Jump to content

Talk:Polygamy

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Researcher99 (talk | contribs) at 19:56, 2 September 2005 (Proof of more hiding the evidence on this illegitimate TALK page version. All must wait until the AMA can assist in the situation.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proof: Hiding Evidence of abuse form this TALK page

This entire TALK page is not valid, being the result of an unapproved takeover. We were in the middle of a previous dispute resolution and this TALK page wrongly got changed and directed without the approval of the two parties involved, Nereocystis and myself. The last valid version of this TALK page, before that hostile takeover, was on 14:24, 18 August 20.

When I tried to provide further evidence of all the attacks on this invalid TALK page here, Dunkelza immediately hid the evidence by removing it.

The fact that the hostile parties here want this illegitimate version of the TALK page to continue in its current invalid form, and going so far as to purposely prevent and hide the evidence of the abuse and dispute, is further proof of the abuse I am receiving and te illegitimacy of the current TALK page. Researcher 19:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As all know, I am in the process of selecting an AMA. All parties should cease their agendas here and await what happens with that. Researcher 19:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4


ALL DISCUSSION IN SUBHEADINGS BELOW THIS ONE ARE NOT LEGITIMATE

The discussion below occurred after an aggressive takeover that was not approved by all parties in the previous dispute. The last valid version of this TALK page, before the hostile takeover, was on 14:24, 18 August 20. All participation on thse subheaded subtopics should cease untilthe larger issues of dispute are resolved. Researcher 19:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Dispute Resolution

