Misplaced Pages

So, actually, rather than prove your point, the piece you have cited has instead further demonstrated my point. The author most clearly did not "use polygamy to allow multiple partners, regardless of sex" but dealt with polyamory instead, as her title shows. Instead, she (and, more importantly, the Oxford English Dictionary) actually clearly confirmed what I have been saying. That is, polygamy is only either polygyny or polyandry.

Researcher 16:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You may have missed this line in Emens, which makes her usage clear:

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

This establishes use in a non-sex specific manner, which includes group marriage.

The OED definition has a ";" between its various descriptions, the first two definitions do not mention gender "Marriage with several, or more than one, at once" and "plurality of spouses". The third mentions gender.

In short, there are references which consider group marriage to be a form of polygamy. However, you still have polygyny and polyandry to specify gender-specific groups. Nereocystis 17:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You are adding subjective re-interpretation to the text, trying to make it imply something additional which it does not do. (I heard someone use that term, "subjective re-interpretation," and it fits very well here.) Plus, the original word of "spouse" originally only meant "wife of a husband." It was then later vernacularly modifed by monogamous egalitarianism to also mean "husband of a wife." The notion of a "husband having a husband," however, is only something that is conceived from within the very modern homosexual POV, but it is not in historic English language, as that dictionary was about. So, when the author refers to polygamy, using the dictionary definition, being "several spouses, regardless of sex," the latter clause means that it is either polygyny or polyandry, "regardless" if it is the male sex with multiple spouses (wives) or of it is the female sex with multiple spouses (husbands). It never suggests that a "group" is involved or the very modern exclusively homosexual POV of a "spouse" as also being defined as "husband of a husband." You really have to read her article, it is completely about polyamory and she is very clearly not trying to suggest that "group marriage" is what actual "polygamy" is. It escapes me why you are trying to use a writer on polyamory to try to re-define polygamy to make it means something it does not and she was not seeking to achieve. more than that, it really is also not very accurate to use a writer talking mostly about polyamory as if she is the legitimate source for re-defining polygamy. Polygamy was not her topic there, anyway. Researcher 18:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The term "polyamorous" is not accurate because it assumes that all of the partners in the group marriage are "in love with" each other. While Nereocystis wants to make sure the article recognizes that not all group marriages are heterosexual, we can't forget that the term originated as a description of male-female relationships. In such a case, the marriage is simultaneously polygynous and polyandrous, hence the zoological term "polygynandry". The husbands need not feel "married" to each other, but only to their shared wives. Dunkelza 23:24, 16 August 2005 (EDT)

Your point is well taken. Earlier today, I posted An Archived TALK at Polygamy, led to "Poly Relationship" article. As that would indicate, group marriage would more appropriately fall under the category of poly relationship. But it is definitely not a "form of polygamy." Researcher 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the use of said term is misleading, in that polygynous and polyandrous relationships are also considered to be polyamorous. The most commonly cited form of polyamorous relationship is a "triangle", "triad", "vee", or "troika", which is quite clearly one individual (the "hinge") connected to two mates. To be clear in our articles, the word polyamory should be used in articles about "love", while polygamy belongs in articles about "marriage". Dunkelza 23:24, 16 August 2005 (EDT)

While polygamy could be viewed as a subset of polyamory, the reverse is not true. Also, though, as you rightly pointed out above that group marriage might not involve everyone in the "group" loving as a means to show it might not always qualify to be called polyamory, the same is true for polygamy. That does not mean that group marriage equals polygamy, but only that they share characteristics which could, at times, disqualify either from being udnerstood as polyamory. Researcher 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

While a few anthropologists are still using the unclear, pre-Boaz definitions, most are using the term "polygamy" as dichotomous with "monogamy". In this case, monogamy and polygamy are the two big categories into which other, more specific definitions of marriage are placed. Indeed, the use of group marriage as a separate category unto itself is usually only taught when talking about the early history of anthropology. In these historic instances, the term group marriage is usually associated with "savagery", a word that no self-respecting, modern anthropologist will apply to any culture. Dunkelza 23:24, 16 August 2005 (EDT)

Please read the other section I created today, An Archived TALK at Polygamy, led to "Poly Relationship" article. Researcher 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Dunkelza wrote:

1. http://www.mrdefine.com/polygamy
2. http://www.anthrogeeks.com/intro/archives/archive_2005-w11.php
3. http://www.csupomona.edu/~ddwills/courses/ant102/readings102/Study%20Guide%202.html
4. http://www.spjc.edu/se/courses/syllabus2/ANT2410.htm
5. http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/sexology/Reiss3/html/chcgl.htm

Dunkelza 23:24, 16 August 2005 (EDT)

