Talk:Polyamory/Archive 7

the matter of race
As much as this article (well, its editors, at least) strives to be definitive, nowhere do I see addressed how the makeup of polyamory, particularly in the United States, is affected by factors of race, ethnicity, and national origin. Religion is addressed, if superficially.

Perhaps socioeconomic standing ought to be brought up as well. How sustainable is nonmonogamy for someone who works three part-time jobs in order to support multiple children?

It's easy to guess that, in the United States, these factors combine to ensure that the clear majority of people claiming to polyamory are caucasian, which certainly skews the egalitarian claims so commonly made. Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If you see changes or improvements that need to be made, be bold and improve the article. Your concerns have been raised in articles and discussion groups about polyamory, although I don't know how many would count as reliable sources.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "claiming to polyamory." That sounds like you don't believe people who say they are polyamorous.
 * I'm also not sure what you mean by "egalitarian claims so commonly made." Yes, someone with few resources who is always working is going to have a harder time maintaining any kind of relationship than someone who is economically advantaged, and yes people of color are more likely to be economically disadvantaged in the US today, but I don't think there's any kind of causal link to be made. People of all races, genders, ages, religions, etc. can and do practice polyamory. In fact, some have found that maintaining a polyamorous household is easier because there are more hands to spread the work around, and sometimes one person can stay home because the other two, three, or whatever, are out working. Consider economies of scale.
 * * Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 14:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "claiming to polyamory." Per the article, anyone is free to SAY they are polyamorous — by turns (ibid) it's a practice, a worldview, a philosophy, a quasi-religious faith, etc. And anyone is free to claim that what THEY are doing is polyamory, even if it's lying about having sexual affairs they've kept hidden from their putative partner(s). As the article claims, "polyamory" seems to have no common set definition, no clear standards or beliefs. It's unlikely to craft a definitive article around such randomness.
 * I'm also not sure what you mean by "egalitarian claims so commonly made." Likely because of the nondefinition, illogic is common, for instance: "To be properly polyamorous, those involved need great communication skills. I've decided to become polyamorous, therefore I now have great communication skills." In like manner, there's "I'm polyamorous, therefore I'm egalitarian," making statements like "People of all races, genders, ages, religions, etc. can and do practice polyamory" without wondering why the polyamorous are so disproportionately of Western European heritage, with plenty of leisure time and some disposable income.
 * I don't claim this is necessarily a BAD thing, much less that it's happened at all intentionally. However, the fact remains that this makes the "community" insular to some degree, telling each other what they WANT to hear, not what they NEED to hear. In an article such as this, certainly questions like this ought to be raised, somehow.
 * Unsubstantiated leaps of faith have no place in a WP article, even less so if the article is employed to validate such illogic. Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

What I said about religion? The sainted Morning Glory wrote about "poly-amory" in the magazine published by her Neopagan organization, yet nowhere in the article is mentioned Neopaganism or Wicca or anything of the sort. About how accepted is polyamory among the NPs? Weeb Dingle (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Polyamory is broadly accepted among NeoPagans and Wiccans. For example, the Charge of the Goddess, although not universal or imperative is widely used as a moral guide, and includes the phrase "all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals."
 * Again, if you think the article needs improving, go wild! Although I don't think MG would appreciate being called "sainted."
 * * Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 14:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Then you must know her better than I, and maybe could do some of the lifting...?


 * And it'd be tres cool (you being an editor, right?) if you could offer a credible reference for Polyamory is broadly accepted among NeoPagans and Wiccans. It'd certainly help this article. Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I did meet Morning Glory (she died some years back), but that's about all. However, as a non-Christian, I can't think she'd be particularly interested in being called a saint. My experience with her did not match up to the standards expected of saints, although she was a good person. However, since she is only referred to as "sainted" in your comment above, it's really a non-issue.


 * As for "credible references," perhaps you might look at the article on Wiccan morality, where it's pointed out that much of Wiccan morality can be summed up with "An it harm none, do what ye will." Again, as I mentioned above, the Charge of the Goddess (more descriptive than prescriptive, perhaps, but held in high regard among Wiccans nevertheless), says "All acts of love and pleasure are My rituals." I was speaking from personal experience; in almost 30 years among Wiccans and Pagans, I've found few who opposed non-traditional relationships. I know that doesn't qualify as a reliable source, which is why I didn't cite it in the article. You know; discussing things before updating article and all that. I'll see if I can dig up some RSs, but Wikipedia is not my top priority these days. You seem particularly interested; feel free to find the references and update the article.


 * * Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 22:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Nope. Not at all. A handful of examples.


 * Why would anyone accept that a lone opinion piece is somehow representative of the "morality" of all Wiccans, everywhere and for all time? A blatantly invalid claim on your part.


 * It is YOU who is here making the "morality" case. (Few grasp the signicficant difference s between ethics and morals, clearly.) A blatantly invalid claim on your part. (Okay, so I'll cease belaboring the generally obvious...)


 * I am questioning the evidential lack for such claims -- if there's no credible objective support of a claim, it's Original Research at best. Go ahead and explicitly defend Original Research in WP.


 * An IDEAL is not the same as a PRACTICE. And "held in high regard" is utter nonsense -- PROVIDE PROOF THAT IT IS SO. At least, put in the article that it's an UNFOUNDED PREJUDICE.


 * Do I need to point up the actual functional utility on WP of your "personal experience"? (As you went for size queening here, I'll mention I went Wiccan in 1979. Doesn't mean I feel ANY respect for bias, however PC.)


 * You make repeated unfounded assertions. Yet it's you that quacks behind the drapes, refusing to publicly be bold even while demanding such (ad nauseam) of others.


 * Help, or hinder. Choose ONE. Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't really have time for this. I'm going to address a couple of your points, then go do something useful with my time. This conversation clearly does not qualify.

I don't know what "opinion piece" you're talking about. And, quite frankly, you'd be hard-pressed to find anything "representative of the morality of all Wiccans, everywhere and for all time" (note that I have removed the superfluous and inappropriate quote marks around "morality" there), nor is that required, nor did I make any such claim. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find something representative of the morality of all of any religion or culture, everywhere and for all time, so that's a foolish standard and not one that I even approached, let alone claimed. (I can think of one likely example; I'll leave that as an exercise for your dizzying intellect).

Look, I'm not the one copping an attitude here. I tried to engage in a discussion with you and got sarcasm, nitpicking, false allegations, and sneers. If you want the article improved, please go ahead and do the research. I don't know what your beef is with polyfolk, Wiccans, or other Neo-Pagans, nor do I care. I suspect from your tone that any reference I found would not be satisfactory to you, so I won't waste my time right now. Perhaps when I have time to waste.

Let me point out again that I did not add my personal experience as a reference to the article because I know very well that my personal experience does not qualify as a Reliable Source. I brought it up on a talk page during the discussion.

So if you want the article improved, be about it. Your attitude is arrogant, pompous, and overbearing; "Help, or hinder. Choose ONE" is hardly maintaining civility. I'm done engaging with you because you clearly aren't interested in civil discourse.

As I mentioned, I have other priorities. If you've been Wiccan since 1979 (a claim anybody over the age of about 40 could make, so don't expect me to be impressed that you're claiming more 'time in grade' than I), you should have access to as many reliable sources as I. Stop getting in my face and go improve the article.

* Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 10:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a step back. You claim to know something about polyfidelity, & about CAW. I have been directly involved in neither, though once with friends in each and myself in closely related life-experiences. However, I see where this article suffers (badly). Rather than seeking for insult in my opinions, clearly your knowledge would be FAR better utilized if you were to point me (and anyone keeping up here) to credible sources, so that we may pursue improvement even if it is something for which you simply do not have the time. Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

organizations? overreach?
Under Cultural diversity, it's stated that ''polygamy advocacy groups and activists and egalitarian polyamory advocacy groups and activists can and do work together cooperatively. In addition, the two sub-communities have many common issues (poly parenting, dealing with jealousy, legal and social discrimination, etc.), the discussion and resolution of which are of equal interest to both sub-communities, regardless of any cultural differences that may exist. Moreover, there is considerable cultural diversity within both sub-communities.''

Firstly, I've read a few articles from polyamrous people who go into detail to make it VERY clear they DO NOT support the practice of polygamy. Without an authoritative source, this is polygamist propaganda (with the claim of considerable cultural diversity being a double helping of overreach).