Researcher99 and Nereocystis have agreed to allow me (as an unoffical mediator) to guide them through a process that will hopefully end the dispute and provide an accurate and NPOV article on polygamy. See the archives for a history of the dispute. Uriah923 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed to welcoming your help to the situation. Please understand that I definitely did not agree to this TALK page being archived until the confidence for proceeding to a resolution can occur. There has been too much attempts in the past to hide the evidence of Nereocystis's past abuse. Archiving simply hides their extreme abuse of me. When they are ready to work WITH me in a WIN-WIN approach, then I would agree to that evidence of their abuses being removed. As long as the NPOV tag is still there in the article, they are showing they are not even willing to have any good faith act. I did not and do not agree without good faith acts being demonstrated to show we are on the path to a WIN-WIN. Otherwise, nothing changes, and their abuse only continues, and you will have, probably unknowingly, enabled it. I appreciate your desire to help, and I welcomed that if it is fair and not biased toward the bully abuser. Archiving the evidence before the good faith act is performed by Nereocystis leaves me further abused here. I repeat, I genuinely appreciate your help, but I need this rectified. As I know you want me to be able to trust you (and I want to!), then if we can rectify that, then I will be ready to accept the archiving. Thank you for understanding. Researcher 16:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not want you to feel abused, the past really has nothing to do with putting together a quality NPOV article. As I mentioned, I think it best to start with outlines. Quality content can be added to these and a preliminary article posted without a NPOV tag. I anticipate that will happen quickly after I receive your outlines. Uriah923 18:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have been very abused here - for months even, and I am very exhausted as I do not allow this kind of thing in my real life. So, past history is critical to understand or else we'll just be spinning our wheels and it will put the abuser on equality with their victim. I know they think thay have not done so, but Nereocystis really has been extremely abusive and if that is not realized and changed, then it will only continue. NPOV is my goal, but I can never get there because of their abuse. I do not want us wasting our time. I am tired. I would like to forget the past too and move ahead. Unfortunately, Nereocystis has been so abusive and continues to have that aggressive "bad attitude," which means they are unwilling to work for a WIN-WIN with me. If Nereocystis is honestly so willing to "move ahead" without the article being changed while we do this, then they equally would be willing to let us go forward by using the Wikipedia Guidelines of first RESTORING the controversial article back to the TRUE STATUS QUO of March 31 while we do this process. But because they are the ones being allowed to have aggressively destroyed the article, and to then let it sit in that destroyed condition while we do this, of course> they are "willing" to pretend they want the past forgotten. But that is not right. It allows the abuser to get away with it and asks the victim of the abuse to continue to endure the destruction and abuse as if it never happened. If we are to have any honest hope of going forward, there has to be fairness, an obedience to Wikipedia Guidelines, and an end to the abuse. Since they are "willing" to let the article sit while we do this, then let's do so from the TRUE STATUS QUO position of March 31, before they began destroying the article. They know that I have been saying that from the very beginning, so this is not something "new" that I am saying here. The TRUE STATUS QUO is the requirement of the Wikipedia Guidelines for controversial topics like this one. But would Nereocystis then be so willing to move forward while the article sits in that TRUE STATUS QUO way while we do this? Most likely not. But that is exactly what this is expecting me to accept in the reverse if we do not follow those Wikipedia Guidelines, as I am the one who has been extremely abused here and the article is loaded with ther destructions. Please, let us simplfiy and do things rightly. I do not want any more battles. I am so very tired of it all. I never have these battles with people. I don't believe in such immature dysfunction. That's why I have come to sometimes detest the Wikipedia experience for not preventing all this should-never-be-allowed abuse and their just looking the other way. But I have to keep this issue from allowing Nereocystis to chase me (or anyone) away with their abuse, and from the article being even further destroyed with their destructions. If Nereocystis is not willing to get rid of that "bad attitude" toward me, and to not allow any hope for a true GIVE-GIVE, then any form of outlining re-write is not going to succeed. I want resolution to succeed. But if we go forward in this latest way which I did not yet fully agree, then unless the article is restored to TRUE STATUS QUO, then the past history shows that Nereocystis will simply exploit this latest opportunity to routinely "disagree," "deny," or overall prevent any new article from being completed on purpose. After all, by their preventing that resolution from succeeding, it will allow them to keep the article in its current destroyed version. That's why the TRUE STATUS QUO should occur first, if this has any chance of being fair. If Nereocystis can accept that, then that will be a sign of good faith that they really do want to remove the "bad attidude" and to actually work with me for a WIN-WIN. I genuinely hope that, when I come back next week, I will be able to see some fairness and good things things going on here, including from Nereocystis. Researcher 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing how you have been harmed will not bring us any closer to a quality, non-disputed, NPOV article. That is my only goal. One way to do that would be to dig through the volumes of bickering between you two in an attempt to locate a status quo. However, due to the insane amount of edits and discussing, that way is painful and unnecessarily complicated. A much more effective way is to start CLEAN (which is fair to all involved). If we can avoid worrying about the past, this will progress much more quickly to what we all want (quality, non-disputed, NPOV article). Uriah923 19:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was so hoping that when I got back, that I would see at least on example of your listening to me and my concerns. To my disappointment, I see nothing from you at all. Did you know that? Uriah923, do you realize that you run right over me? I cautiously welcomed help in general, but I did not authorize hiding the evidence of Nereocystis's abuse in TALK. Yet, you jumped on it with extreme quickness and removed it anyway. I welcomed your input but did not authorize a full-blown re-write from a blank canvas with Nereocystis who does not even know this topic. The reason that the past matters is that unless Nereocystis stops the abuse and stops running over my proven expertise, no agreement in real NPOV will ever be really achieved anyway. You will have wasted your time, our time, my time, and the article will only be in even worse shape than before. I am sure you do not want that. There really is no need to go searching for the TRUE STATUUS QUO. It is easily available, and I have been calling for it since April. It makes absolutely no sense to me that we should let some topical newby such as Nereocystis, who has proven they do not know this topic, be allowed to create some new outline for the article. So, if your genuinely interested in following Wikipedia guidelines of TRUE STATUS QUO, then we simply use the March 31, 2005 version, and start from there. But if not, then it seems that I am the only one who values the Wikipedia Guidelines, and that I will not be allowed to be treated fairly in any of this - at least until my AMA is ready to help. I really do ask that you understand, for us to achieve success in real NPOV here, the abuse has got be addressed and I really need you to show that you are capable of listening to me. I would appreciate that very much. Thank you. (I have just run out of time for more posting at this moment, so I will return tomorrow.) Researcher 20:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If by 'run over' you mean I have disregarded your arguments, that is true. I disregarded arguments from all parties because they were getting everyone nowhere. Starting from a blank canvas will allow all to see that ONLY valid, source-backed, NPOV material has been added. It will allow all, both self-avowed experts and those who are only interested, to contribute under the same criteria - that they provide NPOV, valid and note-worthy sources for the material contributed. There is absolutely no reason to address any alleged past abuse as it would only serve to soothe your wounds - not to produce a quality article.