The first citation there is only an outdated copy of Misplaced Pages's polygamy article. FULL CIRCLE! Nereocystis first put "group marriage" into the Misplaced Pages polygamy. Now we have a citation from a copycat-site of that same Misplaced Pages article used as justification to verify the error! I hope I am not the only one here who finds that genuinely hilarious. It really is funny - although still invalid, of course. Researcher 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The second citation only separates into definitions of monogamy, polygyny, polyandry, and group marriage. It says nothing about "group marriage" as being polygamy. Researcher 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The fourth citation does nothing more than ask a single line, "What is polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, and group marriage?" Researcher 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The third and fifth citations are merely single line vaguely-stated unresearched additions to concepts. The third citation only lists "group marriage" after "polygyny" and "polyandry" as all three are subheaded under "polygamy." The fifth citation does nothing more than add to the "group marriage" glossary line that "group marriage" supposedly is a "form of polygamy." In both of those citations, they could be nothing more than lazy compilers who may even have gotten that erroneous information from the incorrect Misplaced Pages polygamy article -- which would prove my point why it is wrong for that error to remain there, of course. The point is, these citations are not really sufficient as valid proofs that "group marriage" is "polygamy." Rather, it is more evidence of the confusion about what polygamy is by those who do not really study or not that much about it. That confusion was explained by the author whom Nereocystis cited here, on 17:31, 16 August 2005. I appreciate that you are making citations, but they really do need to be valid citations for us to rely upon them. Researcher 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Synopsis:

1. The word true has been deleted, so that true polygamy no longer appears in this article, per Researcher99's request.
2. There are references which show that the word polygamy is used to include group marriage. Hence the word polygamy is acceptable to use.

If this is incorrect, please state, in 1 or 2 sentences, what needs to change. Provide references, if needed. Nereocystis 19:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the removal of the "true polygamy." That is a good thing. The "polygamy" part is incorrect though. It is incorrect because only the noted confusion about polygamy causes people to think it could also include "group marriage" when it does not. Even the cited OED clearly spelled out that polygamy was only polygyny or polyandry, especially when considering the meaning of "spouses" in historic English. It is not appropriate to have a Misplaced Pages article define a term incorrectly, justifying that mistake from people's mistaken "confusions" or admitted choice of re-definition. For better accuracy and simplicity for us all around, it is simpler to just say that "group marriage" is a poly relationship. I have made that edit to reflect that. We can let it sit that way - at least, until it is further resolved here, if there are any more questions about it. Even for anyone who still has questions for us to discuss about it here, having us keep the article as being a poly relationship can be agreeable for everyone, is an accurate way to be displayed, and does not mislead the reader. It is appropriate whether it stays that way permanently or we come to a better description here later. Researcher 20:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting out of hand. I think that this discussion is becoming circular, I believe that clear linguistic, sociological, and anthropological evidence has been given in support of the pro-polygamy argument and that no evidence to the contrary has been presented aside from personal opinion or original research.

"Monogamy" is any marriage to ONE and only one person. "Polygamy" is any marriage to more than one person. These are standard definitions in modern anthropological and sociological circles. Even if this were not the case, group marriage is SIMULTANEOUSLY polygyny and polyandry, both of which ARE by Researcher's definition, "polygamy". Therefore, group marriage IS polygamy.

We need to wrap this up. I'll probably insist on a revert to the article to its August 7th state unless we can figure this out soon. Dunkelza 19:24, 18 August 2005 (EDT)

I suggest choosing a favorite anthropological or sociological reference book for a citation on the definition of polygamy. I used E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology in Polygamy, though not as clearly referenced as I prefer. Dunkelza may have such a reference nearby. Then the subject can be wrapped up. The reference should probably be on the article's page. Nereocystis 23:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm a-lookin', most of my books are either packed up or sold back to the bookstore; but, I'll see what I can find. Considering that Nereocystis and I will not stand for the complete disassociation of group marriage from polygamy and Researcher doesn't want to say that it IS polygamy, what about:

Group marriage or Circle Marriage is a polygamy-like form of marriage in which more than one man and more than one woman form a family unit...

Dunkelza 19:24, 18 August 2005 (EDT)

Wilson, in Sociobiology says:

Polygamy in the broad sense covers any form of multiple mating. The special case in which a single male mates with more than one female is called polygyny, while the mating of one female iwth more than one male is call polyandry. ... In the narrower sense preferred zoologiests, polygamy also implies the formation of at least a temporary pair bond. Otherwise, multiple matings are commonly defined as promiscuous.

A group marriage definitely counts as a pair bond of at least temporary nature. We really have evidence that group marriage is called polygamy. If Researcher99 can provide a reference that someone doesn't consider group marriage to be polygamy, that can be mentioned as well. Without a reference, there is no need avoid the use of the word polygamy.

