| Revision as of 03:13, 10 September 2005 editNereocystis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,989 edits →Dispute of TALK page about previous version: moved discusion to RfC← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:48, 26 March 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,277,776 edits Reminder of an inactive anchor: Remove 1 non-defunct anchor |
| (579 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
==Dispute of TALK page about previous version== |
|
|
|
|
|
When people arrive at this TALK page, they need to know firsthand that there is a dispute going on. Buring it deeper in the TALK page amounts to an aggressive act of trying to hide it from new arrivals here. ] knows that I am in conversation with AMAs and seeking to resolve the issue. To continue to advance the "outline" idea on this TALK page here, while knowing that we are still in the process of finding resolution (and that I am conversing with AMAs) is another extremely aggressive act by ]. No action should be occurring until we can really get the problems solved. |
|
|
|
|
|
I had posted this section at the top of this TALK page, but ] sought to hide it. Here is what ] said when they tried to bury this from the top of the page. |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote><small>There is a lot of dispute on the content of polygamy. Interested parties should look at the archives and at ].</blockquote></small> |
|
|
<blockquote><small>Please emphasize the text of the polygamy article on this page. ] 20:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)</blockquote></small> |
|
|
<blockquote><small>I removed the NPOV which Researcher99 put on the talk page, since NPOV doesn't belong on a Talk page. Talk pages usually include a lot of POV in the process of making the article NPOV. </blockquote></small> |
|
|
<blockquote><small> |
|
|
I also removed the dubious tags from the polygamy rewrite. If someone doesn't like it, discuss it. Provide citations. It is a work in progress, of course there are changes to be made. ] 20:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)</blockquote></small> |
|
|
|
|
|
As a matter of valid information, this has been restored to the top, as the dispute contiinues to go foward to a hopeful resolution. ] 17:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Researcher, your edit summary, "placed back at top where it belongs" is your opinion only. For you to suggest that only you can decide what is appropriate for the talk page is inappropriate. When ] moved the NPOV tags you should have discussed it on the talk page, not reverting it as if you owned the talk page. Also, your last comment "No action should be occurring until we can really get the problems solved" is again, your opinion, and again, inappropriate. Other editors may continue to contribute to the ], talk page, and article as they see fit. ] 18:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Researcher99 has . I suggest that we ignore his postings while his RFC continues, unless they are about the article, and try to work on improvements to the article. It's going to be a painful process. ] 20:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Nereocystis, is it not better to stop the RfC that you began and so permit the article to be improved, the dispute be resolved and "not to get too far with Researcher" as you told me ()? --] 21:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I have moved my response to ]. ] 03:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===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 and this TALK page wrongly got changed and directed without the approval of the two parties involved, ] and myself. The last valid version of this TALK page, before that hostile takeover, was on |
|
|
|
|
|
When I tried to provide of all the attacks on this invalid TALK page here, |
|
|
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. ] 19:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] 19:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This Talk page does not exist for the purpose of discussing abuses to you or any other editor. The ] page exists solely for the discussion of the content of the article ]. If you insist on inappropriately spamming multiple pages with your lamentations, I will continue to remove them. I would like to point out that I did not touch your comments on the ], because that is where your comments belonged. |
|
|
|
|
|
:If you sincerely believe that you are being abused, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, then I recommend that you follow the route taken by ]. Your complaints belong on THOSE sorts of pages, not the Talk pages of encyclopedic articles. ] - ] 18:54 September 2, 2005 (EDT) |
|
|
|
|
|
===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 The last valid version of this TALK page, before the hostile takeover, was on All participation on thse subheaded subtopics should cease untilthe larger issues of dispute are resolved. ] 19:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As readers may see from the following, ] admits to the deceptive act of trying to bury the important notice for new arrivals, in order to make it appear as though anything on this current TALK page about the ] article has a valid basis, while we are in the minddle of an ongoing dispute resolution issue. Referring to ths abve section after they had buried it, ] admitted, |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote><small>] 20:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)]</blockquote></small> |
|
|
|
|
|
Once again, they have sought to hide the evidence so that they may give the false appearance of supposed legitimacy of this non-accepted version of the TALK pages that interrupted the resolution process. The only way to effectively and instantly alert new arrivalst this TALK page is by use of the NPOV tag. While it may be more usable for articles, it is still an essential tool for this current situation. To aggresively hide it is only to seek to prevent new Misplaced Pages users arriving here from being alerted as much as they really need to be. ] 17:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{NPOV}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Dispute Resolution == |
