughout the article instead of into a separate criticism section. Perhaps a more constructive approach would be to rearrange it in this manner, rather than simply delete. That the information comes from reliable sources was confirmed at the discussion - so let's all remember we are Wikipedians, and build a worthy encyclopedia article! TheLogician112 (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have added in some of the information, but removed the inaccurate statement about polyamory leading to decreased sexual pleasure. It was pointed out in another page touched by the controversy that this is inaccurate. Further, the FRC source was removed, as it seems to be a leading factor in causing the strife, and there are too many sources there anyway. TheLogician112 (talk)| — Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello. You reverted all the information. Probably by accident. The sources that the now blocked ip were using. Were not RS. Only Two sources he had been using that were RS were the journal (the study is in the journal), and a study of Bedouin-Arab women woman. while using these sources he misinterpreted Data for his own agenda.
 * I have no problem adding negative or positive to any section of wikipedia. So if anything looked passionate its because I want to have it right and not added willy nilly. That is why I went into extra examining mode when it came to these sources. the two sources cannot be used here, but One can be used in polygamy after the weight of the source is determined there. The journal cannot be added. The journal maybe could be added with general sex article. But it does not talk directly about polygamy or polyamory. The abstract shows the conclusion of this study and this is the important part.
 * "We find a significant effect of measures for all 3 of these dimensions on emotional satisfaction with sex. For both men and women, time horizon and sexual exclusivity are more strongly tied to emotional satisfaction than they are to physical pleasure from sex, but sexual behavior has the same impact on emotional satisfaction as it does on physical pleasure." So the thing the study shows is that if you have an exclusive sexual relationships that its more strongly tied to emotional satisfaction then physical pleasure from sex. It does not mention higher pleasure, lower pleasure or a direct attack against polygamy. So It might be able to be placed there but maybe not. Have not read the article. Unless you are past the paywall and can quote me a bit that would be relevant to polygamy or polyamory. And if you would do that, I would like the whole paragraph quoted that shows anything involving it. Remember {{WP:OR]] as well if you decided to do that. I am going to make a post at polygamy.  As you want to be involved I will ping you as well in my Polygamy post. I will also be removing the ips information you re-added because of all the bad sources and not having to anything with polyamory.
 * * Now on the new stuff what you added. At the first glance and looking into the source it seems what you added is more reasonable. It might have to be shifted one point down and re-edited. And I rather wait on some others to weight in on it as well. NathanWubs (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, my biggest complaint wasn't that criticism was added, it was that primary and unreliable sources like the FRC were being used. As the discussion progressed, sources that never even mentioned polyamory or any of its variants were also added. Sources that only mention a specific form (almost invariably polygamy) are also potentially problematic, but could be okay as long as the wording makes it clear that that's all that was studied. It's 4am here, so that's about all I've got for now. I'll go over the newer changes and such tomorrow. – Robin Hood  (talk)  09:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The FRC source has been removed - so it seems like now the only question is, does a source need to use the word polyamory to be included, or it is alright if it talks about types of polyamory (like polygamy) or uses synonyms (like sexual non-exclusivity)?
 * Personally I'd be inclined to say that what we need is a concrete example of a secondary source criticizing polyamory that makes reference to one or both of the studies. I'll look to see if there are any. It does seem to certainly seem to be flirting with the threshold of WP:OR to include primary sources like that. TheLogician112 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If we permit polygamy as relevant, then https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-20355392/polygyny-and-marital-life-satisfaction-an-exploratory] is one source that notes the sexual non-exclusivity study and the associated decrease in relationship satisfaction. It does note this specifically in the context of polygamy however TheLogician112 (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit conflicted, but will still post this. with extra. :: Like I said before the source that could be used, could only be used for polygamy. Which we have an article about. It mentioned specifically polygamy. It would need to use terms that are directly related to Polyamory even better if it mentions the term to begin with. If it mention polygamy for example that means it belongs in our wonderful article about polygamy. Especially as what can happen easily is that WP:OR will happen, and that is a big no no. Wikipedia is after all only for reporting sources not what we ourselves think what the sources say. (Which I mean in that we do not take original meaning from them). The journal is a secondary source as it was using the study that was conducted in 1992 for its information. The journal however, like I said already said before talks about sex. So as polyamory has more to do with loving more then one person. And Polygamy is more about a certain type it probably would not be able to be used in either. So the journal if used probably would be used at [sexual intercourse] and more sex focused topics. The second reliable source is already used at polygamy. Where I made a post that you can respond to. It certainly does not belong here. NathanWubs (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * About your new source. Polygyny and Marital Life Satisfaction: An Exploratory Study from Rural Cameroon. As you can see we already have a an article about Polygyny. So it would belong there. Also once again anything that mentions Polygamy belongs in that article and not here. As there are difference. NathanWubs (talk)
 * I generally think that polyamory needs to be addressed specifically for a source to be used on this article. Generally speaking, polygamy refers to the dynamics of polygyny and polyandry, both of which require marriage to be a part of the dynamic. Polygamy is also often associated with a patriarchal/matriarchal power dynamic. Polyamory, on the other hand, tends to be used to describe a more flexible or fluid dynamic where partners are free to develop other partners at will, though often within certain boundaries, and marriage per se may or may not be involved.
