Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:02, 29 April 2005

This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Berkeley Journal of International Law

Archive

/Archive 1

Polygamy is about marriage, not sex

When making edits on the polygamy article, it is important that the post understand that polygamy is about marriage, not sex. Only those who do not know about polygamy are the ones who think it is about sex. Those who do know what polyyamy is about, know it is not about the sex.

Also, many things which actually apply to polyamory are being posted as if it is about polygamy. Doing so is incorrect. Before posting such things to the polygamy article, posters should make sure that it is only about polygamy.

Lastly, for NPOV, it is irrelevant to make any reference to group sex. To say that polygamy "may or may not" involve that is as irrelevant as it would be to say that monogamy may or may not involve that. It would also be as biased as saying "Christianity may or may not involve devil worship." To even imply that hint is to display a bias toward thinking that polygamy supposedly does mean "group sex," when it does not. Again, only those who do not really know anything about polygamy would assert that polygamy has anything to do with that.

Misplaced Pages posts are supposed to be NPOV. Please make sure such posts stay that way.

That's fine, but what I wrote in "Bisexuality and polyamory" was no more sex-oriented than the version that preceded it, to which you then reverted. My interest was not in adding or removing information from the article, but to remove the mistaken claim that such relationships are novel and to improve on some awkward phrasing.

For instance, "this uncommon form is simply the means to an end for individuals seeking this kind of polyamory relationship" is pretty much meaningless. *Any* relationship could be described as "the means to an end for individuals seeking this kind of relationship".

If sex is irrelevant to this article, then it seems to me that the whole section is superfluous; ignoring sexual arrangements, all it says is "some people have multiple spouses", which adds nothing to what's already been written. Why not remove it entirely? --Calair 02:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You did a good job of simplifying, Calair -- especially given that you were working with what was already there. If the segment is indeed to even be kept, then, for clarity, the paragraph needed to begin with the opening clause and to close with the last sentence. (Like you reasonably ask, I am not sure if it will indeed stay, but we'll see.)

For it to stay, though, readers need to be informed right off the bat that what then follows is not what most polygamists do. The concluding sentence explains the polyamorists' motivation in that situtaion so as to help the reader further understand why it is not typical of actual polygamy. Frankly, I am with you, as I am inclined to think that the topic of this section may be more appropriate only for the polyamory listing instead.

Finally, the point of my talk-post here was also for preceding a removal of another sentence elsewhere in the article -- where someone was trying to suggest that polygamy may possibly involve group sex. That one and other similar posts in the article have been suggesting things about polygamy which are only steroetypical misinformation. So, this talk-post was not saying that about your post.

I generally liked the simplification you made (such as in grammar), and I only corrected the portions where necessary. But you did fine. Thanks. -- Researcher99

Ah, right. Misunderstanding was my fault - I looked at your two edits combined, and only saw the explanation for the second. I still feel the final sentence is superfluous, though - the point that this isn't typical of polyamory has already been made, and doesn't need to be made again. The repetition seems unnecessarily defensive.

There are some grammatical issues, but honestly, polyamory already covers much of this, and I think it's easier to shift the rest there. Will replace with a little bit on the distinction between polyamory and polygamy. --Calair 23:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I understand. I had actually solved your last concen by adding, "polyamory relationship." However, the issue is moot now that it is all removed anyway. Good job. -- Researcher99

Why was the section on the Oneida Community removed? It might not have been a typical form of polygamy, but each member of the community certainly had multiple spouses; as such, it fits the definition of 'polygamy' rather better than it fits 'polyamory'.

Also, rather than directing 'group sex' examples to polyamory, please point them instead to group sex. There is some overlap between the two terms, but they're not interchangeable. --Calair 13:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can understand why and how someone might make that simple mistake. "Group marriage" does not meet the definition of polygamy, as it is neither polygyny nor polyandry. Instead, it is a unique concept completely on its own and separate from polygamy. Just as monogamy means one with one, polygamy means one with many. Hence, in polygamy, there is either one husband with many wives (polygyny) or one wife with many husbands (polyandry). On top of that, just as one would not start listing off Jim Jones' group or David Koresh's group as examples for defining Christianity, listing off very rare and fluke isolated examples of off-topic possibilities is similarly not applicable in a definition for polygamy. But it doesn't matter anyway because "group marriage" is not polygamy; the point is moot. Again, though, I do understand how one can make that mistake. Your help is very much appreciated.

On your recommendation about not referring 'group sex' examples to polyamory, but to group sex instead, I agree. Thank you for the very good idea on that. -- Researcher99

As it stands, the article defines polygamy as "a marital practice in which a person has more than one spouse simultaneously". Merriam-Webster similarly defines it as "marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time". Neither of those definitions require or even suggest that only *one* person within the marriage may have multiple spouses.

The rarity of group marriages in comparison to "one-to-several" marriages inevitably means that 'polygamy' is most commonly used for the latter, but Googling shows that it is also used for the former. For instance, the | Columbia Electronic Encyclopaedia describes the OC's complex marriage as 'a form of polygamy'.

Misplaced Pages's role is to reflect usage, not dictate it. If dictionary definitions, usage, and even the article's own definition encompass "several-to-several" forms of marriage, then it seems that the article should acknowledge group marriages as a form of polygamy.

I think I see a possible compromise, though - will have a stab at this on the main page and see whether it's mutually acceptable. --Calair 23:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The more apt reason that that link might say a "form of polygamy" is because polyamory is not in most dictionaries. Anthropologists, when speaking of polygamy, usually only refer to either polygyny or polyandry. When the circumstance is any other configuration, they usually identify it individually.

Maybe I can explain myself better with a biological parallel. Biologists, when speaking of mammals, usually only refer to either placental mammals or marsupials. When speaking about any other form (i.e. monotremes) they usually identify it individually.