But where are these "advocacy groups"? Who are these activists? and what do they do aside from talking to self-identified polyamorous people?

I'm targeting the polygamist apologia first. I wanted to leave the claims of activism a little longer, but it's terribly intertwined, and taking out the "almost like polygamy" claims leaves it rootless. If anyone wants to revert these, please provide credible sources. Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Having reread it a few more times, I just now notice that the term egalitarian polyamory appears exactly five times in the entire article — and ALL of them in this section. What I said about propaganda: the argument has been framed where polyamory is merely the "modern polygamy," which rationalizes polygamy. Out, damned spot. This WILL NOT stand. Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

For now, I've left the rather benign differentiation of polygamy and polyfidelity. This too might go, as it was covered sufficiently in the previous section. Now I'm looking for a better heading, as crossovers with BDSM and pro-sex organizations doesn't speak to much "cultural diversity." Weeb Dingle (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Quote
Perhaps include this quote: "If spouses did not live together, good marriages would be more frequent -Friedrich Nietzsche"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.13.181 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 2 August 2009

"domestic"? no
The subsection 6.2, Sharing of domestic burden, will be revised. Of the eight points offered, at least three take advantage of confusing polyamory with "familial unit." This sort of thing might belong under group marriage or cohabitation or cohousing or maybe communitarianism, but it has no clear place in polyamory, which may indeed offer examples of all those things but they in turn DO NOT define the relational form. How "polyamorists" relate to one another is the point of the article, not how a few might choose to be housed. Unless contextually clarified in the article, these claims are gone, and the heading will be suitably changed. Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

the "poly marriage" claim
I felt it necessary to flag the following as "undue weight" —
 * A detailed legal theory of polyamorous marriage is being developed.

Bad enough that "detailed" is blatant editorializing here, as well as unreferenced, and "is being developed" is highly questionable, particularly with no clear date offered as to the most recent work. Few know what it is; fewer still could define the term. I don't think there's a place for every little "my thesis might apply to polyamory!" claim. ?Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

"Criticisms" shall go
This section is mostly criticisms of criticism of polyamory, specifically from TES. The only critical statement is less than six words (from Kurtz). If someone wants this section, certainly there MUST be religious and political sites willing to squawk about it. Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It needs to go. I said long ago it effectively is a hollow man argument, considering there are no sources for the criticisms, just criticisms of criticisms.  If I haven't already, thank you for being bold and examining this article with a critical eye and actually making the edits.  It has long been problematic for a lot of the reasons you've already found, and I've lacked the time and writing skill to do it myself.  Please, should you require any scientific sources behind paywalls be examined, let me know.Legitimus (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

a case for drive-by tagging
I've put at least a dozen hours into whipping this article into shape, because I believe there's much potential goodness. My ranting in Talk is because, if I were to simply Be bold, I'd have deleted half the content outright.

A few days ago, it dawned on me that much remained to be done, so I set out to "blue-pencil" what jumped out at my editor's eye. I've probably misapplied a few tags, but my brain was beginning to spin at all the citation needed so I felt compelled to work in tags I'd not used, in hope of being more precise about my cavils. The result was about half a gross of new gripes. If this seems excessive, I'd disagree: it could likely be double that, but I went after the more egregious nonsense first.

Ideally, some of the self-styled scholars who built this tower of matchsticks could stop by and repair their own gaffes. Lacking that, I hope anyone bothered by the bugs will fix one or a handful. Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

poor usage of LGBT
The more I try to ignore its faults, the more I am certain that In a same-sex setting (subsection of As a practice) must go. I very much want to see such a section here… but this is certainly NOT it.

First, the obvious: just because Celeste West was a lesbian, and wrote about both lesbian and polyamory topics, most assuredly does NOT of itself mean she somehow spoke for "lesbian culture." The implied claim would need to be explicit AND backed up MUCH more substantively to be introduced here.

The first half of the section lays out the case that many (if not most) homosexual males report being in a sexually nonmonogamous relationship; a quote states that most of these "are in fact emotionally monogamous." Though there's easily a dozen "recognized" definitions of polyamory, there appears to be a high level of consensus among them that the whole point of polyamory is "multiple loves" — even if there is no physical sex, a case made by asexuals. Without "emotional nonmonogamy," whatever is being described is certainly sexual non-monogamy, but definitely NOT polyamory. The case is never made that there's any such thing as "gay polyamory."