If you refuse to participate, then there is no chance of any resolution.Uriah923 21:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding the point. We will not successfully get anywhere unless the abuse stops. Today we have another example of proof. I wanted to post here today, but instead, Nereocystis had once again forced me into having to disprove their abusive ideas. Please see the Nereocystis's double-standard post I was forced to have to make today at the group marriage article's TALK page. That took so much time to write that, to respond to that abuse, that it prevented me from any time in posting more on this. That is just one of the ways in which Nereocystis abuses me and keeps anything from actually getting done. This is not about me not wanting to participate. This is about my being abused and prevented at every step of the way. As long as the abuse is allowed and not addressed, it will keep us from moving forward no matter what we do. I have now run out of time to add anything more. I will try to get back tomorrow. Researcher 20:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is that the 'abuse' must stop before we can continue. I agree that if someone was abusing you rather than participating then it would be hindering our progress. That has not happened. The only thing holding us back at present is the lack of an outline from you. Uriah923 21:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that I have seen no abuse on either Talk page, and would rather that Researcher99 focus on providing an outline and NPOV citations (NOT limited to "Christian Polygamy") for his input. I would also like to suggest locking the group marriage, polygyny, and polyandry pages and restricting commentary to this forum until this dispute is resolved. That way energy can be focused, and we can go through the articles one at a time. Dunkelza 19:51, 25 August 2005 (EDT)
I agree with Dunkelza. I screwed up by continuing to discuss items on the group marriage page while we are trying work on compromise here. I don't know whether we need a real lock, or an informal agreement to not edit. Nereocystis 00:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is offensive to me that some now try to deny the abuse, as Dunkelza is now trying to assert without really investigating all the archives back to April. Also, it was totally abusive for Nereocystis to make the attack on the group marriage TALK page that forced me into spending my time on that rather than being able to post here yesterday. Their subsequent attack replying to my post yesterday was even more abusive. The long-term problem with Nereocystis is that I am constantly being run over, as if all the time I spent trying to explain to others was all in vain. They are advancing purposely hostile POVs in trying to say things which things do not say. (Now that you have shown your willingness to run over me too, Nereocystis has begun again to try to re-assert their pure propaganda POV agenda of the underage issue.) Being run over all of these months is now what adds further concern to me now most of all about your arrival here, Uriah923. When you first offered to help, I never said that I supported your aggressive takeover of this article resolution issue or of the hiding of the past abuses by Nereocystis by archiving. But you did so very aggressively, despite what I said. That showed me you are not able to listen. Like Nereocystis, you act aggressively and then run over me as if I am the hindrance. Now you accuse me of stopping the resolution when I never yet authorized your idea, although I have been trying to see if you will be neutral enough to let me accept it. You need to understand that my reply to you last week was simply a yellow light, a friendly welcome with the oncoming red light behind it. Instead, you ignored my friendly but yellow light, and just floored the gas, completely running over me. When I asked you to not empower the abuser, you insisted on only empowering them, rather than listen to me there either. Please. Listen. One of the greatest problems with the abuser Nereocystis is that they deliberately overwhelm with "issues" in order to prevent the article from actually becoming NPOV. Before you arrived, we were almost about to at least address only one issue at a time. But now your idea of re-writing an entire article is only going to further empower that overwhelming tactic of Nereocystis. I do not have time to battle so many fronts. I don't even want to battle. That's why I have been waiting for my AMA. That's why I offered a true NPOV proposed solution to the polygamy issue on the group marriage TALK pages today, "The true NPOV solution to Polygamy question about Group Marriage." As well, as you have now concerned me enough to see that you are currently just as willing to run over me as Nereocystis constantly does, you have given me no reason to know you won't do that with the article too. I admit, I am very concerned that the minute I post another yellow light with the outline you request, you will then floor the gas, run over me again, and then use that to destroy the article before I accept it. That is exactly what Nereocystis is practically salivating for you to do. Then they will be able to pertpetually obfuscate and keep the article from ever being resolved. Please. You have to listen or you force me to consider what you did this TALK page last week was unapproved vandalism. It is not my intent to rv it back to last week so that the original resolution discussion can recur. But maybe that's what will need to be done. You, yourself, have said your offer requires my support. I have never given you that yet. I could be willing to do so, but you have to prove that you are not here to help and copy Nereocystis in running me over the same way they do. I am tired. I am tired of being bullied. Plase check out that post I made today in group marriage TALK, titled, "The true NPOV solution to Polygamy question about Group Marriage." It shows that I really am dedicated to true NPOV and valid solutions. I do not agree to ignoring that post either, as it is a perfect NPOV solution which easily solves that issue immediately. Dodging it is only the intent to further attack me and run over me yet again. it is so easy and needs no battle. It solves the problem in the most NPOV way, which shows that I really am dedicated to that. Please. I simply have to be treated with respect and not being run over. When you can show you will listen, I will be glad to be more open. I hope you can understand. Thanks. Researcher 18:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you have been involved in a long dispute that has offended you. I also understand that you think you think you have the