Talk:List of polyamorists

message: Shouldn't Hugh Hefner be on this list? He's one of the first people I think of when this word/subject come up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.71.137 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: His ex Angie talks about their open marriage here and from this Amazon listing it looks as if she's said as much in print. Whether he's poly now, thirty years down the track, is another question - but it would probably make more sense to base this list on "ever poly" rather than require "always poly" or "now poly". --Calair 10:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: additions

message: None of these are cited.  Just because Amelia Earhart didn't say that she would require her husband to remain faithful to her doesn't necessarily mean she was polyamorous.  How, for instance, was Percy Bysshe Shelley polyamorous?  It's not common knowledge and his Wikipedia article says nothing of the sort.  The whole thing needs to be cited.---Gloriamarie 05:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, a lot of the citation discussion is over at Talk:Polyamory#Listing_people and the archive listed there; this article was split off from that page. My preference would be to convert the whole thing to a category and shift the onus for citation back onto individual people's pages. --Calair 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought this might work better as a category also.  But, as I noticed there were several persons on the list who haven't any wikipedia article (and nonetheless may be regarded as famous), I decided to make a list rather than a category.  A category would be much easier to manage and more rigorously critiqued. AMProSoft 13:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like :Category:Polyamory already exists, so I'll just add some comments to the category description and add the relevant articles to that. If people don't have articles of their own yet, that can be resolved by (somebody other than me ;-) writing them. --Calair 14:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Per WP:BLPCAT, we should not include living people unless we have a citation to self-identification as a polyamorist. That is, we cannot base inclusion in this list on observation or third-party charaterization, but only the subject's own identification. Yworo (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations?

message: I've removed all unsourced people from the list and, per WP:RS and WP:BLP, we should not add anything without a citation. --Damiens.rf 18:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:BLPCAT, we should not include living people unless we have a citation to self-identification as a polyamorist. That is, we cannot base inclusion in this list on observation or third-party charaterization, but only the subject's own identification. Yworo (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations are mandatory 

message: In the German article, here:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory#Bekannte_in_einvernehmlichen_mehrfachen_Beziehungen_lebende_Personen
is a list of many Persons who practiced open relationships, the mayority cited with some source. --82.113.121.16 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of people and citations in German article 

message: Why not just move or merge this article into the article titled "People in open relationships" or the "People in open marriages" article? They're the exact same thing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.247.198 (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge article into People in open marriages/open relationships 

message: I am not sure if: 
Alexander Thynn, 7th Marquess of Bath, British Lord 
should be on the list.  I have found conflicting sources, some labelling it as an affair, and some as poly.  At this point, I am leaning towards removing it.  Cooltobekind (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, keeping living people on a list on the talk page is also not permitted under WP:BLP. Yworo (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  People on the list 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I am sincerely sorry that you are hurt, but you do not seem to be listening or trying to understand what the problem with your edits is. I have explained very clearly multiple times, but you seem to have some sort of need to identify people with polyamory who have not either so identified themselves or been identified by reliable sources. Your goals appear to be incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia, which is to report, not research. 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? Yworo (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Update to criteria section 

message: There is a discussion over who belongs in this list and :Category:Polyamorous people at Category talk:Polyamorous people#Category and list. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removals 

message: Look, it's simple: not every person who was at some point in their life nonmonogamous was therefore polyamorous. 
Not everyone who has enjoyed sex with someone of their own gender is therefore homosexual, and I know there are at least a few homosexuals who don't embrace the term "gay." And not every group marriage, triad, threesome, and affair is evidence of polyamory.
Likewise, I would dispute that anyone could have been polyamorous unwillingly. Bad enough they're being pronounced "poly" even though they died before the term was invented (let alone the tenets shored up), but names are added willy-nilly to these lists with little effort to determine whether they did indeed attempt to live up to something closely akin to those tenets. Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: overreach