Most of the section's remainder is claims to "practice" and "relationship ethics" with no substantiation, so I feel compelled to call OR.

That leaves a one-sentence trivia mention of the three Colombian men who married in 2017. In reality, there is no "marriage," as pointed out in The Guardian (03 July 2017): "By Colombian law a marriage is between two people, so we had to come up with a new word: a special patrimonial union."

I am not enthusiastic about this, but maybe for the best if the entire section is scrapped until it can be replaced properly. Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

cuts
Removed most of the Oneida chitchat as better served by Oneida Community. Removed Geographical and cultural differences: a headline with no real content.
 * For similar sins, Cultural diversity is next.

From As a practice, removed Specific issues affecting relationships (overreach, questionable relevance, major lack of sources) and In a same-sex setting (as detailed previously). Will leave Parenting for later pruning-back. From Criticisms, removed semi-relevant Division of love raving about The Ethical Slut: better served by The Ethical Slut. From Research, cut self-promotion blurb about artist Connie Rose. Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

tag complaints
Seeing as the occasional "editor" doesn't grasp the complexity of a Talk page, I'll bring this here. A comment in the article's History reads
 * {citation needed} for *what*, exactly? That some people are "emotionally suited for polyamory"? That poly people "may embark on a polyamorous relationship when single or already in a monogamous or open relationship"? Rm tag.

Yes, NYKevin, it was I who tagged those comments, and will happily revert them.

Firstly, who is it who is able to determine whether a given individual is "emotionally suited for polyamory"? That needs a credible reference. How is such weighing performed? What are the objective criteria? Where is the Polyamory Board of Standards on this?

As for the second, if you like that horribly twisted sentence, then at least have the decency to rewrite it to resemble English. The primary problem is the "may" part: who (or what), EXACTLY, is giving permission to take the action? According to whom? The rest of the sentence seems to say "at any time" or "whatever their relational status." If up to me, I'd simply delete it entirely. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I reread that section, I'm going to cut it outright. At best, its place is NOT in the lede, but ought to be in the body of the article where the thoughts can be properly defined and examined. Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentence you were asking for a cite did not claim that anyone is "able to determine" anything. It also never claimed that "emotional suitability" was objectively measurable.  So far as I can tell, it made no factual claim at all, except for the blindingly obvious statement that "people can start a poly relationship when single or when not single."  If you really want a cite for that, I cannot help you.  Next, if you want someone to rewrite the sentence, use something like clarify instead of citation needed, or go ask the folks at WP:GOCE for help.  Finally, to ping people, use ping or link their usernames.  Writing someone's name in bold does nothing and leads to stranded conversations like this one.  -- N  Y  Kevin   21:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Lede reversions
I feel a little bad about reverting two changes made by user 'BenThair (who appears to be already defunct) — well-intended, but wrong. Firstly, replacing the top "infinity heart" image with the "poly flag" image fails on TWO counts: the caption wasn't changed, AND the flag already appears at the article end. If it were up to me, I'd put both at the end and be done with it.

Secondly, the offered quotation does nothing to support the assertion inflicted upon the article. More specifically, someone referring to polyamory as "a relational practice" in no way argues that "polyamory is a sexual orientation." Eveb if there were validity here (or at least credibility), it should be placed further in the article, not the lede. Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Today's cuts & changes
I strongly disagree with removal of the Forms section, though I do agree that the list, while informative and likely valid, does not have proper sourcing. I continue to poke around on the Internet in hopes of finding such.

So it might seem odd that I reverted the section's deletion by Toddst1 yet am letting it stand as performed by Binksternet. This is because the latter also removed other sections which I found largely questionable AND unsourced, and had considered removing as previously stated. To my mind, that is the difference between a thoughtful pruning and a drive-by butchering; specifically, it appeared that Toddst1 popped in, laid on a (somewhat over-the-top) Multiple Issues header, then blithely used that as "objective" justification to hack away.

