User talk:Skyerise/Archive 2018

Paramahansa Yogananda bibliography
Hello - I have a question. Is it necessary to create a bibliography page? See Paramahansa Yogananda bibliography page and talk page - [] I don't see an encyclopedic need for it. Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Polyamory
(Transcluding earlier discussion here for context. Scroll down for my question)

I've updated the criteria section because it appeared to condone the use of original research by examining a subject's relationships rather than what WIkipedia's verifiability policy actually requires, which is a citation to a reliable source that explicitly identifies the subject as "polyamorous". Further, living people should not be in this list based on anything other than self-identification as required by WP:BLPCAT. The criteria have been modified so as to make these requirements clear. Yworo (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a link to Wikipedia's policy on sexuality requiring a directly statement of a particular word for someone living (in this case, polyamory), rather than a statement that essential says the same thing (this is with regards to Tilda Swinton and Warren Buffet interview references). The above links do not clarify or support your assertions. Cooltobekind (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it, but it is does not answer my question regarding how specific a self-assertion must be (relating to a specific term, rather that a statement that essentially says the same thing). I ask for respect here, as minority sexualities have historically been discriminated against and their histories hidden. The term polyamory is fairly new and used to describe a wide range of consenting relationships amongst multiple people, that historically have fallen under other (and false) descriptions, such as affairs. (emphasis by Deus) The policy references homosexuality and 'closeted gays' - but nothing with regards to polyamory. Someone like Warren Buffet and Tilda Swinton are clearly not hiding their relationships and their activities. How can I get this clarified, or if no clarification exists, get this dispute resolved?


 * It is part and parcel of our verifiability policy. We do not do original research. To quote the policy against original research, "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." (emphasis in original). Yworo (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(irrelevant material skipped)


 * The references must directly call the subject polyamorous. For a living person, they must call themselves polyamorous. That's really simple. A person has to identify with the term. Or in the case of a deceased person, must be identified with the term by a reliable source. Wikipedia editors may not make the determination themselves. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it reports on the research of others as described in reliable secondary sources, it does not do the research itself. Yworo (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can be sued for misidentifying people with a label they do not choose to identify themselves with. Are you going to volunteer yourself as the responsible party if Warren Buffet objects to the use of the term to describe him?  The dead do not need to self-identify. But they do need to be identified by a citation to an independent third-party researcher who specifically concludes that they were polyamorous. We do not draw conclusions, we report them. Yworo (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(irrelevant material removed)