|
|
|
|
|
] 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: 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. ] 18:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: It would be my hope that you had done that, ]. Unfortunately, and maybe without knowing it, you have offered only to assist and justify ] bullying. All I want is true unbiased treatment, but you have, so far, only offered a biased one-side-win for ]. Just moments ago, ] proved again how much of a bully they are, 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 ] 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 ] 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. ] 20:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: 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. ] 20:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::: 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 ] 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 ] TALK page for one of the issues there, That resolution there is a perfect example of total verified NPOV. Yet ] 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 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 ]. 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, 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 ] 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, ]. I look forward to seeing what you come up with when I get back at the start of the week. ] 23:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::: Okay, is ] 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. ] 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. ] 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
::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. ] 23:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Starting the Article=== |
|
|
I agree with ]. It was my impression that ] 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 ] 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.] 12:03, 27 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
::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. ] 20:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Nereocystis's outline== |
|
|
''See ] for the latest version.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
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. Here is . 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Personally, I think there should be only a little overlap. We may need to rework ] and ] and (possibly) ] 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. ] 11:43, August 27, 2005 (EDT) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Actually, now that I look at it, even the ] 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. ] 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 ], 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. ] 16:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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. ] 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. ] 17:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I filled in some information at the beginning of Dunkelza's outline. I hope this is the right direction. ] 03:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
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? ] 17:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I created a page called ], which contains the latest version of the polygamy rewrite, before Researcher's changes. If he wants that participate, that's fine. Please add citations for additions. ] 20:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== NPOV tags == |
|
|
|
|
|
], it's rather useful to leave the NPOV tags while the dispute is ongoing. This is for making more comprehensive the current situation to any newcoming editor. --] 22:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:NPOV on a talk page doesn't seem useful. Discussion about a It includes a link to the talk page of the talk page, which doesn't exist. There isn't a discussion on any page as to why it is NPOV. The tags referred to the entire discussion on the article, not to any particular section. If you really think that it is useful, I'm willing to put it back in. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I welcome your presence on this page. I hope that we can discuss the content of the article, rather than long diatribes about abuse from the past. The last few months have been very difficult. ] 23:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If Researcher99 wants to join in a possible rewrite, he should feel free, preferably with your help, so that we can stay on topic. Mediation would also be fine with me. So far, Researcher99 has not responded to any of my suggestions for mediation or arbitration with standard wiki mediators. ] 23:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::NPOV tags are put in the article iiself, as far as I know. Yes, it will be something 'agressive' to someone searching about the topic to find that the article is being disputed. The <nowiki>{{disputed}}</nowiki> tag that is currently in the article doesn't shows which is the actual dispute so the reader could know. |
|
|
::I think mediation would be fine, but I must tell you that I'm Researcher's advocate (], not an unofficial one), but, in case of mediation, I'll defend him but also try to get a solution civily. That's why I like the mediation idea rather than arbitration, because both parties can win when some mediates and puts some rationality in the dispute. Arbitration, in the other hand, involves a comfrontation between the parties and IMO, arbitrators should only hear cases that really are worth to have a 'judicial' resolution. |