I'm certain I've seen Binksternet gently admonish editors to find sources rather than simply pull out the machetes, so I hope that personage will return and exert diligent effort to support reduction/removal of the Issues template. Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I would recommend fixing or removing the majority of the problems indicated by maintenance tags before removing the multiple issues template from the top. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OVERTAGGING is generally considered disruptive - which is why we have templates to address problems with entire sections and pages. Glad you decided not to edit war over this.  Judging by the talk page here there may be valid concerns over WP:OWNership.  Toddst1 (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So, are you threatening to provoke an edit war, or to begin making a personal vendetta against me? One or the other, please.
 * FWIW, if I'm the only person who's showed up to the party, that doesn't mean that I have any interest in "owning" it. Weeb Dingle (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm still hoping that someone will actually begin a discussion about how The neutrality of this article is disputed. Nobody can fix specific problems that aren't, well, specified. One person having a snit doesn't constitute much of a "dispute." I gladly give this discussion one more week to ensue, or thereafter consider the issue resolved. Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Dense and hard to read
Wowee, has this article change A LOT since I last read it a couple of years ago! It has become rather a mess, hasn't it? It is now dense, complicated, hard to read, and includes sections which don't really add much that is necessary. It should be much, much simpler. I wish I had time to help fix it at the moment, though I may be able to in a month or two, but I just want to say this article really needs a major overhaul. Actually, I'm not even really sure how and where to begin, but it needs some serious help. I hope I can help to improve it in the coming months, but for now I wish good luck to any editors who may want to tackle this behemoth and pare it down to the essentials. nycdi (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I was hoping you'd mention what you mean by "simpler" (which might give someone a starting point), and then why it could possibly need any simplification. Just IMO, but "simple" is more proper to a dictionary, and Wikipedia seems to have set itself up to be an encyclopedia.


 * Complaints about mere size or density or even complexity are odd. As to the former: while Polyamory is ~62K, compare that to Electric guitar (89K), or maybe Wikipedia (236K). That latter article is certainly NOT a light bit of reading!! However, good usage of a new invention called the hyperlink has made the article very useful to an apparently wide audience, so maybe that's a success. Weeb Dingle (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Supposed British word "frubble"
This is not a word that any normal British person knows or uses. I haven't been able to check the sources but I bet they are word lists rather than real speakers using the word. Article should be adjusted to make it clear that this isn't an everyday word known in Britain. 31.50.6.57 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I totally agree! In too-common WP fashion, someone will make the claim "In Vienna they call compersion sachertorte," then glibly cite a sachertorte recipe as though it supports the claim. Someonce maybe once used frubble in a mildly sarcastic sense, and someone else decided "it must be a British thing."


 * Awhile back, I edited the claim for readability, but wouldn't miss it. Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Polyamory Lead: Delete 3rd para.
I have deleted the 3rd para. of the Lead & moved it to below: "Confusion arises when polyamory is misapplied in a broader sense, as an umbrella term for various forms of consensual non-monogamous, multi-partner relationships (including polyamory), or consensual non-exclusive sexual or romantic relationships.[fn.: https://www.polymatchmaker.com/main.mvc?Screen=HTML&Page=polyglossary ]"

Reason for deletion: Neither cited source (linked above) nor previous 2 para. of the Lead support any such "Confusion arises when 'polyamory'..." distinction.

-- Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted, because you replaced it with confusing text, instead of cleanly removing it. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * My goof. Thank you for your comment. I'm meant to delete.  So, I'll do that next.

-- Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia is that the opening thesis (which I sometimes refer to as the lede) is allowed much leeway, not needing explicit support, so long as the claim is substatiated in the article proper.

The source you deny says
 * ''What is Polyamory?
 * ''This, has to be beyond a shadow of a doubt the biggest and most debated question surrounding the topic of Polyamory in general. And because of that there is no easy answer.
 * …we, as a human feeling and thinking species, cannot be bound by a simple definition. Especially when it comes to matters of the heart.

Reread the second graf. Simply calling polyamory "varied" is at best weaselly. Mouse over note #7 & it natters about jealousy, not at all supporting the claim to which it's appended; the same claim also reaches (note #8) to an entire book, with no actual quotation or even a page cite. You must have noticed that; why did you let it stand unquestioned?

Given your standards, what you've removed is superior to what you've left. I say reinstate it. Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the "Confusion arises" part violates wp:npov. I'm glad that the (admin?) edit has removed that problem.


 * Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * As a native speaker of English, I've rewritten that statement to remove the editorializing, which definitely needed doing. The statement is meant to clarify that the term polyamory has in popular usage become a sort of generic trademark, encompassing much more than intended by its coiners. I dug up what I could of the extant cited sources, and they are here sufficient. Furthermore, the rewritten passage relies on the multiple (and somewhat conflicting) definitions offered in the immediately subsequent Terminology section, as typical in Wikipedia. (FWIW, I've removed two uses of "consensual," as the word is nowhere defined, and it would redirect to Consent, an article about tort law, and in any case seems like an unfounded "doth protest overmuch" claim.)


 * But I reiterate that this is a MUCH higher standard than met by the ledes of most WP articles, and does suggest the possibility of editor(s) using faux "objectivity" as an excuse to erode articles about topics they find distasteful.


 * (The salute to the (admin?) edit that removed that problem is somewhat weird, as it was YOU that made BOTH of those edits.) Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

the "legal scholars" claim
I've rewritten the "legalistic" claims at the end of the Marriage Implications section, which began
 * Some scholars are developing legal theories of polyamorous marriage.

Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Only two "theories" are cited.
 * The first offers Deborah Anapol as the only "scholar." She was a clinical psychologist, not a J.D.
 * Better source needed: the cited book was published 2010, so does not support the "developing" claim.
 * Deb died 2015, so it's unlikely that she is developing any theory further.
 * If Deb herself didn't cobble "dyadic networks" together, then anyone who wishes to keep that claim ought to instead name the author(s), and update the article on actual progress of the claimed "development."
 * Put "dyadic networks model" into Google. It gets 233 hits, so can readily be tagged obscure, with its notability dubious at best. Worse, the first few pages of those hits are almost all quoting Polyamory. There's probably some really neat WP term for this, but clearly the "theory" would be entirely forgotten if not for the article, so its continued existence is intellectually dishonest, at best. I strongly recommend its removal.
 * As for the second claim, I have read the actual article, it is quite good, and the author does appear to be a respectable enough scholar. However, unlike cockroaches, one scholar does not support a specious claim of "scholars." I have solely credited the actual author.
 * I've named the scholar, which others have avoided.
 * A better citation would likely be Den Otter's subsequent book, In Defense of Plural Marriage (2015, Cambridge University Press).

Reading-list proliferation
The Further reading section has become unwieldy, and needs pruning. Anything worth pointing to ought rather be referred to in the article — else it's likely not particularly relevant.

As well, I've removed the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom external link, seeing as their mission is actually BDSM, kink, and swinging. Their version of "poly" is as a couple-oriented paraphilia rather than a relational choice; they seem to have meant open marriage or open relationship but tacked the "cool" term on for marketing purposes. The NCSF has more of a place at Non-monogamy. From their home page:
 * The NCSF aims to advance the rights of, and advocate for consenting adults in the BDSM-Leather-Fetish, Swing, and Polyamory Communities.

From the (formerly) cited page: ''a way to add a bit more spice to their sex lives … Couples discuss what they want to do before doing it to make sure that it is mutually satisfying. … Couples who are in a non-monogamous relationship… Couples who decide to open their relationship…'' Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article is slanted in favor of polyamory. It is difficult to take seriously, for example, a criticisms list that only includes "difficulty to research," or an "effects on domesticity" list that only includes benefits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.225.246.142 (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are not wrong. At the very least the criticism section is unhelpful.  It used to be larger but was paired down as many of the entries were not well-sourced, while others were integrated into the research section.  I noted that sole remaining source for the lone entry under criticisms does not mention polyamory, and appears to be synthesis, which is not allowed.


 * However, to make criticisms, there must be sources to point to. If you have some, please let us know what they are.  Criticism has to be more than "I don't like it," and it can't originate from an editor's own personal opinion.Legitimus (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The article Monogamy is clearly biased in favor of monogamy. And Dating clearly supports normative courtship behaviors. And Romance (love) studiously avoids examining how "romance" is largely a commercial marketing tool utilizing standard propaganda practices. Unless an article is about someone/something widely seen as hateful or disgusting, it's likely that any claim the entry is "slanted" positively is correct, and nobody finds the observation particularly interesting.