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of polyamorists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717000213/http://www.wicca.utvinternet.com/view.htm to http://www.wicca.utvinternet.com/view.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of polyamorists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219070801/http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6737 to http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6737
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728152039/http://uupa.org/Sermons/FaithfuPolyamory.htm to http://uupa.org/Sermons/FaithfuPolyamory.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.transsexual.org/Tsbio.htmlJennifer
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Some doubts about "lists of poly people."
* Merely because one person acts in a polyamorous manner DOES NOT mean that all that person's sexual/emotional connections (however deep) are "poly," and further DOES NOT mean that it's somehow "a poly relationship," and DOES NOT mean that everyone connected to a nonmonogamous person is therefore nonmonogamous, let alone "poly." For instance, one person could have two dozen recurrent intimate partners, NONE of whom wants/claims to be poly, and are each therefore fundamentally monogamous in belief and practice, simply non-possessive.
** There's no indication that everyone who acts in a clearly polyamorous manner WANTS to "join the club," so foisting the label on them is not only highly questionable, but (if they are living) is a clear BLP violation.
* It's basically impossible for someone to have "been polyamorous" before the invention of the concept. As such creation was a sort of on-the-fly situation, an approximation of the concept's birth would substitute, so 1990. (I've never seen the argument made that "polyamory" was at all intended in some evolutionary manner, though I would truly enjoy reading any contemporaneous account.) Dragging up some corpse in order to paste on a label is clearly synthesis and probably original research.
** An analogy: Nobody could have "been a Scientologist" before 1952, even if she had been around Hubbard since he created Dianetics (1930s, maybe earlier) and remained highly placed in CoS for the rest of her life.
** The argument will likely be made that previous terminology such as responsible nonmonogamy somehow weasels this in. If so, then the instant that claim is made, the article's name will become List of responsibly nonmonogamous people; lacking that, please don't even make the claim.
* In order for someone to be (or have been) polyamorous, they must at some point have figuratively stood up and said "I am polyamorous." Lacking that, they must have claimed to accept (if not willingly and actively perform) the tenets and practices that define the concept polyamory. Lacking even that, the individual IS NOT polyamorous.
* An open relationship IS NOT THE SAME AS a polyamorous relationship. A couple can be "open" with one or both actively cheating, and an agreement (tacit or explicit) to "ignore" it so long as the home situation continues along satisfactorily, what is sometimes called a DADT (don't ask, don't tell) agreement; there is no commitment to mention their encoupled status to their hookups, therefore (FFI see below) it's not polyamory, Q.E.D..
** Per the stated premise of List of polyamorists, in casual hookups there's no "strong, deep, close and true loving, romantic, and/or intimate relationship," and in DADT there's no inherent "full knowledge and consent of all involved.
* In like manner, being inarguably polyamorous DOES NOT mean that the relationship is open. Since there is absolutely no verifiable evidence, we're stuck with popular conceptions and media reports, which heavily spread the belief that MOST polyamorous people are involved in a three-person CLOSED triad (almost always FMF). Portrayals are more marriage with more people (extending the premises of monogamy and marriage, as polygamy/polyandry), a highly circumscribed form of non-monogamy.
As with so many W'pedia List pages, the best argument for the continued existence of this is that it's an excellent means to keep fanboy trivia and ephemera from clogging up the actual, useful, credible information — here, Polyamory.Weeb Dingle (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Each name on this list must point to a Wikipedia article. Either that article must clearly state the person was/is polyamorous (not merely nonmonogamous) or the list entry must point to a credible outside source that makes such a statement. In either case, particularly due to BLP policy, the cited source needs to be highly objective, rather than some "pro-poly" publication or an opinion piece or a blog.Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  lists? well... no 

message: The following deserve to be immediately cut for various vioations, but will be blanked and left awhile in hopes someone can fix them.
* See previous post: Olive Byrne and the Marstons predate polyamory.
* All cited sources say that Janet Farrar is polyfidelitous, not polyamorous, and they quote her or her partners. Though the latter is (arguably) a subset of the former, it is weaselly for an editor to paste on a label the subjects have actively avoided.
* All cited sources about Terisa Greenan date from 2010 or 2009. Her "official website" no longer exists (I've cut the link). Her Facebook page is a dead shell. Her listing for voiceover work does not mention polyamory (and says she was "last active 11 years ago"). Her Revolvy page is not only outdated, but entirely a regurgitation of the Terisa Greenan content (and uncited at that). She may be presently polyamorous, or have put that nonsense behind her; until something CURRENT is cited, I'm going to go with BLP.
* Exactly NONE of the cited sources (including the External Links) corroborate that Brenda Howard was polyamorous.
* Alexandra Kollontai died more than two decades before polyamory existed.
* Graham Nicholls SUPPORTS polyamory from a social justice perspective — and even that is according only to a 2012 book. (Supporting the rights of lesbians doesn't make him a lesbian.) The Independent article is from 2009, so aging badly per BLP.
* Darrel Ray was poly as of 2000. Update (again per BLP) is vital.
* Nothing, not even her WP article, substantiate that Jennifer Diane Reitz has ever been polyamorous.
* The only citation for Caitlin Stasey is an interview where she says
::We are not polyamorous
:so it's clearly a BLP vio.
* Tilda Swinton? No citation, unsupported in article, so another BLP vio.
* Oddly enough, the cited source for Celeste West DOES NOT even use the word "polyamory."
Please correct what you can, ASAP.Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  slated for removal