|
|
::What do you think? Do we do a mediation? --] 02:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The only NPOV tags I removed were on the talk page. I realize that my earlier posting was unclear on this issue. I have revised it slightly. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm willing to try working with Researcher99's AMA first. I have encouraged Researcher99 to get an AMA for quite a while now. My hope is that with an AMA, we can direct the discussion toward the article, and that you can advise Researcher99 on proper Misplaced Pages policy. Let's try a short while with just an AMA. If that doesn't work, we can move to mediation. If Researcher99's behavior improves, we can probably handle it without mediation. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Historically, I added the disputed tag in the article, along with a section called disputed. This is still available in ]. This was archived to reduce the bloat on the talk page. My creation of the disputed section upset Researcher99, though he didn't respond on the talk page to my suggestions. After waiting a reasonable amount of time, I made the changes. I believe that Researcher99 wants to revert some of my changes back, though he hasn't explained why. Because of Researcher99's complaints, I haven't removed the tag. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Researcher99 mentioned Tom Green and group marriage as 2 topics for resolution in ]. This attempt at resolution was stuck on a few points: |
|
|
:*Researcher99 wants to defer to him as an expert in the topic of polygamy, which may mean that he doesn't need citations. |
|
|
:*He wants to NPOV tag removed before we discuss the NPOV item of Christian polygamy. I was willing to do it briefly, with a short timeline. |
|
|
:Researcher99 also insisted on continuing to discuss the past, rather than the resolution, and continued attacking me. After nearly 2 weeks, the resolution was stuck, which was why I was willing to try outside help, from anyone. |
|
|
|
|
|
:My primary active problem is the section currently marked NPOV, which describes Christian polygamy. ] discusses this in details, but again we weren't able to reach a resolution. I made many suggestions for a rewrite. Researcher99 rejected all of them, and offered none in return. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I also want to reorganize the article a bit, and the proposed rewrite is moving in the right direction, but will take quite a while to complete. ] 15:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hmm, I'd like to include Researcher in the process before beginning to discuss. You should understand that I can't work alone nor as a mediator as I'm advocating Researcher. Obviously, I don't want to begin an edit war nor to do anything for getting this to Arbitration (which is the worst work I've ever done as an advocate, despite some user's think that we AMA only work to get some 'fun' in such processes). |
|
|
::The resolution you want to give to this dispute, as far as I understood it, includes me as a kind of mediator between you and Researcher, what is strictly incompatible according to both the AMA guidelines and the Mediation Committe. I suggested to go forward an official mediation, but now I have another better idea: |
|
|
#Stop the RfC against Researcher: It will, sooner or later, get into an obstacle in a mediation and in the dispute resolution as it has been considered by Researcher something very agressive that set him up (see my talk page). |
|
|
#After that step, request a mediation. If you both agree that I should request it personally, I'll do it. In the mediation, as you surely know, I'll defend Researcher as that is my work. |
|
|
#Parallel to the mediation, the dispute should be reported to an Request for comment, but not against someone: the article itself will be listed and new people will enter into the discussion with new ideas (for further dispute you may have, the RfC against users are totally useless as my experience tells me. Anytime a serious dispute begins, list the '''page''' in the RfC page). |
|
|
My proposal can be summarized as "to do everthing so this thing doesn't go into an Arbitration". Any comments? I'll tell Researcher about this. --] 19:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You're right, we shouldn't go too far with Researcher99. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm not explaining myself well, and perhaps I'm not sure that I know what to expect from you. I'm hoping that you will help Researcher99 to explain the what he wants to change in a clear way. You may even encourage him to provide citations when he wants changes. I suspect that you can even make suggestions for how he can get write the Christian polygamy section without running into POV problems. I expect that you are more familiar with standard wikipedia policy than Researcher99 is, and that dealing with you and he together will be much better than dealing with him alone. For this reason, I suggest that we hold off on mediation for now. If we still have problems resolving the dispute, then we should try mediation. Give it a week or so and see whether we make progress. I expect to still disagree, but productively, and eventually reach agreement. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Perhaps I'm hoping for too much from you. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't want to stop the RfC against Researcher99. Researcher99 considers almost any edit to be an agressive act, see ]. His behavior has been so bad over the past few months that something needs to be done about it. Editing on this article has come to a standstill because of him. Many outside people have offered opinions and help. Researcher99 has always disagreed, and usually calls them anti-polygamists, eventually driving them away. If there is evidence that he improves, I am willing to consider dropping the RfC, but not until then. I think that Researcher99 could provide some useful information, but his energy needs to be better focused. I suspect that you will help him focus his energy in productive areas, rather than unproductive areas. The problem is that Researcher99 is rarely willing to discuss content. If he were willing to explain what he wants, we may be able to make progress. Talking about a mythical true status quo from the distant past does not help. |