 * I've found a source that does specifically discuss polyamory, and notes that its critics claim to "affirm...through research...that emotional and sexual exclusivity is the guarantee of relationship success, and by extension personal health and happiness" and then lists examples of such research, including "Waite and Joyner, 2001", the study in question. I'll add this as the source and include the bit about what that research says for clarification. I won't include the polygamy research in the interests of reaching consensus TheLogician112 (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair enough, though I do find the claim that exclusivity guarantees relationship success to be a bit...over the top. I also question the claims based on my own and others' experiences, but that obviously doesn't count for anything here. :) – Robin Hood  (talk)  04:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, or at least they overlap, unless a source makes it clear that they're including all forms of polyamorous relationships, I think it does a disservice to all the articles involved to assume that research specifically about polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, or polyamory can be applied to any of the others. If we're going to include sources that are specific to one subgrouping, then at the very least, we need to clarify that that's what they apply to.


 * My concern with the sexual exclusivity study is what they considered to be non-exclusivity. Was it looking at people who have multiple partners in general or was it looking also at those in more committed polyamorous relationships? What about polyfidelity, where there are multiple partners, but they're exclusive to each other? The different forms of non-exclusivity could well have different results. – Robin Hood  (talk)  21:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Source Reliability
I assure you the sources were quite reliable. One study was from the Journal of Marriage and Family. Is this what you were calling a "religiously motivated source"? If so that's quite inaccurate. See here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291741-3737. It is secular, peer reviewed, and widely cited. Don't judge a book by its cover - while "Marriage and Family" does sound like something a religious organization would call something, in this case its called that because it is a peer-review journal for the study of those subjects. I believe this is what lead to your confusion.

And I'm sure you would agree that the International Journal of Social Psychiatry is a reliable source. See here: http://isp.sagepub.com/, it too is peer reviewed, scholarly, etc.

Now I did cite one religious organization, but look closely: all they were being cited for was an example of someone who levies criticisms along these lines. No actual facts were drawn from it as it was merely illustrating the existence of a position. Plenty of others say it - here: http://huntergatherer.com/good-reasons-why-polygamy-is-a-bad-idea/, here: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/17/should-plural-marriage-be-legal/polygamy-is-bad-for-women, and so on. I will add the New York Times article as another source which claims this to prevent further confusion along this line.

For these reasons I believe your undo may have been in haste and without thorough review of what had been said, and as such will place the information back in. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right, I did not check the sources thoroughly as I mostly just saw the religious one. Then I do apologize for the hasty revert. However, the adding of this information on a wide plethora of subjects, its not appropriate when this is only about polygamy and polyamory maybe. They are separate articles after all for a reason. Unless of course you can make a more clear connection to the place that you want to add it too. And why adding the new content to that topic would matter. For example why would the information needed to be copied to monogamy But I will not revert you back of course until discusion are over.NathanWubs (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, we all make mistakes! And on the second point, isn't a section on monogamy's effect relevant to the monogamy article? I added similar information to several articles since it is relevant to each. I changed the wording to be appropriate for each of the topics. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know. I read it and it did not seem correct on first glance as it was mostly the same information. Hence why I was like you are painting with too much of a broad brush. So the most logical thing to do then is to revert. Like I said I will keep it standing, some other people might have problems with it. I just do not know so quickly after re-reading your added information if it is WP:Relevant and WP:NPOV after all some studies carry less weight. There probably should be a section on this article and at least the polygamy article that shows that there is an active movement against it. And then what that is based on. As that seems notable enough. I will make a post on the sex-negative article as well.NathanWubs (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To be NPOV, Wikipedia includes criticism sections for controversial ideas. Wikipedia tells readers what both the advocates and the opponents of ideas say, and then allows the reader to make up their own mind. The edits to the monogamy page seem to fit WP:Out of scope. It says that "the topic or subject matter...is defined by reliable sources", so since reliable sources are discussing the information it seems like they should be included. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Aww. before I comment more. I do suggest you read the link I gave to WP:NPOV. As wikipedia's NPOV policy is different then what you would think. A good example to see our NPOV policy in effect is to look at the page of evolution. Because of our policy there is almost no mention of creationism for example. I will see later if I can go more indepth over the sources a bit later. As there is a paywall for journal and study of course. Which I first have to see if I can access them. (I am from the netherlands and they do not always let dutch people in). Just make sure there is no WP:OR in your text, and that you make sure where you do use the religious source as example/opinion that its their opinion.NathanWubs (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the policies - this data comes from peer-reviewed scholarly sources so there's no doubt it meets WP:RS. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The FRC source appears to be completely inappropriate. All it's doing as far as I can see is citing a speech given by the leader of a hate group. That's not a reliable source by any measure that I'm aware of. I haven't looked at the other sources as yet. – Robin Hood  (talk)  18:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again: all it does is record the existence of a claim. Its not actually used as a source for any facts. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In which case, WP:WEASEL and WP:CLAIM would both apply. We should be stating who said what and clarifying that these are unverified statements with no proof of validity. The Journal of Marriage and Family may also be considered a biased source, I'm not sure. I've asked for clarification on that at RSN. As for the second paragraph, I agree with NathanWubs that it belongs in the Polygamy article, not specifically Polyamory, as they're somewhat different concepts. – Robin Hood  (talk)  19:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It explicitly says such things are not weasel words "if they accurately represent the opinions of the source". Remember that the point of the section is to record what critics say. It also fits perfectly with WP:Claim as that source is only given as the source of a claim. "The Journal of Marriage and Family" was already addressed - it is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal that studies these things. Polygamy is a subset of polyamory so the findings are relevant here as well. All polygamous arrangements are polyamorous, but not all polyamorous arrangements are polygamous. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you haven't shown that "critics" say that, you've only shown that the FRC says that. The second source refers specifically to polygamy, not polyamory as generally defined. What's more, neither source specifically mentions the study you pointed to.


 * Similarly, you haven't pointed to studies "such as", you've pointed to a single study. – Robin Hood  (talk)  21:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll add yet another source for it. And once again, one study explicitly looked at sexual exclusivity. Further, this page itself defines polyamory as "the practice, desire, or acceptance of intimate relationships that are not exclusive with respect to other sexual or intimate relationships". Thus polygamy is a form of polyamory. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are now five sources where this claim is made. Surely that shows that this is a common one from critics? 24.252.141.175 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

One source is about polygyny only and cannot be generalized to all of polyamory. To use that at all, you would need to specify that it only applies to polygyny, and if you're going to do that, it would be far better off being used on the Polygamy or Polygyny articles. Two sources talk about multiple sex partners and say nothing about polyamory or polygamy at all—any attempt to extrapolate how they view polyamory constitutes original research. The FRC source doesn't appear to say anything about happiness that I found and makes numerous unsupported assumptions about polyamory. The final source is about the only one that comes close to directly addressing polyamory and at best, it talks about one marriage counsellor's opinion about straight people in married relationships where the sexual dynamic changed during the course of the marriage. These are all specifics that need to be stated.

Also, as far as I can tell, not one of these people actually point to the JFM study you cite, so that's simply a false statement and is therefore totally inappropriate for Wikipedia.

I'm sorry, but you're constructing a strawman here and doing a lot of original research to do so. I'm reverting it again based on all of the above. Is there criticism of polyamory? Sure there is. What you're presenting here, however, is not solid enough for inclusion. – Robin Hood  (talk)  22:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not being generalized, it is being used to illustrate something very specific. And again, polygamy is a type of polyamory so using a study on it as a small example is relevant. Your statement "The FRC source doesn't appear to say anything about happiness that I found" is quite silly since the part where it does was directly quoted. Considering peer-reviewed journal articles to be incorrect and consequently dismissing them is the epitome of WP:OR. Reporting what they say is not. And I'll add another source that explicitly discusses polyamory and agrees. Surely that will resolve the issues? Keep in mind that you don't get to keep making baseless demands and reverting edits. You can't keep raising the bar infinitely higher. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Aww you were faster then me Robinhood edit conflict when I was done. The sources do not point to the study that you represent. Except maybe the religious source one. but guess what that one is not WP:RS. I admit I did not read The full religious source, because its not reliable. Its an biased non-reliable source and that is it. Now your four sources.
 * Bhatt, Ajay. "What are the advantages and disadvantages of Polygyny ?". Retrieved 13 February 2015. Is not reliable and is only a random person on the internet just making a pro's and con's list. It does not like to any reliable articles. Just their opinion. The opinion is from a nobody.