But this doesn't mean monotremes aren't mammals. It's because they are rare (so 99% of mammal-related discussion is about placentals and/or marsupials) and they're unusual (so when monotremes *are* under consideration, biologists prefer to use the narrower and much more informative term). The label 'mammal' is quite correct when applied to monotremes; it's just that there's rarely an occasion when it's the most useful word.

IMHO, group marriage is a similar thing. It's rare enough and atypical enough that it's usually identified individually, but that shouldn't make the broader label invalid. However, I've tried to word that bit to explain how it differs from 'conventional' polygamy without actually declaring whether it is or isn't polygamy. --Calair 06:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When looking for a word to give a reader a closer understanding of such individual configurations, perhaps one might say other configurations are a "form of polygamy," but that's only to try to help the reader try to get a grasp of it using a word they might recognize -- but they do not use the circumstance to to define polygamy itself. And again, many are not familiar with the word, polyamory, and it is not in many dictionaries.

Where you wrote, "'polygamy' is more often used to refer to codified forms of multiple marriage (especially those with a traditional/religious basis)," I think it might be better to make the distinction that polygamy refers to either polygyny or polyandry -- making it much clearer.

For the most part, though, I like most of what you've done on this. Please give me a day or so to figure out what I think further about it. Thanks for a good job though! -- Researcher99

I'm not sure that substituting in 'polyamory' does much to resolve things. It's not much better than 'polygamy' or 'group sex' as a catch-all term; each of them takes in some of that "everything other than standard monogamy", but none of them covers it all. Sex, love, and marriage are closely related phenomena, but any of them can exist without the others. --Calair 06:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I understand your point and you make an excellent example with the biology anecdote. I find, however, I still am unable to agree that the comparison is the same. It is more likely that polyamory would be more comparable to the "mammals" in your example. It could probably even be said that polygamy is the "subset of polyamory," even though polygamy makes up a larger portion than all other subsets "in polyamory" combined. (This would also explain why the rarity of polyandry is also welcomed in the online polyamory community than in polygamy in general.)

That 'larger portion than all other subsets' may be true, but it seems to me that it'd be very hard to confirm. Counting polyamorous relationships is a very tricky thing; I'm not sure if anybody's even given it a serious try. --Calair 00:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can agree with your point. I was thinking more that it is more likely from a historical, cultural perspective (per all known history) that polygamy is the "larger subset."

On the internet, when I read through the many communications and articles in the polyamory community, I find that they do intend to be the "catchall" to be everything else that polygamy is not. They do hold themselves out that way and they openly seek to accept other non-standard forms.

(I'd like to distinguish between 'accept' in the 'That's OK' sense and the 'recognise as a form of polyamory' sense. I agree that most polyamorists are very accepting of non-standard forms in the former sense; the latter sense, not quite so much, and that's the one we're debating here. --Calair 00:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC))

I understand your differentiation. In the latter sense, I think it is important to remember that polyamory is a put-together word that means "multiple loves" -- specifically because they did not want the definition to be too limited, as polygamy limits to marriage. They let the cat out of the bag with that definition and word-creation and they really can not put it back. As it is said, they can't have their cake and eat it too. Ideas other than polygyny or polyandry fall within that broad definition of polyamory far more easily than such things ever could be "recognizable" as polygamy.

"Polyamory" is not in most dictionaries. Polygamy does not offer -- nor do polygamists welcome it as being -- the "catchall" answer (by polygamy being only polygyny or polyandry). Anthropologists use "polygamy" as either being polygyny or polyandry. Now that there is such a word, "polyamory" (which still needs to enter dictionaries), it gives anthropologists and everyone else a term that they are now able to use when they need to label other "poly" configurations. Those in the online polyamory community very much view and encourage its use (i.e., polamory) this way as the "catchall," as well. Because of these reasons, it makes sense to me to use it that way, too. -- Researcher99

What you describe doesn't match my experience. If you've been following polyamorous discussions, you've probably already encountered the usually-derogatory term 'polyfuckery', which almost always occurs in a "things polyamory isn't" context. Many polyamorists who might see nothing wrong with 'polyfuckery' (and even some who practice it) do not recognise it as polyamory. Many others do accept the catch-all usage, but it's certainly not a consensus.

You've probably also noticed that polyamorists place a very high premium on the principle of free and informed consent. This is unfortunately *not* found in all the practices one would like to fit into a catch-all. For instance, descriptions of the Oneida Community use words like "compelled to accept" in describing the arrangement whereby senior community members initiated virgins. I suspect most modern polyamorists would deplore such an arrangement and be very reluctant to recognise it as true polyamory. Ditto, practices like concubinage.

Naturally, there's a degree of image control in this. Nobody wants to share a pigeonhole with David Koresh ;-) But since 'polyamory' seems to have been coined largely for purposes of self-description, the self-described polyamorists do have a lot of say in what it means. For that reason, a broader meaning encompassing practices that most self-described polyamorists find deeply objectionable is unlikely to achieve general acceptance any time soon. --Calair 00:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Despite what some polyamorists may prefer, the word itself implies itself as the "catchall" -- "multiple loves," which is far more "inclusive" than polygamy's meaning of "multiple marriage." That's why "multiple marriage" can reasonably be thought of as a subset of "multiple loves" but not vice versa. Hence polygamy can only be thought of as a subset of polyamory and definitely not vice versa. (I am hoping we can both avoid semantics in my use of "multiple" here, as I was only trying to be brief in my explanation here, rather than digress into re-explaining the "multiple" part again.) :)

Its role as a catchall extends as far as 'loves' (at least, the 'eros'/'amor' version; as the alt.polyamory FAQ says, "you needn't wear yourself out trying to figure out ways to fit fondness for apple pie, or filial piety, or a passion for the Saint Paul Saints baseball club into it.") I agree that it's a *broader* category than polygamy, but neither is entirely a subset of the other. There are many reasons why people get married, and love isn't always one of them. --Calair 23:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As a group, polyamorists tend to also be far more inclusive themselves than polygamists would ever be on these issues, specifically because polyamory is indeed more of an inclusive "catchall" and less specific than polygamy. This is not to say I am voicing an opinion about the validity or invalidity of such inclusiveness or non-inclusiveness. It is just that polyamorists do rather tend to be quite politically liberal while polygamists tend to be politically conservative. (No judgement being passed, only observation.) That explains why those with a more liberal perspective tend to be more "inclusive" by their dogma anyway. It is only that, but their very definition and behaviors, polyamorists tend to be and promote that inclusiveness as part of their beliefs.

