Jump to content

Talk:Polyamory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 178.78.213.168 (talk) at 21:13, 23 December 2020 (→‎visual representation: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Shoneycu. 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 (article contribs).

History

There's very little about the history of polyamory in this article, but the concept is certainly not new. Émile Armand is said to have promoted polyamory in the early 20th century. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the issue with that is the term didn't really exist until the 1980s or 1990s. I'm also unclear if, for example, Armand's views fall within the definitional framework of what the term actually means. I'm not saying it does or it doesn't, I'm saying I'm not confident my understanding of the definitions is good enough to make that call, so I leave that to other editors.Legitimus (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again: archives. Nobody could have been polyamorous before the concept was defined, just as nobody could have "been a Scientologist" before 1952, or "been a swinger" before the early 1950s, or "been a Christian" before Jesus was born, even if what they were doing bears strong resemblance.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one could have been a Scientologist before Hubbard created it, and no one could be a Christian before Jesus, but polyamory and swinging are descriptions of things that existed, whether there was a tidy term for them or not.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions*
Nope. Swinging did not exist before swinging existed. Polyamory did not exist before polyamory existed. To say "sort of like" is somewhere between weaselling and original research. Barely permissible would be to say "According to ----" rather than to support the specious claim as established truth.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Swinging existed before the term "swinging," and polyamory existed before the term "polyamory." The terms describe behaviors that already existed. The words did not create the behavior; they described it.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 00:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is a WP article about? WP is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary states: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history." I think that this article, Polyamory is about the concept of polyamory. Some when did the concept of, as opposed to the word or term polyamory come into being? Maybe it depends on how the people involved think of themselves, or maybe that is not the only consideration. The articles Homosexuality, Incest, Zoophilia, Marriage and probably other similar, go back probably before the modern concept existed, and I think that this article should follow those precedents. So I support this article dealing with times before the term "polyamory" existed. FrankSier (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could be added?

I found these today.

BBC Two announces new drama, Trigonometry"

New track about "dark side of polyamory"

Nkofa (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure these are appropriate. On is a work of fiction, the other seems to be largely speculative interpretation of a musical album.Legitimus (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first citation could be added to the In the media section. The second is largely irrelevant to the topic. Peaceray (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unlike many social-media users I am able to distinguish fact from fiction and information from opinion. But (as a model) there is Bisexuality#Media (redundant due to List of media portrayals of bisexuality). Is that section therefore invalid by Wikipedia standards or are you stating a personal opinion? Either is valid of course but the applications are quite different.
I am unclear yet as how music is not media. In any case the album in question is not released until February so reviews and interviews are sparse yet. 12/19: "Moses Sumney Lays His Heart Bare With ‘Polly’": "Now, he offers a take on the modern-day conundrum that is polyamorous love with new song "Polly."...The unconventional type of love might work for some but, based on the song, that's not the case for Moses." If you are saying that reviews and opinions are not valid Wikipedia sources and cannot be mentioned even in passing then I hope you will forgive me for demanding a definitive ruling.
Furthermore the article Polyamory begins by promoting users to a song AND a scripted reality-TV programme, both forgotten except for these references so WP:NOTPROMOTION else "Polly" and Moses Sumney surely should be treated as well. Nkofa (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Trigonometry to "In the media" section. FrankSier (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion was "Kept: no valid reason for deletion, ... 19:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)". FrankSier (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"Favorable preexisting conditions before non-monogamy" section

The Non-monogamy article lists polyamory as just one form of non-monogamy, so I propose that the section: "Favorable preexisting conditions before non-monogamy" be moved from Polyamory to Non-monogamy (as it would also relate to the other forms of non-monogamy listed). FrankSier (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

visual representation

heres an spreadsheet example of all the possible arrangements: https://ethercalc.net/tvf60jwjbq6m

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polyamory&oldid=995971568"