 * The "sales brochure" aspects of Polyamory have been greatly cut over the past few years. And a couple of pages back in this Talk, I asked editors to build a proper Criticisms section — certainly there must be some religious or political or social-action groups that view nonmonogamy as yet another step toward utter societal breakdown if not Hell. Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You remark about religious/political commentary inspired me to go searching, and I may have found something of interest, an article from the National Review here. To be frank, they are an obviously biased source due to their heavy political conservative bent, but I found it to be decent as an article, since it avoids religions bloviating.  Among critical remarks of...varying merit, it takes the scholarly works to task in what seem a reasonable way that was similarly noted by the Moors study already referenced in our article here.  It also references complications and complaints from practitioners themselves, and covers some of the concerns about how consent can be undermined by the circumstances.Legitimus (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I like what you've done with the Criticism section. It's a good start.
 * It will profit by reducing its overall reliance upon the Hawkins et al article — certainly there must be others. This one is, after all, published in a mainstream popular magazine rather than any sort of journal, so constitutes an erudite editorial more than a study of any rigor. And the authors aren't exactly household names, though I remember a bit of Hawkins' Iowa testimony. (Is it relevant here that he's a Mormon, teaching at Brigham Young, and an ardent opponent of same-sex marriage?)
 * FWIW, I've read critiques of Elisabeth Sheff (professor and Newsweek blogger) who regularly brags about her "longitudinal study" of polyamory practitioners. The handful she actually spoke to were entirely self-selected, random volunteers at a convention of people interested in CNM. Sheff uses these uninvestigated narratives to reach conclusions about "the poly community," and she is widely cited as an authority, often by people who read what they will into it without having read the actual findings (much less understanding how a proper study ought be conducted).
 * I hope Criticism can be expanded further. Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I definitely would agree with all of that, and did not realize Hawkins had such as problematic background. Stronger sources are needed. I did some digging into a major medical library and found it was surprisingly difficult to find peer-reviewed studies that have anything critical to say.  The tone in many seemed to imply certain level of fear about being labeled "intolerant" among mental health professionals.  Yet it's really hard to argue with the logic of some of Hawkin's criticisms, and people without his bias have voiced them to me (which is OR, I know).  It's possible I'm not looking for the right search terms or content.  Incidentally, I can get full text of most medical journals, so if you find a lead on a pay-walled article, drop me a line.Legitimus (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't know if this would be of help; I haven't got round to following up on it: https://medium.com/@DuffCoach/the-case-against-polyamory-fe1a0d8107b9 Glancing over it, the author does begin with a clear agenda (which is acceptable) but I have some major questions about the study, as I see no validation as to whether the respondents are demonstrably polyamorous or merely make that claim; also, it seems to equate polyamory with "consensual non-monogamy" (CNM) which is a new term for open relationship, a form much more general than polyamory. Is mention of such flaws germaine to the article? Would they have to be mentioned by a credible source? Weeb Dingle (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Medium is essentially a self-publishing platform like a blog. The author has a personal website where he reveals he has an undergrad in philosophy and that is his primary area of interest.  He doesn't really have any qualifications other than that, but also doesn't appear to have a political or religious bias on this subject like Hawkins.  Of note is I did not see anything about a "study" reading this.  Rather, the author appears to be going the logic and philosophical route.  His reasoning appears sound on several points, but he also has several "facts" he quotes that do not appear to have a source that he seems to have pulled of thin air.Legitimus (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Unless someone presents a clear case on the awfulness of the bias of Polyamory, as compared to that of (say) Monogamy, I'm going to remove the POV tag. Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no objection. The article has been improved quite a bit.Legitimus (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Needs defining content
I considered taking the final "practical pitfalls" from Criticism as a basis for some sort of Necessary skills section after As a practice >> Values. But then I realized I could pilfer much of the first graf as well.

Certainly nobody can be so clueless as to think "becoming polyamorous" is all so simple as saying "whoopsie — guess I'm poly now!" There must be skills and abilities that would allow something like polyamory to exist and even achieve some degree of observable (if not measurable) success. As set out here, much of the "criticisms" seem more like lauching point for looking at how people make this lifestyle actually function positively.