Agreed. I tried to get at this in the 'polygamy vs. polyamory' section - although the definitions of the words suggest a great deal of overlap, IRL they're usually attached to two quite different groups of people. --Calair 23:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course, I understand that even polyamorists may have their limits too, as you rightly pointed out with the profane variation. Certainly, polygamists would exclude such things too, and likewise for the Oneida Community example you mention as well. But just because such things may be the point at which polyamorists "draw their line" in their definition, it still does not deny the end result that ultimately, it is probably much more accurate to view polygamy as being an (albeit unwilling :) ) subset of polyamory, and not vice versa.

If I had to choose between 'polygamy as a subset of polyamory' and 'polyamory as a subset of polygamy', I would choose the former. But given the third option, I would much rather pick 'neither'. Polyamory is the broader set and mostly contains polygamy, but not completely so. --Calair 23:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. It would seem that both polygamy and polyamory include impalatable things to both. For polygamy, the definer is either polygyny or polyandry. But that can be true whether or not love is involved, which is distasteful to most polygamists who very much define marriage by love. For polyamory, the definer seems to be the criterion of "love" of any number of individuals (regardless of marriage). But being such a more inclusive "catchall," it does also include forms which are distasteful to polyamorists, as well. The common denominator simply appears to be the "poly." -- Researcher99 - 2 Dec 2004

If not, though, then perhaps we need a third term to be equally on par with polyamory and polygamy, all as parallel but individually separate (none being a subset of the other two). That would certainly be acceptable to me. Any ideas?

Missed something here. What group would this third term be describing? --Calair 23:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "poly alternatives." These could include those other forms which do not fit into either polygamy or polyamory. Or, perhaps, we could just create a "poly" article as the hierarchical "parent" of polygamy and polyamory, with the other alternatives listed as miscelleneous items of that "parent." I am only putting this out as a possible idea for discussion on possible ways to address the issue. -- Researcher99 - 2 Dec 2004

A parent page to distinguish between various forms of relationship and point people to the right articles would be useful. IME, "poly" is usually used specifically for polyamory, but that may just be what I pay more attention to; if it's also used for polygamy, that would work. Otherwise, "nonmonogamy" is a possibility, since despite the etymology it seems to be used to describe poly- forms of marriage, love, and sex. --Calair 23:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While, yes, I have also seen polyamorists describe themselves as "poly," I have also seen many polygamists use that same shorthand term to describe themselves too. It is interesting to observe how polyamorists and polygamists both refer to their "poly lifestyle," while certainly meaning very, very different things in their use of the word. If you're satisfied with using it as a "parent," I think I can be too. -- Researcher99 - 3 Dec 2004

Works for me. Although, looking at poly, I'm reminded that it has several other unrelated usages that have as much claim to be on that page as polygamy/polyamory/etc. Perhaps 'poly relationships'? --Calair 21:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's funny. Yes, "polypropylene" is quite different from polygamy. I agree with you on using "poly relationships." Works for me too. -- Researcher99 - 8 Dec 2004

The most key point about polygamy itself, though, is that it is really only polygyny or polyandry.

Polygamy and Islam

I've expanded a little bit on the paragraph relating to Polygamy and Islam. On the verse that was referred to, I've actually quoted the verse from my English translated Qur'an and have provided an explanation as in the the book that I have.

I've included the names of the people providing the translation, however I don't have an actual reference number for the book itself.

I've deleted the last paragraph for the reasons below :

-- but the text also states that perfect fairness is impossible in 4:129. Incomplete sentence, seems out of context. Polygamy is also allowed in special situations, such as during a shortage of male adults after a war. This sentence gives the impression that polygamy is allowed ONLY in certain situations, which is no true. However, the Qur'an strongly encourages monogamy for most Muslims. Is there such thing in the Qur'an? I don't think so. --Aidfarh 14:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quite a few Muslims (see links for some examples) are of the view that 4:129, when combined with 4:3, constitutes strong encouragement to monogamy and implies that polygamy should only be considered in exceptional circumstances. Since I'm no Islamic scholar, I'm not in a position to judge how reasonable this interpretation is, but it's common enough that it should be acknowledged. --Calair 00:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The links you referenced lacks credibility. The first is a website linked to Rashad Khalifa, who Muslims consider a heretic for proclaiming himself to be a messenger of God, and denouncing two verses in the Qur'an. The second, is the website of Sisters in Islam, a Malaysian feminist group who regularly attempts to distort the meaning of the Qur'an to forward their feminist agenda. The third seems to be an Islamic apologist website. Your claim that many Muslims consider Islam discourages polygamy is false. Also, you didn't fully quote v4:129. You miss out the last sentence, i.e. "If ye come to a friendly understanding, and practise self-restraint, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." The mainstream view for this verse is that as a human being, a man may be inclined to love one wife more than another. This verse seeks not to discourage polygamy, but guides the man on how to treat the wives equally in practice, even though he's not fair to them in terms of not loving them equally. There is no evidence whatsover of any restriction to polygamy i.e. that it is only allowed in exceptional circumstances. --Aidfarh 06:39, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While it is necessary for a Muslim to distinguish in his own mind between true Muslims and those who only claim to be, that is not a judgement Misplaced Pages can or should make. It is *not* the role of Misplaced Pages to decide whose religious interpretations are truly correct and whose are mistaken or deliberately distorted. The closest we should come to that here is acknowledging and describing such disagreements, so that the reader may understand both sides' arguments - something which is not achieved by removing links to presentation of those arguments. For the purposes of Misplaced Pages, if a group of people identify themselves as Muslims and present an argument based on the Qur'an to justify opposition to polygamy, then that is relevant to this section. Even if that argument is demonstrably *wrong*, it is a fact that self-described Muslims espouse it, and that fact is one that this section should acknowledge. (By way of parallel, note that a significant number of Christians, particularly in the USA, believe that Roman Catholics are not true Christians - but Catholic views on polygamy are nevertheless discussed in the Christian section here.) I'm unclear on how the fact that is an Islamic apologetics site should make it any less relevant as evidence that some Muslims *do* interpret the Koran as discouraging polygamy in most circumstances.

