Talk:Polyamory/Archive 9

"Polyamorous communities", "booming", "small growth", "vast variety": needing clarification, definition or similar
In the "As a practice" section...


 * "Polyamorous communities" - It is not clear what these are. Is a community being referred to a collection of people in a polyamorous relationship? or a collection of such relationships in a geographical area? or something else?


 * "booming" - what constitutes "booming" in this context, an increase in the practise? an increase in visibility? in acceptance? and how much of an increase? And whose perception is this?


 * "small growth" - how much constitutes "small"?


 * "vast variety" - how much constitutes "vast"?

And maybe some explicit direct quotes would clarify who is expressing these opinions, or points of view, and I think they would be more acceptable in the article in that form.

FrankSier (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll take a look at the section when I add some sources into the article... Historyday01 (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

visual representation
heres an spreadsheet example of all the possible arrangements: https://ethercalc.net/tvf60jwjbq6m — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.213.168 (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what this is supposed to show.Historyday01 (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

"Difficulties" and "Criticism" sections
Just to bring everyone up to speed since there have been many changes to this article over the past month or so: The contents under "Difficulties" used to be labeled "Criticism." The current section labeled "Criticism" is new. What these sections have in common is that they explore negative aspects in polyamory, something which was lacking from the article for a long time and there were numerous complaints about in the talk history. Anyway, these sections seem to be covering distinct subjects within those two sections and so the current arrangement may not quite make sense. I don't have a specific change in mind but I'd like to provide categories here for the subjects contained within.


 * Participants who are involved in polyamory but don't want to be.


 * Issues that occur in polyamorous relationships that may make the relationship unpleasant or possibly harm participants psychologically.


 * Problems with research inferring positive outcomes or lack of negative effects.
 * Problems with the advocacy aspect of polyamory.


 * Social class issues with polyamory.
 * Issues with the idea of "legal recognition" of poly relationships.

Some of these seem to be found in both sections, such as the first two bullet points. I think they need to be organized in a more tidy fashion. Of note is that either section should not contain responses or similar attempts to "counter" the criticisms as this isn't considered good form for criticism sections; rather, the rest of the article should stand on its own as the counter claim.Legitimus (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Legitimus, good to see you here weighing in. I'm busy with so many things that I can't give this much attention, but I think it's good to make sure that these points you mentioned are well-covered. I agree with your points here. Crossroads -talk- 05:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Could the new flag design be added?
I've seen this flag designed by Molly Makes Things becoming more popular within the community. It was designed to be all-inclusive, and is under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) License. Could someone perhaps add it to the article? Thanks! 136.35.213.11 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That flag design & its variations have already been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. They can be found at commons:Category:Polyamory flag designs by Mollymakesthings. Clicking on each image will allow one to see usage instructions in the ribbon at the top. Look for:.
 * Beyond that, is there verification from one or more reliable sources that this flag is being adopted with the polyamorous community? Peaceray (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, is there verification from one or more reliable sources that this flag is being adopted with the polyamorous community? Peaceray (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Just in online communities like the LGBallT subreddit which wouldn't be good for citing... Thanks though! 136.35.213.11 (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Use of 'confuse'
Hi User:209.205.79.41! In a recent series of edits, you describe the use of polyamory as an umbrella-term as erroneous. Your edit summaries indicate that you felt this change justified by a review of sources and definitions. If you are confident that the sources you found are reliable and unambiguous, could you please insert them as references at the end of the sentence in the lead? If it's more of a grey area, maybe you could bring them here for discussion? Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think think the edits should be removed unless there are sources to support them.


 * I don't think polyamory.today is a legitimate source for Wikipedia standards. Give me time to review the sourcing guidelines.


 * Reviewed pieces of Reliable sources. Polyamory.today isn't up to Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enlightenedstranger0 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"Polycule" is undefined
The neologism redirects to this article, is mentioned once in the text without definition, and once in an image caption. It may be a familiar term to those within polyamory communities, but it should be clearly defined for all readers. Thanks, --Animalparty! (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, that should be defined more in the text, I'll agree with that. --Historyday01 (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with defining it briefly, but not in the lead. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Peer-Review
This has a ton of really great information and so far it's looking really good! The only thing that I would add is in the beginning when it says 'polyamory as an umbrella term for...' to add somewhere in there that it is a mutually agreed upon relationship or something along those lines to make sure it's clear that the relationship is agreed upon by both partners. Otherwise that specific sentence might sound like it could possibly be cheating to someone who doesn't know anything about a polyamory relationship. VernM22 (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

"Legal Issues and Legal Recognition" far too US-centric
The "Legal issues" section seems solely dedicated to US legal status. While it's well written, there should probably be separate sub-headings for each country; unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with the laws outside the US to properly write these sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madwonk (talk • contribs) 22:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it probably is too US-centric, I can agree. I think that is a consequence of editors like me not really familiar with laws outside the U.S. --Historyday01 (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shoneycu. Peer reviewers: Shoneycu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 19 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ecperault.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bgiauque. Peer reviewers: VernM22, Ellietuskluvr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"Some therapists"
There's a line in the article about "some therapists" saying it's a recipe for disaster. When checking the source, the author is a fitness journalist. This is not a serious source and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.109.254.177 (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The article author is reporting on the findings/views of other people who are therapists in that particular instance, not providing her own professional opinion. Also, the article was medically reviewed and approved by an MD.Legitimus (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the name of those "other people who are therapists" are never mentioned anywhere, and the affirmation in not sourced. It sounds like a plain invention or a unhappy rewording. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor should it spread unsourced opinion pieces from a lifestyle blogger. In addition, MD is not a peer-reviewed journal as far as I know. I'm going to go ahead and delete it in a few days unless you have some other information regarding this issue. What_Wikipedia_is_not