answer as far as resolution. However, there is more than one party involved here and, therefore, I have presented a way to resolve the conflict in an unbiased fashion. I've explained this many times and asked you to forget the past and participate in creating a quality, source-backed, NPOV article. Until you are unwilling to do so, I will leave you to wait for official help. Uriah923 18:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be my hope that you had done that, Uriah923. Unfortunately, and maybe without knowing it, you have offered only to assist and justify Nereocystis's bullying. All I want is true unbiased treatment, but you have, so far, only offered a biased one-side-win for Nereocystis. Just moments ago, Nereocystis proved again how much of a bully they are, unwilling to work with any real NPOV solution. Today, I had given them an easy way to let us start with some good faith. They chose not to do it, as they always do in their bullying ways. If they had acted on that little and very easy act of good faith today in the group marriage TALK pages, we would have been so much closer to perhaps getting started on your offer. If that had happened and if you had demonstrated at least some evidence of listening to me without bias, my outline would have been prepared for you very quickly. I just needed a little proof that all parties are genuinely committed to a good faith treatment of me and all seek a WIN-WIN for me, for all of us, for NPOV, in this too. It is wrong to expect that any resolution will ever succeed unless I will also be treated respectfully and without bullying. Without that, your offer to help was doomed before it started. It is not really my intent to see you go or to rv the TALK pages back to last week's position of that previous form with my offer of resolution. But if you are not able or willing to at least be unbiased toward me and to actually work with me for all of us to reach a WIN-WIN, and if you still decide you have to leave, then I guess we will have to get back to that former discussion of my offer of resolution until my official AMA help arrives. It is so frustrating that Nereocystis has become so skilled in keeping people who drop by here from actually being able to help us get this resolved (or from exploiting other people's anti-polygamy biases who drop by as another way of to preventing resolution that happening). I hope you'll stay, listen, and help with true unbias. But if you must leave, I guess I do understand. If that is the case, thank you for trying. I really wish you could help, though. Researcher 20:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you would simply provide an outline then the process could get started. If, at any point along the way, I demonstrate any sort of bias with regards to the article and its content, then feel free to withdraw. Thus far, however, such has not been the case and your allegations of bias are unfounded.
My previous offer stands; provide an outline so we can begin or else I can do nothing. Uriah923 20:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If they were unfounded, the NPOV tag would be removed from last week's discussion. I also do not yet have any reason for confidence that, once I provide the outline, I really would "be free to withdraw" and then get the situation back to prior to your arrival here. So, if my views were unfounded, there would be at least some act of good faith somewhere for me to note. Instead, I have no demonstration from you yet that you are willing to do anything but seem to empower Nereocystis to further leave the article destroyed. So, here's a way for you to help see that about you. If you would like to show me that you genuinely believe in NPOV and resolution, I will be waiting over the weekend to then see how you handle the obvious NPOV resolution I offered on the group marriage TALK page for one of the issues there, "The true NPOV solution to Polygamy question about Group Marriage." That resolution there is a perfect example of total verified NPOV. Yet Nereocystis has proven to be so abusive as the bully they are, they even refuse to even allow that very easy perfect NPOV resolution there. Their behavior on that is a typical example of their abusive behavior and unwillingness to really resolve issues with NPOV. You can help me have confidence in you that you really do care about NPOV and resolution without bias, and that you are not here only to empower Nereocystis. To do that, please feel free to show me how you act in that case. I welcome your proving to be unbiased in that obviously NPOV case. Please take the weekend or a day or so more if you need to deal with that issue, "The true NPOV solution to Polygamy question about Group Marriage." I will take the weekend off and come back at the start of next week to see what you come up with. If you prove to be as NPOV and unbiased as you self-avow, I am confident that your actions will reveal that there, and I will be glad to have more confidence in you. At that point, we could be on the path to where I could be willing to place an outline as you request. Of course, it will also be helpful if Nereocystis would now abandon their abusively bully behavior and instead put forth a good faith act in that case as well by doing the easy thing needed there. A good faith act can go a long way toward helping resolving the issues. Thanks again, Uriah923. I look forward to seeing what you come up with when I get back at the start of the week. Researcher 23:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, is Researcher99 going to submit an outline or not? So far I haven't seen anything except complaints and demands for special treatment. I would like the outline submissions closed on time in accordance with the dispute resolution procedure. Those willing to move forward should be able to do so. Dunkelza 23:13, August 26 2005 (EDT)
Thanks, Uriah923, this looks like a good step. Let's concentrate on the structure of the article rather than the past history. Nereocystis 18:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are we still on for resolution, or did Researcher99 withdraw? Nereocystis 21:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, we're still on. Researcher99 has a week to submit an outline, so I will give him until the 26th. Hopefully, we will then be able to progress quickly towards at least a basic article that has been agreed on. Uriah923 14:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Researcher99, if you would place some of your efforts into writing the outline, we can move forward. Stop worrying about everything else, and write the outline. Please. Nereocystis 23:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starting the Article