|
|
|
|
|
:There was one item that I did put up for RFC quite a while ago, but it didn't get a response, under ]. I just updated the link today to point to the archived discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I understand that you can't commit to anything without Researcher99. ] 19:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I also removed dubious tags from the talk page. See for a particularly bad faith edit, which is a reason I am not ready to remove the RfC. dubious and NPOV on the talk page. Comments at the top of the page, rather than the bottom, including comments above the archive links. ] 23:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I will explain my point of view with an experience I had when advocating a user who led on of the greatest and most absurd disputes in the whole Misplaced Pages's history, known as the Lincoln-Darwin dispute. The dispute itself consisted in whether the birthday coincidence between Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin should be included or not. My "client" was the main defender in including the fact in the article ] and this led quickly into a very long edit war. Well, this user was very aggressive on his posts and this resulted in a 1 year ban, but some users of the other party also got a 3 months ban for a very implicit aggressivity against my work as advocate. My point is that we're only watching the "obvious" bad faith but not if there's a deeper one. Also, I'm very dubious of a Researcher's voluntary bad faith, I see, from the links you give me, that he's up set (obviously, he overreacted) and that he feels his rights aren't been respected. Anyway, I asked another advocate that's working for Researcher (]) about his opinion, only to be sure if I'm right. Thoughts, comments? |
|
|
::It seems that Researcher is a kind of Wikibreak... --] 23:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I understand what you are saying. Perhaps. I have tried to be nice, though I haven't always succeeded. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I do believe that Researcher99 is mostly upfront about his feelings. He is probably not a troll. I also think that he has a very interesting perspective on polygamy. It would be nice to explain this perspective in an NPOV manner. |
|
|
|
|
|
:In my best case scenario, there wouldn't be any bans, just a change in behavior. Both of us are a little nervous about the other's behavior. If Researcher99 had the equivalent of a mentor, whether formal or not, I would be very happy. Both of us (and every one else who is interested) could try to reach agreement on many issues. I suspect that I would be calmer if I knew that someone was advising Researcher99. I want to see a real change in behavior, but I'm willing to give it another try. If there really is a change in behavior, I won't care about the RfC. ] 05:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think that it would be useful to go through the disputed topics one by one, but first we would need a list of disputed topics. Researcher99 and I almost agreed to this, but perhaps needed someone to direct the discussion. We were stuck in a discussion of the past rather than the future. That, and the Researcher99's insistence that he is the expert on the topic of polygamy. ] 06:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Mediation== |
|
|
I'm not sure how this mediation thing works. As it is, it is impossible for anybody else to contribute to the ] article without having to sift through paragraphs and pages of ]'s accusations and efforts to buy time. Is it the case that nothing further can be contributed to the article until this dispute, which has been going on for months, is resolved? This talk page is a mess, mostly because of ]'s increasingly frantic badgering of other contributers who came to the page genuinely interested in making this page better--their contributions are labeled as POV "anti-polygamy propaganda" , |
|
|
which is nothing but unsupported abuse. Is the RfC going forward? (I think it should, as ] has shown himself to be unable to work with and respect other editors) If there is a mediation, where will it take place? on the ] page? Who will be included? New people who want to help with the page are effectively being scared away by the mammoth size of the talk page (mostly due to ]'s comments). There has to be something done about this, soon. ] 08:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] requires that all parties agree. Researcher99 has so far failed to comment on my requests for mediation, except to call my requests vandalization of his user page. I added my previous requests for mediation to ]. I forgot to add that earlier. All parties should be involved, if we agree on an issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree that until Researcher99 demonstrates a willingness to work with other, the RfC should go on. He might have a change of heart. He has now found an ]. Otherwise, RfC takes a while, a few more comments are added. Perhaps Researcher99 follows the advice of the RfC. If not, the next step is arbitration and banning. It would be better to have a polite resolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
:] is a disputed guideline which allows removal of personal attacks, which probably includes accusations of anti-polygamy. I haven't felt comfortable with this in the past, and Researcher99 then adds more comments to the talk page about how these actions are abusive. ] 16:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Christianity & Islam == |