I don't like "polygamy-like" since that suggests that group marriage isn't polygamy. My first choice is "polygamous marriage". My second choice is simply "marriage". Perhaps we should go with the latter for now, try to look up the references, and revisit it later. If we skip the mention of polygamy, there should be "See also" reference. "Poly relationship" is not acceptable, since that suggests that group marriage is less than a marriage.

Unfortunately, Researcher99 will revisit this issue soon in the polygamy article, which are currently getting help resolving our differences there. Dunkelza should feel free to join in. Nereocystis 12:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I found a better reference. In Template:Book reference link,page 24,

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

And on page 25

A statistical analysis of Kaingang genealogies for a period of 100 years showed that 8 per cent of all recorded unions were group marriages, as compared with 14 per cent for polyandrous, 18 per cent for polygynous, and 60 per cent for monogamous unions.

The disadvantage of working at a medical school is that the anthropology texts are not extensive, but they aren't checked out often either. This had been sitting on the shelf for over 20 years, deep in the recesses of the basement. Murdock is a sufficient reference for polygamy including group marriage. Nereocystis 06:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

And on page 2:

A polygamous family consists of two or more nuclear families affiliated by plural marriages, i.e., having one married parent in common.

And from a footnote on the same page:

The terms "polygamy" and "polygamous" will be used throughout this work in their recognized technical sense as referring to any form of plural marriage

Polygyny and polyandry are also defined here. The definition from page 25 makes it clear that polygamy extends to group marriage. Nereocystis 20:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Researcher99 does have a source which does not include group marriage under polygamy. Both of his links refer to sites hosted by thestandardbearer.com, run by Mark Henkel. Both definitions are from Henkel, I believe. There isn't anything wrong with this, of course. I just want to establish that the two links ultimately come from the same source. While Henkel refers to a definition of polygamy, he doesn't explain his source for this definition. Both links Researcher99 mentioned were edited just a short while before his comment here. I can't find any evidence of there existence before this time. http://www.christianpolygamy.info/what-christian-polygamy-is-not/ (also changed today) currently links to the group marriage page, but it didn't on October 11, 2004 (http://web.archive.org/web/20041011060919/http%3A//www.christianpolygamy.info/what-christian-polygamy-is-not/). Strangely enough, I can't find the group marriage web page on google when I search for it. Perhaps Researcher99 can explain how to find this page on google. It isn't in waybackmachine.org either.

I think that the web page is more correctly called "Christian polygamy does not include group marriage". Perhaps we could include a section called "proponents and opponents of group marriage", which includes a comment from Henkel. I think that Mark Henkel misunderstands the standard definition of polygamy. I think that he doesn't want group marriage linked with polygamy because he considers group marriage immoral.

For this article's definition, I want a definitions of group marriage and polygamy to be independent of morality.

Is there anything else to discuss before we resolve this issue? Nereocystis 20:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Nereocystis's double-standard

I ask that everyone please look at this harrassing double standard by Nereocystis in the last post above (as made in their posting edits made from here through here.) When Dunkelza had previously provided many links that turned out to be meaningless, Nereocystis looks the other way. But I provide valid links proving the point, and Nereocystis goes all out to try to invent a reason to discredit the links of proven authority sites.

As I showed a few weeks ago to Nereocystis, the TruthBearer organization also provides webhosting at its other site TruthBearer.NET. Just because a community comes together to have their sites hosted like that does not mean it is only one person. A second double standard here by Nereocystis is shown by their past attempts to claim one-man sites are "groups." In this case on this page, there's proof of a community using a similar webhost and yetNereocystis wants to try to call it as one man! The irony would be funny if it was not so offensive in its abusiveness.

Additionally, the sites I listed are considered valid enough for the Wall Street Journal and schoolbook publisher McGraw Hill.

Pro-Polygamy.com - yesterday, I cited this page here from that site. That site has been reported in the Wall Street Journal. WSJ Helps End Polygamy Controversy of 'Turley's Arguments'. One of the links at the bottom of that page shows the link address to the Wall Street Journal, here. Because that requires a user log in, the article may be read for free at another place where it was also published, with the same title, I Wed Thee, and Thee, and Thee. PFM's Chuck Colson cites that Wall Street Journal article in the bibliography of his article here. The article is also re-posted at Maggie Gallagher's MarriageDebate.com here, and at FamilyScholars.org here.

ChristianPolygamy.info - yesterday, I cited this page here from that site. That site has been been used by college textbook publisher, McGraw-Hill. In a book titled, Reflections on Anthropology: A Four-Field Reader, the Web Links page for the book cites ChristianPolygamy.info, identifying it by saying "Quote: "The definitive resource for general information about Christian polygamy." This is a modern, US-based, evangelical conservative Christian movement."