--Ostream (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not "original thought", it is reliably sourced to a published article on WebMD. Legitimus is right. The statement has in-text attribution and should stay. Crossroads -talk- 06:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, could you give me the names of the therapists who said that? Without it, you're simply spreading misinformations. I think it at least deserve a reformulation. This is a vague statement, taken from an article written by somebody who's not a therapists, and presented in a dishonest way. It's not because an article is on MD that it's free from expressing opinions through unhappy choice of words, case in point. And finally, psychology is a different discipline than medical science and I fail to understand the relevance of this "medical review" you're telling me about. --Ostream (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

If you have serious, scientific sources regarding the downsides of polyamory, feel free to add them. Have a nice day.

--Ostream (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There are already several scientific sources in the article that cover the "downsides" (which is a complicated matter), so criticizing this source in particular seems a bit silly. Even so, a journalist writing an article on a topic for which they rely on the expert opinions of others is a normal part of journalism.  Reputable newspapers and news sources frequently do this, as the experts themselves often are not very skilled communicators.  And one benefit this article has, that conventional news articles do not, is that the article was medically reviewed by a licensed physician.  Physicians in the United States are required to be formally trained in psychiatry, not matter what their board specialty ends up being.  An additional angle on this is that licensed therapists, depending where they are located, are sometimes legally or ethnically prohibited from publicly offering opinions, or even when permitted, are especially concerned about harassment (including stalking and violence) by individuals who disagree with their opinions, which is likely the reason the article doesn't name the therapists.Legitimus (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * An additional angle on this is that licensed therapists, depending where they are located, are sometimes legally or ethnically prohibited from publicly offering opinions
 * The reason why licensed therapists are asked not to give opinion is underlied by the idea of preventing harm, including the harm inflicted by spreading unscientific assertion and projecting their own opinion such as this one. I don't think wikipedia should be a tribune for this kind of talk. That being said, after checking, it seems their main sources are the two counselors identified in the book, that clearly advice against open marriage. Can we at least either remove the quotations marks or source it with its correct attribution?

--10:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ostream (talk • contribs)


 * Are you referring to Steve and Carol Brody? They seem the most likely, since they are couples counselors (Steve is also a psychologist) and their remarks later in the article.  It's not very likely that their remarks are found in their book because it was written in 1999, but rather than Doheny interviewed them and asked for their take at the time she wrote the article.  However, it doesn't change that the quotation is Doheny's words, because there is nothing in the article that provides more direct attribution.  If you found an attributed quote to the Brodys elseware, I would understand.  But it has to be direct.


 * Please remember to properly sign your comments by typing four tildes at the end. Otherwise the bot will do it for you and not very gracefully.Legitimus (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

COI edit request for WP:RS, WP:SOCK, WP:BIO, WP:BLP,and self promotion
Two requested edits:


 * What I think should be changed #1:

In the noted practitioners of polyamory section, Erez Benari should be removed. This is a partial revert of this edit.


 * Why it should be changed:

WP:SOCK: Erez Ben-Ari was using sock puppets to promote himself, please see investigation archived here which concluded in blocking all his accounts. BillShearim, NCSFreedom, and BenAriAtMicrosoft all belong to Erez as recorded here.

WP:COI, WP:BIO, WP:RS: Erez has added himself to the list of noted practitioners (as BillShearim). This is self-promotion (BIO), COI, and the source cited is based on an interview with him. He is citing himself as the source. I believe this is not a reliable source. Erez Ben-Ari's page was recently deleted due to some of the same violations.


 * What I think should be changed #2:

In the Marriage implications section, this text should be removed: "Noted leader in the PNW polyamory community Erez Ben–Ari also received wide media coverage after his ex-wife unsuccessfully sued him in family court, alleging he exposed their child to his polyamorous lifestyle." including the citations. This is a revert of these two edits.


 * Why it should be changed:

WP:SOCK: See the first request for details.

WP:COI, WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:WTW: The edit starts with puffery about himself as being notable (WTW). Erez Ben-Ari's page was recently deleted for lack of notability among other transgressions. The text in question describes contested details about a legal suit involving living persons (BLP). The sources cited are based on a interviews with him, so he is citing himself. I believe these are not reliable sources. The last source, hammburg.com, is a pay to publish blog (RS). If you can still see the history of Erez's former page, the talk outlines @User:FormalDude having removed the same articles as promotional sources. Finally, the text itself is also libel by omission as the case was about breaking the parental plan and included details of abusive behavior towards his son. I don't know the rules around citing court proceedings. If needed, I can provide the public record that shows that Erez's characterization is misleading, but I don't think this the right thing to do for the privacy of the child who reads Wikipedia. Suffice to say that this point is contentious.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PressSourceCheck (talk • contribs)


 * ✅ Thanks for explaining. I also checked the sources and they are clearly junk. Crossroads -talk- 05:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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 Richert five year anniversary post. It states:
 * 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)
 * 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)


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