Googling will find plenty of examples of self-described Muslims who interpret 4:129 as discouraging polygamy, and I have encountered several in person; therefore, I hold to the claim that many Muslims take this interpretation. (Note that 'many' does not imply 'most', or even a large proportion; even if just one percent of the world's Muslims took such an interpretation, that would still be 15 million, which can reasonably be considered 'many'.) But I'm quite happy to go with the neutral "some Muslims"; what might be useful here is some hard data on what percentage of Muslims actually *practice* polygamy (and where).

BTW, any reason for replacing the Hilali/Khan translation of 4:129 with the Yusuf Ali version? I have no particular preference for one over the other, but for consistency's sake it seemed to me desirable to use the same translation for 4:129 as we did for 4:3. --Calair 02:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the text is acceptable the way you've editted now, and I won't edit it anymore to reassert my point of view.

I replaced the translation with the Yusuf Ali version because the translation you put was not complete, i.e. it didn't include the last sentence. Since I don't have access right now to the Hilali/Khan translation, I opted for the Yusuf Ali version, which I do have. --Aidfarh 04:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just want to add here, in response to your comments, that even if we can get data on the percentage of Muslims practicing polygamy, it would not show how many actually support or oppose it, since many Muslim support polygamy, but might not actually practice it, for various reasons. I, for one, personally support it, but I only have one wife right now, and I would be hard pressed to find a woman who would be willing to be my second wife ;-).

Agreed. I didn't mean that such figures would show how many support it, only that knowing how many practice it would be of interest in itself, and that it's probably easier to get accurate data on what people practice than on what they believe. --Calair 12:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But if we are to take the views of renowned Muslim scholars, both historical and contemporary, we'd find that they generally don't oppose polygamy. The internet is not a reliable source for data. You might find on the internet that extreme views are more prevalent than moderate views. So even if there are many places where you can find views opposed to polygamy, it does not reflect the opinions of Muslims in general. --Aidfarh 04:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a Google search isn't a representative sample (especially since I'm only seeing English-language discussions, which is very likely to skew my findings on this issue). It can't prove 'most', but it can prove 'many' - if there are many sites that oppose polygamy, then there are many people who oppose it, even if those people aren't representative of the faith as a whole. --Calair 12:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add my own comments here, as well. When I saw the original recent edits to the Muslim section, I was a bit uncomfortable about the idea of using this wiki as an exegetical debate for pro and con from the Muslim sacred texts. The reason for my discomfort was that I likewise do not see it as appropriate for having such an exegetical debate presented in the *Christian* section of this wiki either. Like Calair noted, many Christians do not consider Catholics as *true Christians.* In the same way, as some Bible-based Christians who do see polygamy as unquestionably Scriptural, some of them see others who assert ideas about the Bible saying anti-polygamy ideas as also not being *true Christians* either because the Bible absolutely never declaratively prohibits polygamy. As such, I see the specific exegetical debates as best left to those involved in those debates, rather than use this wiki for that purpose. That's why I do not think it would be appropriate to turn the Christian section of this wiki into a Scriptural exegetical debate of verses either. So, my thoughts for the Muslim section here are in the same vein, that it would probably be better to simply present just the historic and activist information about polygamy and the Muslim views -- without using this wiki for any exegetical debate itself. That's my view anyway. -- Researcher99, 17 Jan 2005

Tom Green precedent for commom-law bigamy conviction

The reason for a prosecution is not relevant for establishing precedence. However, the Utah Supreme Court's upholding of Tom Green's does establish precedence for conviction of common-law bigamy. If anyone claims otherwise, please provide a reference for claiming lack of precedence. Nereocystis 09:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You misunderstood the original segment here. It's an easy mistake to make. I do understand. A single statewide precedent does not make a nationwide precedent. Besides, a new marriage amendment to the Utah Constitution was approved by Utah voters in November, 2004. Even anti-polygamists in Utah have acknowledged that that new Utah State Constitutional Amendment on marriage effectively nullifies the "common law marriage" concept in Utah altogether. So, we probably should not even be including this added part about the Utah Supreme Court's affirmation of Green's conviction anyway because the "common law" premise was likely so nullified anyway. -- Researcher, 29 Dec 2004

Of course, it is a statewide precedent only. Common-law marriage is a state by state law. Most states do not recognize common-law marriage, so the issue would be irrelevant. However, polygamy of the type described in this section is common in Utah, and therefore relevant. This sentence seems unlikely:

Because he had used that system of multiple divorce and marriage to defraud the state's welfare system, his cohabitation was considered evidence of a common-law marriage to the wives he had divorced while still living with them.