|
|
|
|
|
Due to the current attemps to resolve this hotly disputed article, I feel I should make this comment. I don't want to step on toes but I think it needs to be said. Ignoring for a minute that most people probably regard the Christianity bit at the end as extremely POV and too poorly written to merit inclusing in Misplaced Pages, most of these same arguments can be made for Islamic polygyny. For example, in a number of Islamic countries the husband is required to get the written permission of the current wife/ves before taking another one and in theory at least is not allowed to coerce the any of the wife/ves into accepting. Similarly as has been mentioned in the article, in many cases the rights of each wife is protected and the husband is supposed to be fair to each wife (although the interpretation of this varies). While in pratice, the rights of women in a number of Islamic countries may be limited, this is not always the case and in this is really a seperate issue. In fact, I'm sure most of the arguments can not only be made for Islamic polygyny but polygamy in many other religious and non-religious instances as well. Therefore, I fail to see how even if we decide to include the bit on Christian polygamy at the end it can be limited to Christianity... ] 21:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please, step on some toes. Which section do you mean, ], or ]? |
|
|
|
|
|
:I would like to see each country's laws mentioned, though it will take a while to do so. Yes, I consider the Christian polygamy section extremely POV. I think that Researcher99 and I (and others) will soon discuss this paragraph. Some Christian polygamists do not think that wives should be required to agree with future wives. This should also be mentioned, but will take some work doing so. ] 23:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Disputed== |
|
|
I'm conflicted about adding this section again. Some of us are in the middle of a rewrite. One of Researcher99's has pointed out that there is no longer a description of disputes in this section. I have added one of the worst of the incidents, which was referred to by ]. Perhaps more will be added. Perhaps we will continue with the rewrite. ] 23:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===]=== |
|
|
This section is badly POV. There are a few issues. Mormons consider themselves Christians. The phrase: |
|
|
:Most Christian polygamists are usually quite geographically separated from other like-minded believers. |
|
|
implicitly excludes ], who make up a large part of Christian polygamists, and often live in communities of other Mormon polygamists, |
|
|
|
|
|
This sentence: |
|
|
:LoveNotForce.com sets the "standard of Christian Polygamy." |
|
|
is also quite POV, suggesting that any other interpretation of Christian polygamy is inferior to this interpretation. |
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, this section describes the teachings of truthbearer.org, which is a group or sect of Christian polygamists, the group that Researcher99 seems to be associated with. I'm not sure what the right word is for this group. Other non-Mormon Christian polygamists disagree with this group. http://www.nccg.org/fecpp/CPM051-History.html describes some of the beliefs of other Christian polygamists. I'm not clear about how many people these web sites represent, but they consider themselves to be Christian polygamists, who disagree with the love-not-force concept. also has a different take on Christian polygamy. Both of them were once associated, perhaps slightly, with truthbearer.org. Here's a possible rewrite |
|
|
|
|
|
:Most non-Mormon Christian polygamists are geographically separated from other Christian polygamists. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Truth Bearer, a Christian polygamist group, uses a standard which they call love-not-force ({{Web reference simple | title=LoveNotForce.com|URL=http://www.lovenotforce.com/|date=August 2|year=2005}}, should be in footnote). Husbands are not allowed to force polygamy on any current wife. If "God truly calls" a husband to polygamy, then a husband must wait until "God truly calls" the wife to also embrace polygamy. Christian polygamy does not promise rewards for engaging in polygamy. This branch of Christian polygamy is based on the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, on the instructions in Ephesians 5:22-25. Because Christian polygamy involves no religious "rewards" for polygamy, there is no pressure upon women to embrace it. Truth Bearer polygamous families seek moral, Christian women. A Truth Bearer polygamist wife is often a secularly-divorced Christian mother whose ex-husband abandoned her and the children. |
|
|
|
|
|
Researcher99 previously responded to this suggestion at ], and objects to the rewrite, but did not give an alternative version. I have added this to RfCs ] and ]. ] 23:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't see this issue on the ] page. Did you make a mistake? thanks. Also, it seems like a discussion of how these other Christian polygamy groups, including , differ from the people would be appropriate. ] 06:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I made a mistake. I forgot to add the item to the religion page. It's there now. You're right that a discussion would be good. I only slightly understand. Researcher99 considers the other web sites to be single individuals, and not worthy of mention. I think that mentioning love-not-force almost requires the mention of a competing viewpoint, even if it were just one crazy loner. Clearly, love-not-force is implicitly referring to another believe on women's right to choose polygamy. ] 07:04, 5 September 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)