I agree with Dunkelza. It was my impression that Researcher99 had until August 26 to finish his outline, which was yesterday. He has been given enough time to do this and our progress on this article should not be delayed any longer. I suggest that we focus our energy on fine-tuning Nereocystis' outline and begin work on rewriting the article. If Researcher99 doesn't want to give any valuable input and insists on rehashing old, perceived "abuses," then we should proceed without him.Kewp 12:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Top-level outline

The first thing I want from both Researcher99 and Nereocystis is a top-level outline of the ideal contents of the article. This should be brief and contain no text - only headings and maybe some sub-headings. As Researcher99 is going to be out of town, we will allow approximately a week for both of you to provide the outline. Uriah923 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the time pressure on me that way. Researcher 16:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, we skip discussion of disputes in these sections, and do not write, "I think section A needs to be completely rewritten, it is badly biased". I'll work on the outline soon. Of course, the structure is subject to change as time goes on.Nereocystis 18:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. After we have a solid, agreed upon foundation of what topics need to be covered and in what order we can move on to slowly add content that is NPOV and backed by valid references. Uriah923 18:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uriah923, we really have to first start fair toward me here, or this is just another example of allowing Nereocystis the ability to abuse me again. Asking me to start from the harmed position is NOT fair under any negotiating idea. We must have a WIN-WIN, and I am only open to your help under the condition of being treated fairly for a WIN-WIN, not requioring me to start this from harmed position, while the abuser gets to get away with it again. As I said before, I am awaiting my AMA. While I said I was glad for help, I did not agree to acting this quickly, especially without anything fair being demonstrated toward me yet. I am hopeful that, when I get back next week, I might be able to see that you have found a way to genuinely bring fairness toward me is going to be a reality. Researcher 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about anyone 'getting away with' anything or about anyone being 'harmed.' The only goal here is to improve the article. As the two of you have been unable to do this, I have offered to provide structure to facilitate it. Arguing over past hurts will only delay any progress. Uriah923 19:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you please understand that, not only did I not authorize the quick action and takeover approach that you took when I generally welcomed your general help, but I need to know that you are not out to set me up. If every action you have taken so far shows me that you do not listen to anything I say, then you prevent me from knowing that you are any more serious for NPOV than Nereocystis. If NPOV is your genuine goal, then, really, you must listen to me. Unfortunatley, I am still waiting for some evidence that shows me that you will listen to me and to my valid concerns as well. If you could solve that, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks. I really do want the matter resolved, and am hopeful that you are willing to listen. Researcher 20:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have listened to and addressed each of your concerns. However, I am not going to give you preferential treatment. All parties will start on an equal footing and, as I mentioned in the above thread, will be given the same requirements for submitting content. If you are the expert you claim to be, and if Nereocystis is as uknowledgeable as you say he is, then this will work in your favor as you will be able to provide more valid, source-backed, NPOV material. Uriah923 21:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nereocystis, could you please use proper thread format in your replies? Thanks. Researcher 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am very willing to stop the discussion on Group marriage, discuss only on the polygamy talk page. However, I want a clear agreement from Researcher that he is willing to proceed with the steps outlined by Uriah923. If so, please produce a sample outline. Nereocystis 20:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where do we stand? After more than a week Researcher99 hasn't agreed to the plan outlined by Uriah923, but he hasn't disagreed either. I don't mind waiting for a little bit longer before giving up on an agreement, but I would like some indication that Researcher99 wants to reach a resolution. Please, Researcher99, state your agreement with the plan, or your rejection of the plan, in clear terms. Nereocystis 18:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to continue the polygamy rewrite, even if Researcher99 does not participate. Is Dunkelza willing to try to lead us forward in the face of possible adversity? Perhaps Researcher99 will join us later, but we shouldn't depend upon it. Nereocystis 20:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Nereocystis's outline

Here's my first draft of the outline.

  • Definition of polygamy (article header)
  • Forms of polygamy
    Details under polygyny, polyandry, [dubious – discuss] group marriage
  • Related terms
    Details under polygamy
  • Polygamy worldwide - prevalence of polygamy geographically
    Details under polygyny, polyandry, group marriage
  • Polygamy and religion - history and current status within different religions
    Details under polygyny, polyandry, group marriage
  • Current status of civil polygamous marriage (formerly Legal situation) - legal status of polygamy in various locals
    Details under polygamy
  • Current proponents and opponents - notable organizations/individuals fighting for or against polygamy
    Details under polygamy
  • Polygamy in fiction - notable works of fiction that mention polygamy
    Details under polygamy
  • See also
  • References
  • External links

Should Polygamy and religion be under polygamy worldwide, as it is at present. I initially moved it there. I'm not sure now.

