| Revision as of 18:49, 26 August 2005 editNereocystis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,989 edits →Top-level outline: Will Researcher99 agree← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:48, 26 March 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,333,099 edits Reminder of an inactive anchor: Remove 1 non-defunct anchor |
| (653 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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? ], do you realize that you run right over me? I cautiously welcomed help in general, but I did not authorize hiding the evidence of ] 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 ] who does not even know this topic. The reason that the past matters is that unless ] 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 ], 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.) ] 20:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
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.] 21:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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, ] had once again forced me into having to disprove their abusive ideas. Please see the post I was forced to have to make today at the ] 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 ] 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. ] 20:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::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. ] 21:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I would like to point out that I have seen no abuse on either Talk page, and would rather that ] focus on providing an outline and NPOV citations (NOT limited to "Christian Polygamy") for his input. I would also like to suggest locking the ], ], and ] 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. ] 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. ] 00:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: It is offensive to me that some now try to deny the abuse, as ] is now trying to assert without really investigating all the archives back to April. Also, it was totally abusive for ] to make the attack on the ] 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 ] 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, ] 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, ]. 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 ] by archiving. But you did so very aggressively, despite what I said. That showed me you are not able to listen. Like ], 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 ] 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 ]. 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 ] TALK pages today, As well, as you have now concerned me enough to see that you are currently just as willing to run over me as ] 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 ] 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 ] 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 ] TALK, titled, 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. ] 18:49, 26 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::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. ] 14:45, 22 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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 ]. 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. ] 20:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] 21:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:], could you please use proper thread format in your replies? Thanks. ] 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I am very willing to stop the discussion on ], 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. ] 20:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::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. ] 18:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Nereocystis's outline== |
|
|
Here's my first draft of the outline. |
|
|
|
|
|
*Definition of polygamy (article header) |
|
|
*Forms of polygamy |
|
|
*:Details under polygyny, polyandry, 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 ]. |
|
|
] 20:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: 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. ] 21:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
That sounds good. Simple means less room for argument before we need it. One copy is also a good idea. ] 21:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] 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 ]'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 ] from general ], and so on. |
|
|
:] 14:06, 21 August 2005 (EDT) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I would disagree-It's unclear to me, even after having read ]'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 ] 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. ] 04:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::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. ] 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. For an earlier version, see . 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. ] 04:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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. ] 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 ] and ] 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. ] 17:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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! ] 19:54, 23 August 2005 (EDT) |
|
|
|
|
|
:How much should the ] and ] articles overlap? many of the examples on the current ] page are of ] for which there all ready exists a substantial article. ] 15:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
That's a really good question. We could make polygamy an overview article with links to ], ], and ] 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 {{Journal reference issue| Author=Emens, Elizabeth F.|Title=Monogamy's Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence| Journal=New York University Review of Law & Social Change |Volume = 29 | Issue = 2| Year=2004|Pages=277}} 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 ] 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. ] 18:01, 25 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)