 * "Women who have multiple sexual partners damage their ability to bond with a future partner due to low oxytocin levels.". Secular Heretic. Is a blog, and blogs are almost never ever RS especially if they are opinion based. Source also does not cite any of outs sources. So there goes another source.
 * McIlhaney, J.; Bush, Freda (August 1, 2008). [See summary at http://www.lukeford.net/blog/?p=3944 Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex is Affecting Our Children]. Northfield Publishing. First off all this article was written by Luke Ford, its a blog. Once again blogs are not RS. It talks about a book that supposedly cites studies, but those studies are never mentioned. Not only that I thought you were reading the sources. this is about how it affects children. Not about anything you wrote.
 * Dr. Rushkin, Karen. "Open Relationships: Partners, Threesome, Swinging, Polyamory and/or Including Any Additional Partner In Your Sexual Marital Relationship". Is a relationships therapist. Probably indeed partial an expert in the field when it comes to therapy. Of course she nevers meet any of the good cases. And the only thing that she is giving is her overall opinion about things. No studies are mentioned only her own experience. So once again what you are saying has nothing to do with factual information.
 * IF you are saying these are examples. Then you will need to show that after you have presented your factual evidence with reliable sources. And then maybe you can use them. But still would be sparingly because of undue weight. And then a lot better sources are still prefered. The one that might be left would be the one of Dr. Rushkin, Karen.
 * So now you only have two sources left, and they are both reliable. The second source is talking about polygamy in the Middle East. Which you actually took from the polygamy article. Which does not really belong here. as they are different things hence different articles. We try to avoid as much as possible using the same information. I will get back to you on that one at the polygamy article. As what has to change to that one is probably that they are talking about the middle east. The last source could also maybe be used at polygamy. As its not talking about polyamory either. Its talking about polygamy and its talking specifically only about the sex.  So the only place where you can add this information that you are using your wide brush for is Polygamy. And even then its needs to be discussed first. NathanWubs (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Break
"They point to [85] research such as one study of thousands of sexually involved couples, which found that “In all cases but one, the more exclusive the sexual relationship, the greater the emotional satisfaction reported”.[86]"
 * I've removed this sentence as WP:SYNTH. The [85] source is actually supportive of polyamory, and only mentions the [86] source to dismiss it. The [86] source is mainly about infidelity and does not mention polyamory at all, so it's use here is WP:SYNTH. KateWishing (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Since I was reverted, let's compare Wikipedia's sentence to what the source actually says.
 * Wikipedia: Those opposed to polyamory [...] point to (Finn, 2012) research such as one study of thousands of sexually involved couples, which found that “In all cases but one, the more exclusive the sexual relationship, the greater the emotional satisfaction reported”. (Waite, 2001)
 * Finn (2012): Empirical literature repeatedly assumes, and affirms primarily through research with white American college students, that emotional and sexual exclusivity is the guarantee of relationship success, and by extension personal health and happiness (e.g. Cramer, 1998; Fletcher, 2002; Hatfield and Walster, 1978; Hendrick, 2004; Waite and Joyner, 2001, see Rogers 1973 for an exception).
 * Finn (2012) says nothing about critics of polyamory, or what studies they point to. It's actually a critical account of monogamy and research pertaining to it. There is no evidence that any critic of polyamory has ever "pointed to" the Waite study outside Wikipedia. And the Waite study is about sexual non-exclusivity in general (i.e., infidelity), with no mention of polyamory. To quote from it here is clear WP:SYNTH.
 * I don't care whether polyamory is good or bad, but I do care about misleading presentation of empirical findings and violations of our sourcing policies. KateWishing (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How is a source that says repeatedly things such as "Extra-dyadic sex and multiple partnerships are typically viewed as being the result of maladjusted attachment styles, and threatening to personal and couple stability, good mental health, the healthy development of children, and social cohesion itself" and cites the sources saying such things "say[ing] nothing about critics of polyamory"? 24.252.141.175 (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That particular sentence is slightly more relevant than the actual sentence we are citing, but it's still discussing sexual non-exclusivity in general, not just polyamory. For example, if you check the Buunk & Dijkstra chapter cited for that sentence, the "extra-dyadic sex" it discusses is principally infidelity. And that is not even the relevant part of the Finn paper. The sentence that actually references the Waite study, quoted above, certainly says nothing about polyamory. Even if we accepted that the Finn paper were about polyamory (and it is not), that still would not justify quoting directly from Waite and Joyner (2001). As it stands, a reader is likely to wrongly assume that the paper actually studied polyamorous couples. KateWishing (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The statement you cited says only that that's a typical view. Another concern I have about the Finn study is its size. Shortly after the sentence you cited above, it says that there were only 14 participants in the study, of which 9 were heterosexual and 5 were LGBT. That's not a lot of people to be drawing conclusions from, and I'd be very surprised if anybody in the scientific community would use it for anything significant. Do you have any other reliable studies that would support the statement that "research often suggests"? One study of a few people just doesn't support that kind of statement. – Robin Hood  (talk)  18:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The size of the Finn study is not at issue, since we're not using its results. The IP is citing one isolated sentence from Finn which summarizes research of infidelity (sexual non-exclusivity in general). Said research did not study polyamorous couples at all.