Please provide evidence that defrauding the welfare system had anything to do with his conviction of polygamy. It may have been relevant for deciding whether to prosecute him, but welfare fraud doesn't prove common-law marriage. The revised paragraph says that the Utah Supreme Court upheld a connection between common-law polygamy and welfare fraud. I can't find that in the decision. Welfare fraud is irrelevant for the polygamy conviction. My understanding of the case is that Green's public appearances as a polygamist led to his prosecutions more than his welfare fraud. Why are you removing the reference to the Deseret news article? References for wikipedia articles are useful to provide further information. Replace this reference with a better reference, but don't delete it. A single prosecution does not provide precedence at all, until it is upheld in appeals. Your references to precedence suggests a misunderstanding of law. The Tom Green paragraph is relevant to this page because it establishes the current state of multiple marriage and divorce for polygamists in Utah, where this practice is often used. I plan on changing this page to remove any connection between welfare fraud and proof of common-law marriage, unless you can provide references for your claims. Please do not revert, unless you provide references.

You are unfortunately missing the context of this subsection. It is about legal remarriage and multiple divorce in the context of polygamy. Previously, someone tried to falsely change this subtopic by citing the Green case as a supposed nationwide precedent that supposedly criminalizes all use of this process used by some polygamists. However if Green had not committed the other crimes of welfare fraud and statutory rape, the case would never have occurred. Even after the case, it still would not happen. That's what is important to realize for context of this subsection. The context of this subsection is about legal remarriage and multiple divorce used by some polygamists. So arguing about legal precedence and all that are not applicable here. There is not a prosecutor alive in the US who would pursue any polygamist for only doing the legal remarriage and multiple divorce process involving no other crimes. (But citing that case here tries to imply that they would.) In the first trial, Green was only sentenced actual time for the criminal welfare fraud -- the four bigamy counts were only to be served concurrently, at the same time of the welfare sentencing. In the second trial, he was sentenced for child rape, but it is also not bigamy for which he serves time. In reality, therefore, Green is serving no actual time for bigamy whatsoever and he would not have even been sought for prosecution if he did not have the other criminal issues (welfare fraud and child rape). So, you see, his case would never apply to this subsection if he had not had the other crimes involved. Without those other crimes invllved, it simply would not have happened, and it still would not happen. As such, again, the issue of Green's CONVICTION is not all that relevant to the subtopic here, except mildly in how the case turned out. Yes, the precedeent in the one state of Utah was set. But even with that one case in one state, even with that one precedent, no prosecutor is going to pursue a non-criminal polygamist if all they did was the legal remarriage and multiple divorce process. Why? They know that by itself, it would fail in court and would actually end up causing an uproar by non-polygamists which would surprisingly overturn all anti-polygamy laws, which they do not want. The context of this subsection does not require an analysis of conviction of the Green case. What happened to Green does not automatically mean that the legal remarriage and multiple divorce process used by some polygamists is now some kind of a nationwide crime that will put all such polygamists to jail. It is not and it will not. While his case has a little application in back-handed way only, the bigamy convictions (for which he is actually serving no real actual time) is not all that much of an issue to this subsection. If you want to start a wiki about Tom Green, all the power to you. But going deeper into his case in this subsection is not applicable to this polygamy wiki. To try to force the Tom Green issue further in this subsection would demonstrate bias and violate NPOV in this polygamy wiki. -- Researcher, 02 Jan 2005

Please cite your sources. I never claimed that the Green case was a US or international precedent, but it changes the environment in Utah. I should have written the paragraphs more clearly to show that the prosecution only effects Utah. However, Utah is the state where a large percentage of this type of marriage take place. Paragraphs 46-52 of the Utah Supreme Court case State v. Green upholds common-law polygamy, without mentioning welfare fraud. Remember that you brought up the issue of precedence. I have provided evidence that the Utah Supreme Court would uphold future convictions. Any Utah prosecuter could try any other similar polygamist. Will it happen again? I don't know, but it could. A better attorney may get a conviction reversed. You are showing a lack of understanding of law by claiming that Tom Green is irrelevant. All similar polygamists are in danger of similar prosecutions. Tom Green was convicted, and the conviction was upheld. No extra time was served, but if the polygamy conviction had been the only conviction, Green may have served time. Tom Green is relevant here because it is an example of multiple divorce and marriage, which is the topic of this section, leading to a conviction of polygamy. Please explain how the facts of State v Green show POV. I haven't stated my opinions in the main article (I thought the conviction would have been overturned, and should have been overturned. I also think polygamy should be legal, but my opinions don't make law and don't belong in the main article).

I would like to see the main article rewritten to state the polygamy conviction and supreme court decision, showing its relevance to Utah alone, but deemphasizing the welfare fraud (perhaps mentioning it), unless you find independent evidence of your claims. Perhaps, we could mention that no other polygamy prosecution has happened since Green, but we can't suggest that other divorce and marry polygamists are safe in Utah or that lack of welfare fraud would prevent a successful prosecution.Nereocystis 20:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Polygamists are not in peril. The welfare crime and child rape are the only reasons the case ever went to trial. To try to suggest otherwise is to advance an agenda. Truly, you are trying to create a chapter out of a footnote here. Tom Green is but one man in one state in a big world. This wiki on polygamy is bigger and more global than one little local issue about a man who would never have faced conviction if not for the other crimes. Even in Utah, the very state in which Green was convicted, I just learned that today the same Attorney General has just said that he will not prosecute polygamy itself, so any point you are trying to make is moot. If even he views the laws and convictions in his own State that way, we certainly do not need to start going off in a different direction. But it still doesn't matter. The Tom Green case is but a mere localized footnote and does not necessitate the full-blown attention your agenda seems to be trying to advance here. The subsection is sufficient as it is and does not need any major edit further. Let's move on to more important issues, please. -- Researcher, 03 Jan 2005 Msg#2