Despite Nereocystis's abusive attempt to try to discredit these definitively recognized sites, the sites are undeniably proven authority sites on the polygamy topic. Their input carries far more weight than the mere opinion of the aggressive POV and agenda of Nereocystis who routinely tries to have things say what they do not even say (as they opbviously did, for example, with the Oxford Enlish Dictionary definition on this TALK page here).

The amount of time that Nereocystis spent digging into the history of the site is also an extreme double standard. They looked the other way entirely when Dunkelza made many links that turned out to be meaningless, but Nereocystis jumps right on top of the quality links I provide and tries to invent a mystery and to discredit the links if they can (but can not). Their doing that is also another example of the abusive way in which they purposely harrass me into being forced into spending my time explaining answers to the abusive and wrong ideas they come up with.

Here is another example which will prove my topic expertise and Nereocystis's lack of it. About the ChristianPolygamy.Info group marriage article I cited yesterday, I will take a quick step-by-step process here to show what has obviously happened.

I will start with the other article I cited yesterday, from Pro-Polygamy.com, titled, 700 Club airs its First Report on Christian Polygamy Movement. The article there is dated Aug 16, 2005. At the bottom of that page, there are some bibliographic links. One leads to this page here. That article explains how the 700 Club had originally scheduled that segment to appear on July 21st. But it bumped from the news portion that day. The rest of the show that day focused on other issues including group marriage and wife swapping. With the segment to be re-scheduled for a later time, the Christian Polygamy community was then able to get into action to clarify the false assumptions and implications. When the segment did appear on August 16, the community was more prepared. So, this new group marriage article at ChristianPolygamy.info occured because of that.

Nereocystis seems to be trying to invent some mystery about the site where there is none. Sites regularly edit typos or whatever, and I remember hearing that dynamic types of web-sites have things that cause them to change regularly anyway. So Nereocystis's hinting about site edits or whatever means nothing. Their trying to say the link can't be found in google is also false. I found it at the top of the page by searching group marriage. Despite their attempt to invent a mystery, there is none. It is only another example of the abuse they pile onto me repeatedly, thoroughyl destroying the WIkipedia experience for me.

Honestly, this is exactly the kind of abuse from Nereocystis which really has to stop. I have now had to spend hours just to make this one reply. I should not have had to. The proven sites of authority on the topic have provided the answers. Just because it does not let Nereocystis have the false definition they want to put out does not change that. This abuse is what keeps me form being able to have more productive postings too. (For example, I had wanted to post more in-depth in the polygamy TALK pages today, but this took away the time I had for that. It's just more abuse.

The most offensive thing of all for me here is the extreme double-standard by Nereocystis. When someone else provided many reference links which were not even really valid, Nereocystis just looked the other way. But I cite two authority sites, and I get this kind of abuse of invented "mystery," forcing me to spend hours to disprove their false claims and keeping me from making other posts I really would have preferred to be making.

It is my hope that someone with credibilty at Misplaced Pages will eventually be able to see how seriously abusive that Nereocystis is in targeting everything I do and say with such hostility and double-standard, and to be able to stop it for me. I only want to be productive and true NPOV, but I really should not have to bear this kind of perpetual abuse. I still hope. Researcher 20:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The ChristianPolygamy.info does not provide a link for the definition of polygamy which excludes group marriage.

Google's search now has a sponsored link for the "group marriage". I admit that I don't usually look for sponsored links. It may have been there yesterday. I apologize for missing it. The link still doesn't appear under the results section.

Researcher99, I have 2 questions for you:

1. Did you write the christianpolygamy.info article on group marriage?
2. Did you pay for the placement of this article on google?

Nereocystis 20:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I am still uncertain where Researcher99 has provided citations showing that the broad, scientific classification of "polygamy" can not include group marriage. All that I've seen are citations that speak to one or another specific forms of polygamy as espoused by certain groups. I'm interested in a purely encyclopedic article, not one that caters to the "Christian Polygamy" movement or even the "Polyamory" movement. Dunkelza 19:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right, Dunkelza. Even if the citations are valid, they don't provide a reason to make a change. Nereocystis 23:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

As Dunkelza suggested in Talk:Polygamy#Dispute Resolution, let's finish this discussion during our rewrite of the polygamy article. Nereocystis 17:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"Polygynandry" is NOT even a word

The article currently also declares another false statement. It makes up a new word, saying that "group marriage" is sometimes called "polygynandry." I just looked up the word, and polygynandry does not exist. The person who added that word appears to have made up a word, and they did not even Misplaced Pages:Cite sources. I'll check back in about a week to see if anyone has more to add about this. At that time, if there is nothing more to discuss or explain, I'll make the correction. Researcher 17:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