 * I do not support using the Finn paper. I only left that sentence because of the IP's reversions. I encourage anyone else to completely delete it. KateWishing (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked for studies that were specifically about relationship satisfaction of polyamorous partners and found one:
 * Mitchell et al. (2014): "Polyamorous individuals (N = 1,093) completed online measures of need fulfillment, relationship satisfaction, and commitment for two concurrent romantic relationships. Participants reported high levels of need fulfillment and satisfaction in both relationships. [...] This study provides initial evidence that polyamory may be a viable and fulfilling alternative way of conducting intimate relationships. [...] Previous literature indicates that sexually open couples can and do maintain fulfilling and committed nonmonogamous relationships (e.g., Bergstrand & Williams, 2000; Kurdek & Schmitt, 1986; Rubin & Adams, 1986)."
 * Not a perfect study, but at least it actually studied polyamory. KateWishing (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Satisfaction vs. Success
The cited studies and the studies they cite are concerned with satisfaction, not success. Where does the source say "Research often suggests that emotional and sexual exclusivity is critical to relationship success."? 172.56.3.44 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In the secondary source: "Empirical literature repeatedly assumes, and affirms primarily through research with white American college students, that emotional and sexual exclusivity is the guarantee of relationship success, and by extension personal health and happiness." We will not be including the primary sources that say nothing about polyamory. We should not even be including Finn, and if you revert again I will restore the non-compromise version instead. KateWishing (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes but "health and happiness" in the relationship is what relationship satisfaction refers to. Plus the source says: "The happiness and
 * satisfaction of romantically relating to another thus came to depend on containing (passionate) love and ‘quality’ sex as the exclusive properties of the private and monogamous couple". TheLogician112 (talk) ::02:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not care about the word "satisfaction" or "success", although my wording is obviously the most faithful. The issue is that you are including primary sources that say nothing about polyamory, which is not synonymous with sexual non-exclusivity. KateWishing (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kate's observation. If something doesn't specifically refer to polyamory, it shouldn't be used as a source about polyamory. Polyamory refers to a specific relationship style, that of being in a long-term relationship with multiple people, openly and consensually, while sexual non-exclusivity can refer to just about anything, including cheating, polygamy, looser styles of open relationships, or just plain sleeping around. – <span style="color:royalblue; font-size:140%; font-family:Vladimir Script,serif">Robin Hood  <sup style="font-size:70%">(talk)  14:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms section
The criticisms section feels slight, and very pro-poly, like it's primarily concerned to list weak strawmen and knock them down. I edited out one particularly egregious sentence. Can someone add to or edit it? I would I'm not at all familiar with poly myself; I've never explored it or known any poly people. (And so I have no particular opinion on it - but I can spot lack of NPOV when I see it. I see this article's had various controversies around this, though I don't know how they were resolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polyamory/Archive_4#Not_NPOV ) Nkn7391 (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In particular I found "Division of love" most unsatisfying. There is no source proving that there is an anti-poly individual or faction promoting this idea of "division of love" as a problem with polyamory.  The sources quoted are pro-poly, which technically makes it a "hollow man argument," a variant of a straw man where there is no proof the opponent exists.  I further found the counter-arguments and sources lacking, in that they don't offer any supporting evidence either, but rather rely on a very unscientific metaphor and a quotation from a science fiction author.Legitimus (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Polyamory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mithrilstar.org/Polyamory-FAQ-Ravenhearts.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090227071434/http://polyoz.scm-rpg.com.au:80/postnuke2/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=8&meid=-1 to http://polyoz.scm-rpg.com.au/postnuke2/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=8&meid=-1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090227071434/http://polyoz.scm-rpg.com.au:80/postnuke2/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=8&meid=-1 to http://polyoz.scm-rpg.com.au/postnuke2/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=8&meid=-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 10:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)