Please discuss the article, and not your guess of my motives. Ad hominem attacks on the article really don't work well in wikipedia. My goal, when I started this, was to add a brief comment to this section stating that serial marriage and divorce is no longer guaranteed to be safe from prosecution, as Green's prosecution and the Utah Supreme courts decision proves. This does not mean that all such people will be prosecuted, merely that the law allows it. You have turned this into a major issue, adding your claims that further prosecutions will not happen. Yes, the Utah AG may say that he will prosecute further cases, but he, and future attorneys general are allowed by law to do so. Similarly, the county prosecuters may prosecute a case. In fact, Green was not prosecuted by the AG, he was prosecuted by the Juab county prosecuter, David O. Leavitt. No need for panic, no conspiracy, no prediction about future prosecutions, just acknowledgement of a law which allows prosecution where it wasn't currently obvious that prosecution was allowed. You may add your predictions about the unlikeliness of future prosecution, but only if they are well documented, use newspapers rather than someone who thinks he has read a newspaper describing the situation. Without documentation, your comment are only your point of view, not irrefutable facts. Likewise, you may add your explanation of why Green was prosecuted, but only with documentation. I think it is likely that he was prosecuted because he created publicity for himself, but I don't think that this needs to be in the article. Here's a reference for that view. Nereocystis 05:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

State v. Green was only about Green's appeal on the bigamy convictions, so of course it is not going to mention the criminal non-support. That was simply not being appealed, so the Court did not have to say anything about it. Green and his supporters like to say that Green's publicity got him into trouble, but it is his other crimes which got him into trouble. Even the openly biased Rick Ross website you cited, the specific citation opens with the references to the other crimes. The fact that Tom Green was sentenced time for the criminal non-support and then the four counts of bigamy were sentences of time served concurrently shows that the criminal non-support issue is very important to understanding that case. Lastly, now that Utah voters passed a marriage amendment which even the Utah AG believes could end "common law bigamy" charges from being possible, we really do not need to make a mountain out of a molehill here. I have made a minor edit to add the point about continued risk, so as to accommodate your point here. So now please, let's just move on. -- Researcher, 07 Jan 2005

Sure. I'll make another small edit. I have asked many times, can you provide any reference for your claim that the prosecution was due to non-support. You have repeatedly claimed this, but haven't provided any reference. If you can't find a reference, then I will assume that this is incorrect.Nereocystis 07:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please Stop. Any such edit will be reversed afterward. The answer here has been given to you repeatedly and you have chosen to ignore it, obfuscatingly asking for an irrelevant straw man as your would-be justification. The sentence of real time for criminal non-support and yet only concurrently-served sentences for the bigamy is but one of the proofs indicating what initiated the case. The bigamy charges were "add-on" charges (added to the prosecution of the blatant criminal non-support). Not one of the bigamy charges incurred a stand-alone sentence. They were only "add-on" sentences to be served concurrently (at the very same time) with the real and actual time being served for the criminal non-support. It is so obvious but you are purposely refusing to see it. Please notice that the article says that the criminal non-support is only what "initiated the case" -- it does not say what you try to say it says. No matter how kind I try to be to you, though, you seem only to be here for a fight -- which shows you are operating here without NPOV. Please move on, because your posting is now coming across as abuse. -- Researcher, 12 Jan 2005

Give me a reference. Give me a reference. Give me a reference. No matter how patient I try to be, you have not provided a single reference for your claims. Once again, the bigamy conviction stands, whether there is a separate sentence or not. Please tell me why my insistence on facts and references is POV. Nereocystis 09:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even if I do, you are unwilling to see anything. When I tried to accommodate you, you refused to even be satisfied. When I cited evidence of how even the Utah AG does not take your view anymore, especially now after the voters of Utah passed a new marriage amendment which makes the whole debate moot, you refused to see it. Still, it does not take a reference to see that the sky is blue, for example. The facts together all prove the point I have made -- the sentences of what is the time actually being served, proves it. You use only half-references which do not fully support your point, and then incorrectly think you are in some kind of catbird seat to "demand references" when they are not necessary for so little a footnote issue. You cite the State v. Green as you refuse to see the obviousness of the criminal non-support issue, but your half-reference is irrelevant to support your point because the link is only about Green's appeal for only the bigamy charges -- so of course, it does not address the criminal non-support. It is examples like that which show you do not make relevant full-references yourself. Even the Rick Ross reference you made proved my point, but you refuse to see it. The fact is, you have proven nothing and only harrass me with half-complete references and failed logic attampts. While I do not have time to chase down unnecessary links for what is only a footnote matter in this situation, here is one report made after Tom Green's sentences were handed down. Even though your abusive behavior can be expected to show that you will not allow yourself to see even the obviousness from that reference, it doesn't matter. Your irrelevant demands for unnecessary "references" (in this footnote matter) are but a straw man, in your trying to make a chapter out of a mere footnote. I am done wasting time with someone whose only interest here is to harass. Please stop trolling this wiki. -- Researcher99, 13 Jan 2005

2Wives.com

I removed this item from the External Links section of the article, because personals ads have no place in Misplaced Pages:

• 2Wives.com - Polygamy Personals - A non-religious site for people looking to meet single women seeking polygyny.