I suggest merging "How polygamists find more spouses" into "Polygamy and religion". Each type of polygamy could be described.

I imagine "Current status of civil polygamous marriage" as being similar to Same-sex marriage#Current status of same-sex civil marriage. Nereocystis 20:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we keep only one copy of your outline and one copy of Researcher's outline (when it is posted) up as a working document. I trimmed down your outline to keep things simple at first. I also added descriptions for some sections. It should be noted, however, that my changes are procedural and not based on my opinion of the outline contents. Feel free to modify the descriptions or add/delete sections, as it's your outline. Uriah923 21:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. Simple means less room for argument before we need it. One copy is also a good idea. Nereocystis 21:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


You have a "Current Proponents and Opponents" section. Should we have a "Historical Proponents and Opponents" section as well, or maybe just merge them? I would also like to see a historical treatment in the "Polygamy Worldwide" section as well. Dunkelza 13:43, 21 August 2005 (EDT)

Actually, in reviewing some of the Talk archives, it seems that the outline you've presented may need to be expanded with subcategories. There seems to be an awful lot that people want to say, and the smaller format may not be sufficient. This could be the source of some of Researcher99's complaints. For instance, the underage-marriage issue, which is certainly a part of the history of polygamy, but which is not a facet of the general academic concept of polygamy. I definitely think that the "Forms of Polygamy" section is going to require A TON of subsets, so that we are clearly separating plural marriage from general polygyny, and so on.
Dunkelza 14:06, 21 August 2005 (EDT)
I would disagree-It's unclear to me, even after having read Researcher99's numerous comments to the Talk archives, how underage-marriage is not "a facet of the general academic concept of polygamy." In fact the structure of a polygamous society often requires that the males be older in order to reduce competition among them, while the women are generally much younger. This seems to be an integral part of the issue from an anthropological stance. No matter how often Researcher99 claims that underage marriage is a NPOV digression from the topic at hand, it is readily obvious to an outside observer that he/she has a strong POV agenda to push. Kewp 04:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I was unclear. What I mean by this is that a discussion of underage-marriage issues belongs in the subcategories, not in the broad definitions. For instance, while the marriage of very young women was a common trend in Mormon plural marriage, marriage below a culturally appropriate age isn't common throughout polygamous families in general. I'm not saying don't include these kinds of things in the article, just that we need to be careful where things that are very strong pro/con are located, so that the overall article is NPOV. Dunkelza 22:26, 22 August 2005 (EDT)

Originally, I had a number of subcategories. In the interest of an easy first step, Uriah923 removed the subcategories. Agreeing on the major categories may be difficult enough. Here is an earlier version. I removed "current" from "proponents and opponents". The category can be ordered historically, if need be.

"Forms of polygamy" currently just lists polygyny, polyandry, and group marriage. "Forms of polygamy" is a bad title here, though introducing the idea of polygyny, polyandry, group marriage, and possible gender neutral groups is important, since polygamy is often used as strictly polygyny. I'm troubled by having religion and worldwide as separate categories. I don't know what goes where. Perhaps these should be combined. Religion is often important to polygamy, but so is the country. Please make suggestions. I'll save under-age polygamy until the topics are better fleshed out. I don't know which articles it belongs in yet. Let's handle the outlines first, later will come the controversies. Nereocystis 04:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I can see how that would be important early on. I do think that we break out the subcategories that we should be sure to include all of the specific forms that we can find citations for. What this might mean is that under each subcategory (polygyny, etc.), we create a sub-subcategory for specific examples. I think that it's really important, for instance, to differentiate Islamic polygyny from Mormon plural marriage and Native American polygyny.
I'd also like to see the religion piece kept separate from the general worldwide cultural discussion. While many forms of polygamy are driven clear religious imperatives, many are not. This is especially true of polyandry and group marriage, which often seem to be adaptations to environmental factors. Dunkelza 22:26, 22 August 2005 (EDT)

Let's try seperating religion from geography, and see what happens. There is a lot of cross-over. I would like one section to be very short, describing the 3 basic forms of heterosexual polygamy. A later section should split polygamy into sub-subcategories. I don't like the title "Related terms", but it is important to explain that polygamy is not identical to polyamory. Perhaps the definition of marriage and family needs to be tightened while we're at it, using anthropological definitions, and allowing modern variations on the theme. That may explain the differences between polyamory and polygamy more clearly. Nereocystis 17:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I would put the three basic forms in the first part (definition)- they have article pages of their own. The "forms of" section should probably be where we break these out into classifications, giving only short definitions that tie into any available articles for them. I DEFINITELY agree on clarifying the distinction between polyamory and polygamy! Dunkelza 19:54, 23 August 2005 (EDT)
How much should the polygamy and polygyny articles overlap? many of the examples on the current polygamy page are of polygyny for which there all ready exists a substantial article. Kewp 15:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good question. We could make polygamy an overview article with links to polygyny, polyandry, and group marriage covering most of the details. None of these issues covers the issue of marriage to more than one person, regardless of sex, such as suggested by Template:Journal reference issue I suppose that gets covered in polygamy, unless group marriage is willing to take it.

