| Revision as of 21:30, 18 August 2005 editNereocystis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,989 edits →Dispute Resolution: Are we still on?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:48, 26 March 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,276,424 edits Reminder of an inactive anchor: Remove 1 non-defunct anchor |
| (680 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Template:Notable Citation|Berkeley Journal of International Law}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum|personal beliefs, nor for engaging in ]/]s}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Family and relationships}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement|importance=mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Notable Citation|Berkeley Journal of International Law}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Archive== |
|
{{Archive box |
|
|
| auto = yes |
|
|
| search = yes |
|
|
| index = /Archive index |
|
|
| bot = MiszaBot |
|
|
| units = days |
|
|
| age = 180 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 50K |
|
|
| counter = 8 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
| algo = old(180d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:Polygamy/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
| target = Talk:Polygamy/Archive index |
|
|
| mask = Talk:Polygamy/Archive <#> |
|
|
| leading_zeros = 0 |
|
|
| indexhere = yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
== Polygamy in Indonesia == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why map say "Polygamy is legal in some regions (Indonesia)"? There is no national law than ban polygamy national wide. Even the latest law (the 2019 Marriage Law) does not prohibit it. (Poke {{ping|Pharexia}}) -- ] ] 09:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
] ] ] ] |
|
|
|
== "Bigamy (in Canon Law)" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 12:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
== "Bigamy (in Civil Law)" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 13:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Lack of research == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The prevalence section of the article says „Research into the prevalence of polyamory has been limited“ but then doesnt stick to it. I think we should be trimming this section, specifically the percentages. We should be grounded here and stick with the simple fact that there is not much solid research. |
|
== Dispute Resolution == |
|
|
|
Also, Amy Moors specifically is not a good source. There is a lot of criiticism against her, like her messing around with samples and sample sizes. At the very least we shouldnt quote her. But generally I think the section should be smaller. ] (]) 13:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
] and ] 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. ] 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: 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 ]'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 ] 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. ] 16:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: 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. ] 18:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: 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 ] 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, ] 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 ] 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 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, <i>of course></i> 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 Misplaced Pages 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 for controversial topics like this one. But would ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] to chase me (or anyone) away with their abuse, and from the article being even further destroyed with their destructions. If ] 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 ] 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 ] 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 ]. ] 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: 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). ] 19:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks, Uriah923, this looks like a good step. Let's concentrate on the structure of the article rather than the past history. ] 18:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Are we still on for resolution, or did Researcher99 withdraw? ] 21:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Top-level outline === |
|
|
|
|
|
The first thing I want from both ] and ] 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 ] is going to be out of town, we will allow approximately a week for both of you to provide the outline. ] 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Thank you for removing the time pressure on me that way. ] 16:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: 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.] 18:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: 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. ] 18:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: ], we really have to first start fair toward me here, or this is just another example of allowing ] 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. ] 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: 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. ] 19:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: ], could you please use proper thread format in your replies? Thanks. ] 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Nereocystis's outline== |
|
|
Here's my first draft of the outline. |
|
|
*Forms of polygamy |
|
|
*Related terms |
|
|
**Bigamy |
|
|
**Polyamory |
|
|
**Poly relationship |
|
|
*Polygamy worldwide |
|
|
*Polygamy and religion |
|
|
**Christianity |
|
|
***Polygamy in historical Christianity |
|
|
***Mormon polygamy |
|
|
***Modern non-Mormon Christian polygamy |
|
|
**Judaism |
|
|
**Islam |
|
|
**Hinduism |
|
|
*Current status of civil polygamous marriage (formerly Legal situation) |
|
|
*:Country by country (or state by state) listing of legal status, including, for each country: |
|
|
*# Is polygamous marriage legal |
|
|
*# Is polygamous cohabitation legal |
|
|
*# Is polygamous cohabitation prosecuted prosecuted |
|
|
*Current proponents and opponents |
|
|
*Polygamy in fiction |
|
|
*See also |
|
|
*Bibliography |
|
|
*External links |
|
|
**General |
|
|
**Christian polygamy |
|
|
**Mormon polygamy |
|
|
**Muslim polygamy |
|
|
**Jewish polygamy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 ]. |
|
|
] 20:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
Why map say "Polygamy is legal in some regions (Indonesia)"? There is no national law than ban polygamy national wide. Even the latest law (the 2019 Marriage Law) does not prohibit it. (Poke @Pharexia:) -- BayuAH 09:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The prevalence section of the article says „Research into the prevalence of polyamory has been limited“ but then doesnt stick to it. I think we should be trimming this section, specifically the percentages. We should be grounded here and stick with the simple fact that there is not much solid research.
Also, Amy Moors specifically is not a good source. There is a lot of criiticism against her, like her messing around with samples and sample sizes. At the very least we shouldnt quote her. But generally I think the section should be smaller. 141.15.24.32 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bigamy (in Canon Law) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Bigamy (in Canon Law) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)