This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
In the "As a practice" section...
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Use this file
.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)
The neologism Polycule 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Ostream ( talk) 10:47, 29 January 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)
--10:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ostream ( talk • contribs)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Two requested edits:
In the noted practitioners of polyamory section, Erez Benari should be removed. This is a partial revert of this edit [1].
WP:SOCK: Erez Ben-Ari was using sock puppets to promote himself, please see investigation archived here [2] which concluded in blocking all his accounts. BillShearim, NCSFreedom, and BenAriAtMicrosoft all belong to Erez as recorded here [3].
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 [4] due to some of the same violations.
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 [5] [6].
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 [4] 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)
References
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)
More Than Two came out of love. It was written by two people who, at the time, loved each other deeply, in the ways that each of them knew how, and wanted to help other people. (At least I did. And I actually do believe that Franklin did, too.) And yet what came out of that love…has caused harm.
And yet…and yet…it’s also helped people. I know it has; I believe it has—people have told me so. I hope it’s helped more people than it’s harmed. I don’t think it’s a bad book. But it was bad for me. [1]
I hope it’s helped more people than it’s harmed.That sounds to me like it does do harm. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
References
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)
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.
Peaceray ( talk) 16:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section...
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 , 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)