I see the following articles as strongly related:

Can we cover all of the articles, marriage briefly, defining it with a standard anthropology definition; then hit monogamy; cover the types of polygamy under polygyny, polyandry, and group marriage, then fill in the details at polygamy again? Under polygamy we would have a synopsis of topics covered elsewhere, and more details in certain areas.

I split the outline above into the areas where I think the most details belongs. Many of the choices are arbitrary. The group marriage discussion started about the time Researcher99 and I tried resolving our differences. It was painful, as usual.

We can back out the outline changes if this is too confusing for now. Nereocystis 18:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think there should be only a little overlap. We may need to rework polygyny and polyandry and (possibly) group marriage as well once we've a better idea of the content. It might make sense to put more of the specific details on the subpages, and to make sure that there are articles for major incarnations of polygamy as well (Islamic polygyny, Mormon plural marriage, Christian Polygamy, etc.). Indeed, we might want to apply some form of this outline to all of the polygamy family pages, whatever we decide that they are. Heck, a template might be cool. Dunkelza 11:43, August 27, 2005 (EDT)
Actually, now that I look at it, even the Marriage page needs a reworking, though I'm not ready to tackle THAT project at the moment. I think that it might be a good idea to build our outline, and/or template, to make it appropriate for the whole marriage article tree. Dunkelza 11:57, August 27, 2005 (EDT)

A template is an interesting idea. I don't know exactly what it would look like, but someone should try it.

Could we start with a definition of marriage. Murdock 1949 says:

The family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation, and reproduction.
The family is to be distinguished from marriage, which is a complex of customs centering upon the relationship between a sexually associating pair of adults within the family.

He later describes polygamous relationships of course. I can't quickly find a definition in his "Ethnographic Atlas", which is quite short. His definition of marriage doesn't mention gender, though his types of polygamy do mention gender quite specifically. A newer definition of marriage from anthropology would be good. For now, I would limit my changes to marriage to that definition.

I prefer the indentation standard in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, especially in a long series of back of forth. It prevents later conversations taking place in the far right. However, there is room for confusion with this indentation style as well. Nereocystis 16:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should skip the definition of "marriage" for now. I think that we can all agree that polygamy is a form of marriage, so we can fix that page later. :) I think that the important thing is to find MODERN scientific definitions anthropology, sociology, zoology, etc. that we can reconcile with each other until we arrive at a unified definition. Actually, we should break out the outline into sections in the Talk page, with subsections for subtopics, so that each section can be discussed separately. Dunkelza 17:36, August 27 2005 (EDT)

This looks good so far. I agree with modern. I apologize for using an older definition, though so many of WP's references, and others as well led to this source. I do think that finding a definition of marriage helps to explain polygamy, for the anthropology and sociology sections. One or two sentences should be enough. Perhaps it doesn't need to be moved to the marriage article yet, but we need it for our purposes. Since any anthropological or sociological definition of polygamy has to refer to marriage, this won't cost us much. Nereocystis 17:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I filled in some information at the beginning of Dunkelza's outline. I hope this is the right direction. Nereocystis 03:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest creating a page called Polygamy/Rewrite. It allows the page to appear as it will be. And we can get the number of "=" correct, and shows what the page will really look like.

I put an old anthropology definition in for polygamy. We do need to modernize, but this is all I have so far.

Where do we go from here? How long should we take? Do we move sections over as they are somewhat filled in? Nereocystis 17:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion of Outline Sections

Added to facilitate discussion of specific article components. Dunkelza 17:45, August 27 2005 (EDT)

Definition of polygamy (article header)

I am not expecting these subsections to appear in the article header, but rather because this is such a thorny issue, I want to be able to distinguish the types of definitions that people are drawing from. I believe that once we have some citations in each area, we can discuss the overall definition that we'll actually put on the article page. Dunkelza 17:52 August 27, 2005 (EDT)

Anthropological Definitions

Restricted to uses in the context of the science of Anthropology/Sociology/Etc.
The terms "polygamy" and "polygamous" will used through this work in their recognized technical sense as referring to any form of plural marriage.[1]
A polygamous family consists of two or more nuclear families affiliated by plural marriages, i.e., by having one married parent in common.[2]

Life Sciences Definitions

Restricted to uses in the context of the science of Zoology/Biology/Etc.
Polygamy in the broad sense covers any form of multiple mating. ... In the narrower sense preferred by zoologists, polygamy also implies the formation of at least a temporary pair bond. Otherwise, multiple matings are commonly defined as promiscuous.[3]
Monogamy is the condition in which one male and one female join to rear at least a single brood. [4]

Vernacular Defintions

To explain confusion between common uses and "actual" definitions.