--- Citations for Polygynandry: (I don't LIKE the word, but it is a technical term in zoology)

There were at least 10 pages of hits off Altavista. Dunkelza 23:10, 8 August 2005 (EDT)

I am quite surprised at how much your citations are not valid either. I am not trying to shoot citations down, but, Dunkelza, you really got check the sources you're citing. The first one is useless. The second one is only about mating. The third one has so many popups and ads that it appears as one of those out-for-profit-only money-maker sites that quickly throw content together in order to generate ad revenues based on keywords. The fourth one is also only about mating. None of these really justify calling "group marriage" as "polygynandry." If it even is a word, in "zoology" as you note, although no dictionary seems to be showing "polygynandry" exists as a word, then it appears to me that that term is only applicable to mating systems of the animal kingdom. It also seems more as animal promiscuity than "marriage," even for animals. (While animals do not "marry," I do realize that some have "monogamous" bondings and "polygamous" bondings, as they term it zoologically. But "polygynandyry" sounds like no permanent bonding is even possible, meaning promiscuity instead, animal-wise.) That does not make it "another word" for "group marriage." It could be mentioned in some other Misplaced Pages article about zoology and mating, but it does not seem to apply here at all. Researcher 17:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I performed a BIOSIS search on ovid.com and found 31 journal references, reputable, I believe. Here are the first 10, some mentioning the word in the title, others not:

1. Vermette, Richard ; Fairbairn, Daphne J. . How well do mating frequency and duration predict paternity success in the polygynandrous water strider Aquarius remigis? Evolution. 56(9). September, 2002. 1808-1820.
2. Haydock, Joseph ; Koenig, Walter D. . Reproductive skew in the polygynandrous acorn woodpecker Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 99(10). May 14, 2002. 7178-7183.
3. Campbell, Veronique ; Fairbairn, Daphne J. . Prolonged copulation and the internal dynamics of sperm transfer in the water strider Aquarius remigis Canadian Journal of Zoology. 79(10). October, 2001. 1801-1812.
4. Winterbottom, M. ; Burke, T. ; Birkhead, T. R. . The phalloid organ, orgasm and sperm competition in a polygynandrous bird: The red-billed buffalo weaver (Bubalornis niger) Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology. 50(5). October, 2001. 474-482.
5. Bishton, Glenn . Social structure, habitat use and breeding biology of hedgerow Dunnocks Prunella modularis Bird Study. 48(2). July, 2001. 188-193.
6. Jones, A. G. ; Avise, J. C. . Mating systems and sexual selection in male-pregnant pipefishes and seahorses: Insights from microsatellite-based studies of maternity Journal of Heredity. 92(2). March-April, 2001. 150-158.
7. Chiba, Akira ; Nakamura, Masahiko . Note on the morphology of the sperm storage tubules in the polygynandrous alpine accentor, Prunella collaris Journal of the Yamashina Institute for Ornithology. 32(2). 29 December, 2000. 73-79.
8. Sommer, Volker ; Reichard, Ulrich . Deconstructing monogamy: Thailand's gibbons at Khao Yai Folia Primatologica. 71(5). September-October, 2000. 362.
9. Briskie, James V. . Song variation and the structure of local song dialects in the polygynandrous Smith's Longspur Canadian Journal of Zoology. 77(10). Oct., 1999. 1587-1594.
10. Goldizen, Anne W. ; Buchan, Jason C. ; Putland, David A. ; Goldizen, Alan R. ; Krebs, Elizabeth A. . Patterns of mate-sharing in a population of Tasmanian Native Hens Gallinula mortierii Ibis. 142(1). Jan. , 2000. 40-47.

Nereocystis 13:36, 11 August 2005

Here's a quote from the Haydock article cited above:

This species provides a key test case because only a few vertebrates exhibit polygynandry (multiple breeders of both sexes within a group).

The relative rarity of the practice may explain your unfamiliarity with the word. The application to humans in group marriage is direct.