Researcher99 reverted my removal, and added this comment to the item: ... providing researchers with evidence of a diversity of both non-religious and religious individuals seeking polygamy. And his edit comment was Researchers are better informed anthropoligically by seeing such diverse individuals exist. Problem is, I still don't believe this link belongs. You could justify any link about anything by saying that it's in the interests of anthropology ... but, that's what Google is for. Or Dmoz.org. Misplaced Pages itself is not meant to be a link repository. The External Links section of an article should contain links to primary news sites or well-established fan sites which directly contribute to the factual information covered in the article. A polygamy dating site doesn't itself contribute anything directly useful to this topic; and if we include the link anyway, then what's to keep every person running every multiple-spouse dating site out there from wanting a link from this article as well? - Brian Kendig 03:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As a specific researcher of this topic, I am more familiar with this issue than others. If this were only a general matter, I would normally agree with the point about dating sites in general, and I definitely agree that this is not a link repository. In this case, however, there is one and only site doing what 2Wives.com does. There is no other site exclusively about individuals seeking polygamy. Since polygamy is such a minority topic, there is not likely to be either. Because it is a very unique website, this does not fall into the realm which would otherwise exist regarding "dating sites" for any other topic. (Plus, it is not a "dating site" anyway - the people on the site are seeking polygamous marriage only.) As the wiki focuses on so many religious aspects, the things one discovers at 2Wives.com are otherwise unrepresented -- secular polygamists, the fact that diverse people really are seeking polygamy, as well as an array of different religious individuals. In that way, it shows a real community, if you will. There is no valid reason to deprive wiki users from learning that such individuals really do exist. Listing that very unqiue site is very relevant to include in order to assist the wiki user in obtaining relevant information about polygamy. For wiki users, "seeing is believing" that such individuals do exist. The 2Wives.com link does that for the wiki user. I realize that many who have not researched the polygamy topic as in-depth as I have might initially misperceive such other conclusion, but now that it has been explained, I would hope that such deletions would cease. I have restored the link again, precisely because it is relevant for the wiki user. -- Researcher99, 19 Jan 2005

I really don't appreciate you reverting my edit twice, nor do I appreciate you assuming that I don't know as much about the topic as you do, or that this makes my edit invalid, or that I "misperceived" the purpose of the link. Nor do I appreciate you referring to my edits (in the edit log) as "mistaken" and "erring." But I'm not going to get into an edit war with you. I've posted about this to the requests for comment page, to invite other peoples' opinions as to whether this article should contain a link to a personals site. I'll abide by community consensus. - Brian Kendig 15:53, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Edit: I went and had a look at the site itself - it's only got a total of twelve poorly-written public ads on it, and it charges $9.95 per three months to see an unknown number of private ads. Also there are no discussion boards, so I wouldn't call it a "community". There's basically no content on the site. It really doesn't seem like it would be of a whole lot of use to "researchers". - Brian Kendig 17:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC))

I readily admit that I can always find better ways to say things no matter how kind I try to be, and I surely did not intend to offend regarding my comments on the mistakes in the deletion of the link. Yes, I very much do believe deleting that link is a mistake, inoccently made from a visible lack of in-depth knowledge of the topic and the many online websites dedicated to the topic. From the wiki user's standpoint, seeing such a link is an informative surprise. I am also not trying to be offensive by pointing out that others are not as informed on the topic when they make such a mistake. I am not trying to be offensive in saying that, because I do not know of any better way of saying that a mistake is a mistake. When a person has been a comprehensive researcher of a subject (as I have been for years on polygamy) and others make mistakes which reveal that they lack similar insight, it is not about being offensive to help such other ones understand that. If anything, I see it as a compassionate way of expressing an understanding as to how the other person came to making their mistake, as opposed to attacking them as I have seen some people do on wiki. That you did not know that 2Wives.com is the only site of its kind shows such a lack of in-depth knowledge. That you did not know that Google has not been helpful at all for their searchers to find the numerous complete websites on polygamy for well over a year now shows such a lack of in-depth knowledge. That your details and dollar amounts about the site are quite incorrect also shows a lack of in-depth knowledge. Again, I am not trying to be offensive in pointing out the simple mistakes. I am only trying to express the reason why your disagreement does not have the backing of complete information about the topic. That doesn't make me better than you, only more knowledgeable about this one topic.

I will also admit that I find that your language to me here to be a bit more violent than it needs to be. You are tending to do things with a your-way-or-the-highway approach. You said you brought the issue to the requests for comment page, but even that page explains a dispute-resolution technique which you have not done here. Quoting that page, General hints for dispute resolution -- Whatever the nature of the dispute, the first resort should always be to discuss the problem with the other user. Try to resolve the dispute on your own first. But rather than discuss it first, you came into this wiki out of nowhere and just automatically deleted the link. Then you go on to even now treat me with violent language as if I am somehow the one violating good wiki methods.

Lastly, while I generally value consensus, a controversial topic such as polygamy is very much apt to attract hostile opponents with an opposing agenda to minimize any value of the polygamy wiki. I think having some experiential insight on the topic would make for a better qualifier before valuing the opinion of "just anybody" about it. Here again, I am not trying to be offensive toward anyone. I am simply saying that it is not unreasonable to realize that anyone with an unconstrained anti-polygamy perspective would be glad to jump on board to prevent the link from being restored, if only to minimize the value of the wiki.

I am viewing this issue from the perspective of the wiki user. From the wiki user's standpoint, their being able to see such a unique link is an informative surprise. The mere existence of the unique 2Wives.com link concisely educates the wiki user with information they would not otherwise know. I know this fact as one who has specifically researched the topic and all the internet websites dedicated to the topic for years now. I very much believe that the 2Wives.com link should stay. -- Researcher99, 19 Jan 2005, Msg#2

Misplaced Pages is not a web directory. I don't think this is an appropriate link for this article, sorry. --fvw* 16:03, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

I also agree. Peter O. (Talk) 16:43, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Editing Misplaced Pages: When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named "whatever", ask youself what a reader would expect under "whatever" in an encyclopedia. According to these Wiki guidelines, replacing "whatever" with "polygamy" shows that it is important to inform wiki users that there is even a polygamy personals site where diverse people are seeking polygamy. -- Researcher99, 19 Jan 2005, Msg#3

Wonderful! Why don't you find a site that surveys and discusses polygamy dating sites and add it, it would be a wonderful addition to the article. A single dating site link isn't however. --fvw* 20:50, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

This comment is another unfortunate example of an opinion being voiced without being fully informed on the topic. As I have repeatedly said, 2Wives.com is the one and only site of its kind. Of course there is not going to be some "survey" out there. Also, as I have also said before in this matter, it is not a "dating site" - it is a diversity of people seeking polygamous marriage. -- Researcher99, 19 Jan 2005, Msg#4

Is it really the only one of its kind? Feeding 'polygamy' into Google comes up with polygamy.com as the first hit, which immediately links to personals of a very similar nature to those on 2Wives.com; if anything, the polygamy.com personals seem to have more content, and since religion and 'race' are listed on the index page it's easy to get an at-a-glance impression of diversity. (It also seems to be a free site, as opposed to 2Wives.com, which requires membership to view some of the personals.)