 * Sorry, no. There are people who have multiple relationships and do not consider themselves poly. Some call what they do "open marriage", some call it "swinging". Poly requires love, and only the person involved can know whether they are being poly or doing something else. The relationships belong in the articles about the subjects. We can only call the subject poly if they have so self-identified or been so identified if deceased. The same applies to all sexual categorization. For example, Samuel R. Delany identifies as "gay". He has reportedly had relationships with women, but he does not identify as "bisexual" and we cannot call him that. That same applies here. You don't know whether the subject thought of themselves as cheating, swinging, being open, loving, just in it for the sex, or whatnot. And you can't call a person poly simply because they allowed their partner to practice polyamory. There are certainly relationships in which one partner is poly, the other(s) are monogamous. Who are you to decide what people's behavior means about their thinking and philosophy? Yworo (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As you can see in the discussion page regarding the German wikipedia article on Polyamory, I expressed the same concern about many on their list that I did not include because the sources were inadequate. What I am hearing, is because historically these terms did not exist (because of historic discrimination against these kinds of relationships), and as such their categorization between our modern terms such as "open marriage", "swinging" and "polyamory" cannot be determined, that no list article recording them should be kept. Is there a classification that can be agreed upon that encompasses all these relationships, or are they to be relegated to the trash because there classification cannot be determined? While someone reading or researching the specific person would read about the relationship on their article (if it is already reported), someone who wants to read up on or research those in consensual relationships involving three or more persons, (be they under whatever term - polyamorous relationships, open marriage, etc.) will have to either know who to look for or be adept at searching to find out about such relationships. What disturbs me is what is someone who identifies with such relationships, and is trying to research or find those who were in such histories, will be unable to or have a more difficult time in finding those involved. Historically, those practicing alternative sexualities had their histories hidden and had few role models to look up-to. I am not trying to debate values here - but I am stating that their exists significant historical precedence against such relationships and that sensitivity and consideration towards the historical discrimination and repression of these histories must be a consideration here. I am more than open to an alternative term being suggested, or diving up the content between two or more articles (such as List of Polyamorists and the list of those in an open relationship), based on the best evidence. Content still in dispute could be left on the discussion page(s) until better evidence can be found for the inclusion in one or the other article. Cooltobekind (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For deceased people, new research may classify a person as poly, then they may be included in this list. There is however no alternative to direct and explicit sourcing. In no case may we evaluate anything. We can only categorize as existing reliable third-party sources categorize. We are here to report on what sources say, not to help "someone who wants to read up on or research those in consensual relationships involving three or more persons". There are plenty of polyamory sites out there that do just that. It's not our job or goal to do so. Yworo (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And now for my question. The definition of polyamory is: "The practice ... of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved." What about a hypothetical household composed of parents John Smith, Jane Smith, Nick Jones, and Nikki Jones, with children John Jones (by John out of Nikki), Nikki Smith (by Nick out of Jane), Nick Jones jnr (by Nick out of Nikki), and John Smith jnr (by John out of Jane)? They've lived together, at the same address, for twenty years. The papers use the terms "lovers", "mistress", and crucially, the phrases "loving relationship" and "knowledge and consent of everyone involved", but nowhere is the term "polyamory" used. Would such a household be O.K. to list? What about if John Smith snr says something to the effect of "I've loved my wives as soon as I clapped eyes on them, and we started living together soon thereafter"? What if this is a case occurring in the 1600's, in which case we're not talking about newspapers, but history books? The word polyamory is not known by all (in fact, it's mostly known by the liberal California social justice activist set), but the concept is. --Deus omnipotens sum (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Please do not yell on my talk page. The source MUST use the word "polyamory". Otherwise it is orignal research. It is up to researchers to make this determination. In any case, we also cannot use primary sources such as letters, either. It is not Wikipedia's function to right great wrongs. Encyclopedias frequently lag popular culture, because we have to wait for the terminology to enter academic research, then for the research to be done, before we can report on it. Please desist from adding original research to articles. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Where was I yelling? I write using capital and lowercase letters as required---I only ever use ALL CAPS or bold to emphasise a word or two, and where I come from, that's about as far away from yelling as you possibly can be.  In regards to your actual point, I don't believe it's original research if a source uses the modern definition of a word that did not exist at the time, and the encyclopaedia uses the word itself.  You'll have to flesh out your reasoning a bit more, I daresay.

Here's what I mean: in 1789, Horace Lawson invents a system of engraving a representation of music onto ten-inch shellac discs, allowing a geared turntable suitably equipped with a needle and acoustic amplifier to reproduce said music. He describes this invention at a party, and the description makes it into the newspapers... but Horace doesn't give his invention a name, or perhaps he simply calls it a "new type of music-box". The definition of a phonograph is "an instrument for reproducing sounds by means of the vibration of a needle following a spiral groove on a revolving disc". Lawson's invention is exactly that. How, then, is it original research to claim that Lawson invented the phonograph? --Deus omnipotens sum (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be original research, unless an historian of inventions or the phonograph calls it a phonograph. Don't ask me, this is well-defined territory on Wikipedia. Ask at the Village Pump or at the original research noticeboard. Skyerise (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Mess at Broken Oghibbeway
Looking at the edits of a blocked sock,, I see that you reverted him once when he moved material from Ojibwe to Broken Oghibbeway. He did this with a lot of languages, each time ignoring the fact that he'd left vital parts of the references behind, so we end up with for instance just "Nichols, John, 1995, pp. 1-2." with not enough information about the actual source. That one is better than those with just a surname and year! Doug Weller talk 15:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)