Synopsis:

Researcher99 stated that polygynandry is not a word. References have been supplied showing that it is a word. Is there anything more which needs to be done with polygynandry? Nereocystis 19:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

References have NOT shown that it is a word, although a few invalid links have shown that some may have made up the word. More than that, I akcnoledged that even if it is a word, it is only applicable in the zoological context as that is the only thing where it comes from in the supposed "references." 1.) What is the "link" to the "Haydock" article? I find no link to find the article at all. 2.) Does a term not found in dictionary qualify for saying it exists? 3.) If the term only applies zoologically, and is not being used in addressing humans in "group marriage," then it is only subjectivity trying to label it as "group marriage" when not one mention has called it that. As I said before, mayeb it could be in a zoological article about mating, but does not seem to have any basis for being in the "group marriage" article. 4.) The references have all not been that quality anyway, as I have shown. (If the other, unlinked "references" have links, I would be glad to check them, too.) With all this, it is very aggressive to try to quickly suggest the discussion is altready "over" when there has not been any evidence that human "group marriage" is ever actually called by the "zoological term" of polygyandry. 19:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Please search for Haydock above. It's an article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, a respected journal. You may be able to retrieve it as http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/10/7178, but I'm not sure that translates outside my site. I included 10 references total from journals, all respected. I can give you more. You'll have to look up the journals yourself, however.

Here's another reference which refers specifically to humans:

Title: Mental health aspects of Arab-Israeli adolescents from polygamous versus monogamous families.

Author: Al-Krenawi, Alean Graham, John R Slonim-Nevo, Vered

Source: Journal of Social Psychology, 142 (4): 446(15), August 2002. ISSN: 0022-4545

Polygamy has been defined as "a marital relationship involving multiple wives" (Kottak, 1978, as cited in Low, 1988, p. 189). It occurs in Europe, North America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Oceania (Altman & Gmat, 1996). It includes three types, the first of which is most prevalent worldwide and was the sole concern in the present study: (a) Polygyny occurs when one husband is married to two or more wives and is hereinafter referred to as polygamy; (b) polyandry occurs when one wife is married to two or more husbands; and (c) polygynandry is a group marriage scenario in which two or more wives are simultaneously married to two or more husbands.

This author uses the definition of polygamy which is limited to one husband and multiple wives, but includes the use of the word polygynandry for humans.

We have 10 references to scientific biological journals, one to a psychology journal, plus multiple altavista hits. Polygynandry is a word, and it applies to humans. Is there anything else which needs to be done before this issue is closed? Nereocystis 20:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, just to throw another log on the fire, I'd like to point out that "polygamy" is also a zoological term, and in such cases ONLY refers to multiple sex partners, not marriage (opposite the statement on the page). Humans are animals, and as such, zoological terms can be applied to us as well. In many cases, physical anthropologists share terminology with zoologists and biologists so as to avoid confusion. This has led to such terms being widely appropriated by other social scientists. Dunkelza 19:40, 18 August 2005 (EDT)

An Archived TALK at Polygamy, led to "Poly Relationship" article

In November, 2004, Calair and I had a productive discussion about the issues pertaining to polygamy, polyamory, etc., addressing what are the applicable subsets and so on. The result of the excellent discussion was the creation of a new article by Calair, on 04:54, 13 December 2004, called, Poly relationship. In understanding the differences, editors will want to read both that new article and the discussion that prompted it.

• Polygamy is about marriage, not sex (the discussion)
• Poly relationship

Researcher 15:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This discussion did not resolve the question of whether group marriage is a type of polygamy. Calair did not agree with you on the topic. Do you have a reference which says that polygamy does not include group marriage?

Group marriage is a form of marriage, which is a specific type of amorous relationship. In fact, marriage does not have to include romance or love at all. Saying that group marriage is a type of poly relationship is too general. We might as well say that group marriage is a form of interpersonal relationship. True, but too general. We still need to change this.

Perhaps Researcher99 should move this discussion to Talk:Polygamy, where we are trying to resolve the flow of the polygamy article, rather than overwhelming people on other articles. Will you agree, Researcher99? Nereocystis 22:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is my first chance back. Poly relationship is really the only broad enough term to correctly encompass it. I have not seen any valid reference yet that definitively declares human group marriage ever being "called polygynandry.". Drawing an inferrence is not citing a reference. Anyway, I can see that it is just too easy for people to confuse polygamy with group marriage, and I have been trying to explain it but have not been able to put my finger on the right words to communicate what I mean. Then I found this from google: Group Marriage (is not Polygamy). It puts into better words what I have been trying to explain. Its explanations of the difference of what it calls "poly monogamy" (polygamy) and "poly polygamy" (group marriage) put it better than I have been able to. That article also shows me more clearly why people are able to make that confusion. In google news search, I found another link which also declares how group marriage is not polygamy. About a different report, it states, "a sentence early in the report very accurately explained that it was addressing, 'a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and beyond - to 'polyamory,' or group marriage.' Indeed, most of the report focused on the 'beyond polygamy' subjects, dealing more specifically with the liberal, unbiblical concepts of polyamory and group marriage - neither of which are definitions of actual polygamy." Hopefully, these have better explained what I have not been able to do as well. Essentially, calling group marriage as polygamy is as wrong as saying polygamy is monogamy. Researcher 19:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back.