We ought to note how "polygamy" is often used as shorthand for "polygyny," for example Polygamous Mormon fundamentalists, and how the few cases of polyandry are named as such. Kewp 06:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Other Formal Definitions

General Dictionaries, Philosophy, etc.

Elizabeth Emens discusses the legal aspects of polygamy, mostly in the United States, and includes a gender-neutral definition of polygamy:

To avoid this confusion, the article uses the term "polygamy" to mean several spouses, regardless of sex.[5]

Forms of polygamy

Anthropological Definitions

Newer definitions would be nice. These will hold the place until then. From Murdock:

Theoretically, polygamy can assume any one of three possible forms: polygyny or the marriage of one man to two or more wives at a time, polyandry or the coexistent union of one woman with two or more men, and group marriage or a marital union embracing at once several men and several women. Of these, only the first is common.[6]
polygyny
the marriage of one man to two or more wives at a time.[7]
polyandry
the coexistent union of one woman with two or more men[8]
group marriage
a marital union embracing at one several men and several union.[9]
Of these, only the first is common.[10]

Life Sciences Definitions

  • Details under polygyny, polyandry, group marriage?

We should wait on this until we resolve the definition section. Dunkelza 17:55 August 27, 2005 (EDT)

Originally, I thought waiting would be good. However, in looking up the sociobiology definition of polygamy, I found the related terms. It was easier adding them all immediately, rather than finding them again later. Nereocystis 02:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Simultaneous polygamy
"the matings take place at more or less the same time"[11]
Polygyny
"A single male mates with more than one female."[12]
Harem polygyny
"simultaneous polygyny is sometimes referred to as harem polygyny"[13]
Polyandry
"mating of one female with more than one male."[14]
Simultaneous polygamy
"the matings take place at more or less the same time"[15]

Other

Emens refers to one definition of polyandry which refers to multiple men without women.

It is through the heterosexual assumption of marriage as including at least one man and one woman that the term "polyandry" (many men) could come to mean a group including any women at all; in other contexts, the term has been employed more literally to mean simply multiple men. See ALAN HOLLINGHURST, THE SWIMMING-POOL LIBRARY 16 (1988) ("This naked mingling, which formed a ritualistic heart to the life of the club, produced its own improper incitements to ideal liaisons, and polyandrous happenings which could not survive into the world of jackets and ties, cycle-clips and duffel-coats."). A parallel point could of course be made about "polygyny."[16]


  • Details under polygamy


Polygamy worldwide

- prevalence of polygamy geographically

  • Details under polygyny, polyandry, group marriage


Polygamy and religion

- history and current status within different religions

  • Details under polygyny, polyandry, group marriage


Current status of civil polygamous marriage

(formerly Legal situation) - legal status of polygamy in various locals

  • Details under polygamy


Proponents and Opponents

- notable organizations/individuals fighting for or against polygamy

  • Details under polygamy


Polygamy in fiction

- notable works of fiction that mention polygamy

  • Details under polygamy


See also

References

As this is such a controversial issue, what does everyone think about temporarily including the text of the reference - or at least the page number - so it can be checked? Uriah923 21:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Nereocystis 14:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

  1. ^ Murdock, 1949, p. 2.
  2. ^ Murdock, 1949, p. 2, footnote 1
  3. ^ Wilson, E.O., Sociobiology, p. 164-165.
  4. ^ Wilson, E.O., Sociobiology, p. 164.
  5. ^ Emens, 2004, p. 303.
  6. ^ Murdock, 1949, p. 24.
  7. ^ Murdock, 1949, p. 24.
  8. ^ Murdock, 1949, p. 24.
  9. ^ Murdock, 1949, p. 24.
  10. ^ Murdock, 1949, p. 24.
  11. ^ Wilson, E.O., Sociobiology, p. 164.
  12. ^ Wilson, E.O., Sociobiology, p. 164.
  13. ^ Wilson, E.O., Sociobiology, p. 164.
  14. ^ Wilson, E.O., Sociobiology, p. 164
  15. ^ Emens, 2004, p 302, footnote 123.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&oldid=22420411"