Talk:Olive Byrne

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women's History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Is this person notable enough for a whole article. She seems only notable for being the inspiration for Wonder Women, and so, should just appear in that article. Ashmoo (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having read Lepore (2015) I can’t agree. She was a regular contributor to magazines of the time, was the daughter and niece of two other very noteworthy people, for starters. I’d have to see what our revised standards of noteworthiness are- they weren’t that demanding as a rule when I was more of a regular on this site awhile ago- but I expect she meets them ELSchissel (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and death dates?

Looking at https://www.censusrecords.com/Search?FirstName=Olive&LastName=Byrne&State=New%20York it appears she was born in 1904. Can we do any better than that? Thanks!Darci (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

she died May 19, 1990 according to her obituary. ELSchissel (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"polyamory"

Unless at least one of the three (Byrne and the Marsdens) stood up at some point and declared "I'm polyamorous," any such post hoc diagnosis is likely invalid. At very least, a credible outside source — and NOT some blog, fansite, or letter to the editor — must be provided, with explicit statement this is that person's opinion.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added two cites. Have a nice day. Eric Cable ! Talk 12:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, YOU have a nice day — double fail.

Both are "popular press," with neither writer reliably placed to recognize actual polyamory if it were to metaphorically crawl up and bite him on the butt.

One explicitly calls it an example of free love, which is NOT polyamory.

There is no quotation to clarify that the term is only the (fallible) OPINION of the writer.

As such, presenting it as somehow factual, particularly in the lede, is intentionally misleading.

There was no such thing as polyamory before 1990. William died 1947, therefore it was not polyamorous.
If neither Elizabeth nor Olive ever spoke out and said/wrote that she was (or they had been) polyamorous, then anyone else choosing the label is guilty of original research — and citing someone else's mere guess without clarifying its status as guesswork is weaselly.

They had what might properly be called a group marriage, a term formally defined at least as far back as Murdoch (1949) but in use referring to Oneida, so mid-1800s.

What ought to happen: Remove the "polyamory" from the opening, limit use of "polyamory" to once in the body (Byrne's life was MUCH more interesting than just that, modern wankers aside), and tell the reader what EXACTLY was said BY WHOM to validate that arguable post hoc claim.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, I cut the lede statement calling Byrne "a homemaker." This is not substantiated in the text, entirely denies value to her writing work, and sets her up as little more than a convenient accessory to "the real couple." (FWIW: Homemaking.)
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And calling Ethel Byrne a "Progressive" seems to indicate membership in the Progressive Party (United States, 1912) when her article instead simply places her in the Progressive Era. So, inept AND lazy.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "poly" stuff has now been dialed back, without obscuring the (apparently established) fact that it was not a monogamous household (~1925-1947).

I also see that multiple calls to one source (Lepore 2015) are separated rather than being grouped. Of 32 citations, 15 point to Lepore's book, three more to Lepore's article. This sort of overkill often indicates further questionable fanboy work. Overreliance on a single source is rarely a good sign — as Jill Lepore (born 1966) is not an eyewitness to history, and some editor clearly has access to a copy of the book, then these claims to fact (most, anyway) really NEED to reference Lepore's source.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

her sources were multiple interviews with family members , some of whom provided her access to a large amount of documents. The “notes” section was gratifyingly lengthy, as that’s what one wants in a biography. Some of the sources were Byrne’s own autobiographical sketches. ELSchissel (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, re Ethel Byrne, I agree. She was a proud radical, who almost died in a hunger strike when arrested with her sister for selling birth control, a little over a century ago now. ELSchissel (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the relationship between Olive Byrne and Elizabeth Marston

The claim that it was sexual appears to be disputed and based on circumstantial evidence, and this should arguably be reflected in the articles about them. See my comment on the Elizabeth Marston talk page for sources. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]