We have two issues here:

1. Does polygynandry apply to humans?
2. Is it appropriate to apply polygamy to group marriage?

Issue 1 is covered in #"Polygynandry" is NOT even a word, which includes references to using polygynandry to apply to humans.

Issue 2 is covered in #"Group marriage" is not called "True polygamy", which includes many references to group marriage being a form of polygamy, including Murdock, which was an expert on the matter. I prefer to keep the discussions in these headings, rather than repeat the issue here. Nereocystis 20:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The true NPOV solution to Polygamy question about Group Marriage

I have repeatedly tried to follow the footnote links to find the Murdock quote, but it has been a round and round chase to nowhere for me. I am not confident with a citation that is not backed up online.

Anyway, I have a solution to the question of polygamy and group marriage. It is a POV position to declare that group marriage is a form of polygamy. In this situation, there is legitimate evidence that that is not the case. However, it can be reasonable to include the additional mention that some believe that polygamy does include group marriage, but it is not NPOV to take that POV position of saying it as fact.

I have created a proposed solution to the polygamy question. It starts with the article taking the NPOV position of not defining group marriage as a form of polygamy. Instead, the opening line of the group marriage article simply defines it as a marital poly relationship. That addresses both the concern of correctly identifying the marriage issue as well as keeping it within the broader poly relationship context without taking a POV position. The article will then have the following proposed subsection I have placed below.

In this proposed subsection, I may have gone a little overboard with the references, but it seems that it has been necessary.

Additional note, in the proposed subsection below, wherever it says "{Reference Link Here}", I ask for anyone to provide a legitimate link to put there. This must be from a valid, credible source. When we can fill that in, I would be willing to then place it in the article.

Lastly, we are after an encyclopedic NPOV article here. It is very important and significant to consider what all real participants in the issues of group marriage and polygamy themselves demonstrate. It is for that reason that I firmly believe that the only NPOV solution here is by not defining group marriage as polygamy, but instead by reporting the disagreement that some have about saying they think it does mean that. To do it from the reverse, of defining polygamy as including group marriage, and then trying to back out of it by reporting the disagreement, not only is that based only in pure POV, but it completely ignores what the real people involved themselves demonstrate about the meaning of the words.

Here is my proposed subsection for a true NPOV solution.

Is Group Marriage a Form of Polygamy?

Disagreement exists as to whether or not group marriage may be properly identified as a third form of polygamy.

The Underlying Definition of Polygamy is Universally Accepted

It is universally accepted that the underlying definition of polygamy includes at least the two forms of either polygyny (one husband, plural wives) or polyandry (one wife, plural husbands). The Oxford English Dictionary defines polygamy as, "Marriage with several, or more than one, at once; plurality of spouses; the practice or custom according to which one man has several wives (distinctively called polygyny), or one woman several husbands (polyandry), at the same time. Most commonly used of the former." {Reference Link Here}

Some say Group Marriage is a "Third Form" of Polygamy

In addition to the universally accepted underlying definition, however, there are some who believe that group marriage (plural husbands, plural wives) should also be added as a third form of polygamy. {Reference Link Here} They state that polygamy includes three forms: polygyny, polyandry, and group marriage. {Reference Link Here}

Others say Group Marriage is "Beyond Polygamy"

Others disagree with the assertion of adding group marriage to that underlying definition of polygamy. They say that group marriage goes "beyond polygamy." They argue that polygamy is only "poly monogamy," one polygamist with opposite-gender spouses who are actually monogamous toward the polygamist. In that context, group marriage is understood as "poly polygamy," plural spouses of one gender who are all polygamous with all of the other-gender spouses in the group, vice versa, or even, in some cases, involving homosexual/bisexual relationships as well. Proponents of this argument conclude that attempting to identify group marriage as a form of polygamy is the equivalent to attempting to identify polygamy as a form of monogamy.

Online Group Marriage and Polygamy Proponents Avoid Each Other

Online internet activity demonstrates that both group marriage and polygamy proponents typically agree with that latter argument. Both generally support only the underlying definition of polygamy to the exclusion of group marriage, and that both are separate concepts altogether.

Group marriage proponents do not accept the exclusively one-to-plural aspect of polygamists' marital arrangements. Equally, polygamy proponents just as strongly reject the plural-to-plural aspect of group marriage.

For these reasons, online group marriage proponents associate and interact mostly with online polyamorists. , They typically avoid all polygamy web-sites or activists. Equally, online polygamy proponents also avoid and distance themselves from group marriage supporters. No established polygamy web-site makes any link to any site promoting group marriage. , ,

Even the well-established polyamory web-site, LoveMore.com, where group marriage proponents find support, does not define group marriage using the word, polygamy. Equally, the well-established polygamy web-site, TruthBearer.org, declares on its front page that it is not about group marriage.