I'll let that simmer awhile. Meantime, I'm still hoping to find more actual specific denunciations of polyamory. (Perhaps some detail on The Nashville Statement belongs here.) Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Other voices
, I had forgotten some voices of criticism. A big topic is race: Nobody in the "community" seems surprised that (like swinging) it's primarily a hobby of comfortably middle-class college-educated married white folk, seeing as that describes the people who created the concept and built it around themselves. Predictably, some diversity activists have based careers on restating this with angst and statistics. Melita Noel (2006, "Progressive Polyamory" — paywall; sorry, but at least we have the abstract), on the basis of scanning twelve books, concluded that most polyamorists are privileged meanies:
 * …these texts, written by and geared toward an assumed audience of white, middle-class, able-bodied, educated, American people fail to address how nationality, race, class, age and (dis)ability intersect with gender and sexuality in the theory and practice of polyamory.

(Spoiler: she offers no solutions past a heavily implied "they should be saints like me" though she's never been nonmonogamous.)

Elisabeth Sheff and Corrie Hammers (2010, “The Privilege of Perversities: Race, Class and Education Among Polyamorists and Kinksters”) begin by stating that polyamorists and their high-flown ideals are a subset of
 * kinksters — people involved in 'kinky' or 'perverted' acts and relationships frequently involving bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and/or sadism/masochism

They cite Noel directly: Noel’s (2006, p. 604) content analysis of 12 key texts on polyamory illuminated how polyamorists ‘offer a short-sighted, isolationist alternative that serves to further solidify privileges for a few rather than realize an improved reality for many.’  They then expand on this. In the archived Talk:Polyamory, I noted that Sheff/Hammers conclude that because there are so few non-white people calling themselves "poly," polyamory is therefore inherently racist. They also make the case that, if the "poly community" seeks out diversity, that is ALSO being racist. (And much like Noel, they insist that someone (no suggestion as to who) needs to do something (no suggestion as to what) about this.) The PDF isn't searchable, and it's late, so I don't have any pithy quote at hand.

(Note: despite overuse of the term, there is no actual "poly community." The majority seems to be couples "seeking our third" for a sexually closed triad, so see each other not as comrades but competition. Poly-centric social groups are scattered across a few large cities. If discussion sites are indicative, most self-described polys live in fear of being outed even if they have not yet ventured past monogamy.)

"Poly activist" Sheff blands this theme down for her general audience, e.g. "Diversity and Polyamory" (2013, Psychology Today), subtitled "Polys are diverse in some ways and homogeneous in others, like race and class."

Racism is a recurring theme, often citing Sheff/Hammers, for instance "There's a Big Problem With Polyamory That Nobody's Talking About"

Very few major media have critiqued nonmonogamy past sarcasm and eyeroll. Though it's down to mostly blogs and tiny online magazines, here's a few more tempests for perusal: "Sexism Is a Problem In the Polyamorous Community, Too" "Polyamory is Not A Family Structure for Children" "Polyamory isn’t good for children: my story"

Not yet at a national-media level, there are increasing complaints by people who define themselves as asexual or aromantic that all "standard" definitions of polyamory directly discriminate against them, even though they appear to be practicing polyamory as accurately as anyone else. Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry; seems I've buried my lede. What I meant to ask is, seeing as Sheff is often held up as pro-poly, do you think this should be folded into Criticisms, or subheaded (Criticisms >> Racism), or given its own heading (maybe Racism and polyamory)? Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've not been able to read Noel just yet though I did get a full-text copy of it. But, I will say at this point, use of the term "racist" feels like a reach, because it has a connotation that it is done deliberately.  From these sources, it's sounding like the lack of non-white participants is a multi-faceted issue where it's hard to point to one particular cause.Legitimus (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The authors seem to circle VERY closely around the exclusionary charges without making the simple, direct accusation; it's like they pit the philosophy against the practice, or something like that. My impression is that there's no intent to exclusion, but racial/ethnic groups aren't really interested in "joining the club," as it were.


 * For the purposes of the article, though, Noel and Sheff (and Sheff/Hammers) are indeed critical of polyamory, so this probably ought to be here. You're probably correct that using "racism" in a head might be overboard (synthesis) unless a cited author makes the specific charge, but the critiques themselves do belong, though all I can come up with is racialism which might be too nuanced for this. Weeb Dingle (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)