Because both have very different perspectives which directly conflict with each other, neither group marriage proponents nor polygamy proponents identify themselves as defined or as associated with the other.

Proposed subsection submitted by Researcher 17:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of Proposed Subsection

Please use this place here for discussing the above proposed subsection. This may also be used for suggesting or discussing the links to replace the "{Reference Link Here}" markers. Researcher 17:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your posting. Dunkelza and I agree that it will be more productive to confine our discussions to the Talk:Polygamy, where we are trying to rewrite polygamy and related topics. We'll come back to topic of group marriage and polygamy in the appropriate place in that discussion. Nereocystis 17:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to TALK over there. My solution above is so easy and obvious that it can be done quickly. No need to dodge it. It's your opportunity to prove you can occassionally offer good faith after all. The fact that you are deliberately using that other TALK page to advance the problem which my solution here solves, proves why it is proper to solve this NOW. It is so easy to solve this now, unless you are out to continue to abuse me. I would like to see good faith instead. Researcher 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Really, we will get to this topic as part of the Talk:Polygamy discussion. This discussion is taking away from the time you need to present an outline, as you have explained on the polygamy discussion. Please handle polygamy first, then we can handle this discussion. Nereocystis 18:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

No, this does not have to take time away from me. If you just do it, we got it solved. My solution here is easy enough for you to just work with it. If you refuse, though, then it is yet another example of how you always refuse to do anything, no matter what it is, I try to do at all times. If you refuse to work with this easy solution now, it is just like the very petty example of when you would not even accept the very tiny compromise of even allowing the one NPOV tag removal in my offer of resolution on polygamy TALK a fwe weeks ago. If you refuse this easy solution here now, it is once again another ewxample of your bullying me at all times. I am tired of you running over me. I gave you an easy solution and an easy way for you to show that you might be willing to stop the abuse. By just doing this easy solution now, which requires no debate, my time is not wasted and you will have begun to show a little good faith. Then we can have a better foundation to try to work for resolution. Researcher 19:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt at trying to resolve the issue. Your suggestion doesn't work for me. To explain why removes our discussion away from polygamy, which we would both like to improve. My discussion on this topic is over, until we work on polygamy. Please do not change the group marriage article without discussion on the polygamy talk page. Nereocystis 19:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You appreciate nothing. There is nothing to discuss. The resolution here is easy. You have proven here that you refuse to work for anything. I say again, this solution here is easy. The only reason "it doesn't work for you" is because you don't want it to. Bullying. It is clear that you absolutely refuse to resolve anything, to ever work wth me under any circumstances, here or anywhere else. And your vandalism on my user TALK page today shows that you deliberately are acually purposely trying to confuse the TALK pages. As the second bullet item in the Layout section of "Talk page guidelines" instruct, I have only kept your posts indented so the thread could be understandable. By your post on my own user TALK page today, it is obvious, therefore, that you deliberately want things as non-understandable to read as possible on the TALK pages. The amount to which you are wiling to be a bully amazes me. A little good faith goes a long way. Researcher 19:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a pointless attempt at laying blame. The discussion as to whether or not group marriage is or is not a form of polygamy was TABLED to the Talk:Polygamy page, to be discussed THERE during such time in the discussion as we discuss the types of marriage to be included in the definition of polygamy. Refusing to participate in THAT discussion and instead wasting time gnawing on past wounds, real or not, is clearly abusive. Furthermore, refusing to provide a proposed outline for THAT discussion could limit one's impact on the future of BOTH articles.

PLEASE STOP WHINING AND PARTICIPATE IN THE ACADEMIC DISCUSSION!

Up until this point, I have tried to be very civil, but the whining needs to STOP and the actual academic discussion needs to start... Where it belongs: On Talk:Polygamy. I'm really, really, really fed up. >:( Dunkelza 23:05, August 26, 2005 (EDT)

DISPUTE TAG ADDED

Because we are still awaiting resolution of disputes as shown in the above section and on Talk:Polygamy, readers of the group marriage article must not be mis-informed into thinking that the current version of the article is legitimate when it is not. Rather than my making an edit to the correct way which I have proposed the article should be, insead I am just placing the NPOV and Dubious tags, for now. I add the NPOV tag also specifically because I believe the agenda to insist on calling group marriage a "form of polygamy" is a hostile non-neutral POV that does not reflect NPOV at all. I add the Dubious tags to show specific dispute lines which are not yet resolved. When we can get back to resolve these specific issues, those tags may be removed then. - Researcher 18:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)