As a compromise, what if we link instead to polygamy.com? It contains a range of information on polygamy, so it is in itself an appropriate link for this page, and among that is information of the same type offered by 2Wives.com. It could be described as "pro-polygamy site containing discussion, resources, and personal ads" or something of that sort. There are many people, myself included, who are uncomfortable about linking primarily to an advertising site (especially a paid one), because it encourages others to linkspam. I would have no such objection to a resource site that includes personals ads, as long as that's not its main focus. --Calair 23:11, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the intent for a compromise, but I have to say that this is another example of someone not being fully informed in the topic. (But I appreciate your intent here.) Polygamy.com has not been updated since 1998 or 1999. It is a virtually useless site which was put up once and ignored ever since. All those supposed "ads" you see at that site are all that old too.

I found at least one update from mid-2000 , so I guess none of us are 'fully informed' here. But granting that the site hasn't been updated recently, and few if any of the ads will still be current, it's still ample evidence that polygamists are a diverse bunch from a range of different religions, along with some who are secular. It's not like that fact has changed in the last five years. --Calair 02:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's funny. LOL I had thought of saying "1998 or 1999 or 2000," knowing it had been about 5 years or so. Just because I chose to not add the 2000, I hope you can cut me some slack here. LOL Plus, did you read that "news" article? It's about Tom Green before he was even tried, convicted, sentenced, and now servicing time for years. Indeed, look at the parent directory of that page. It has a whopping total of 5 articles -- 4 written in early-mid 2000 and one in 1998. And they call that section, "In the News." LOL Very out-dated. Besides, except for a very small minority, most pro-polygamists adamantly do not support Tom Green or his actions.

"Pro-Polygamists Distrust Tom Green's *Apology*"

and

"Dateline commits slander, say pro-polygamists"

were news releases sent out to the media from Pro-Polygamy.com. So, Polygamy.com -- the site you mentioned here -- its mere 5 would-be "News" (4 of them being about Tom Green) were only five plagiarized news articles from the Salt Lake Tribune and The Daily Herald. That is certainly not a credible source. But again, I hope you will laugh with me here and "cut me some slack" because I obviously knew it was many years ago since anything appeared there. -- Researcher99, 20 Jan 2005

Google only lists that near-useless site because of the domain name. (It's another example of what I said earlier of how Google has not been helping their searchers for polygamy for quite some time.) Also, you are confusing the idea of people posting any ads with what 2Wives.com is instead uniquely about. People seeking polygamy are not always wanting to place their own ads - it is understandable that most are only seeking single women who are seeking polygamy. Such women are a rare commodity and it is also reasonable to understand that such single women do not want to be "out in the open." 2Wives.com exclusively and uniquely serves that need. Nowhere else can one find qualified and proven-to-be-real single women who have their own ads who are really seeking polygamy. Just putting up any page of a handful of would-be ads seeking those rare women is meaningless. That is why 2Wives.com is extremely different from any outdated site like you mentioned where people once claimed to be seeking too. But again, I understand. Without knowing the specific polygamy topic in-depth, you would not have known this. And while I appreciate your suggested compromise, posting an outdated site does not add value to the wiki and the wiki users are still deprived of seeing the only site of its kind, 2Wives.com -- Researcher99, 19 Jan 2005, Msg#5

If I may be excused a personal observation: with this and with one or two previous issues on this page, I've got the impression that you are attempting to defend against certain misconceptions about polygamy, but without actually acknowledging the misconceptions you're addressing (or at least, not without first going several rounds on the Talk page). This is confusing to others, because unless they *came* to the page holding those misconceptions it's not obvious what the point of those edits is, this being a case in point. IMHO, it would be better to explicitly acknowledge the misconceptions from the start: "Critics of polygamy have said X, however (evidence) actually shows Y."

Thank you for your personal observation. You make a good (and well-explained) point. I will try to keep it in mind as I go forward. Where, methodically, I have been attempting to use "conciseness," you are rightly pointing out to me that I should further clarify instead. Thanks. -- Researcher99, 20 Jan 2005

In this case, if the 2Wives.com link is intended to prove a particular point - i.e. that some single women *do* voluntarily seek polygamy - then it becomes more appropriate, *if* presented in that light. Rather than putting it in the External Links section, use a context that makes it clear *why* we're linking to an advertising site: "Critics A and B have claimed that women never voluntarily seek polygamy; however, the existence of at least one personals site (link here) catering to single women seeking polygamous marriage indicates otherwise" would be far more appropriate. I'm still not convinced it's a terribly useful site - without paying $9.95 I can't find any of how *many* single women have ads there - but this presentation would make me much happier about it. --Calair 02:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The link does not seem appropriate for Misplaced Pages. Regardless of whether it is one of a kind or not, it does not seem to inform readers of information that is not in the article, but rather, provides a service. If it were informative or used as a reference, perhaps it would be more appropriate, but in its current context it is not. Agree that if the article were about how polygamous couples meet, it may be appropriate, but not this article. -Visorstuff 21:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I had thought of creating a segment in this wiki precisely as you suggest, but I felt the result would be to give more attention to the 2Wives.com site than should occur. So, I felt the concise way to include this important link is to simply make one simple link and be done with it. -- Researcher99, 19 Jan 2005, Msg#6

I see nothing in the article suggesting that women don't voluntarily engage in polygamy, so arguing the link is an attempt to counter this is moot. I also see nothing in the article saying it is a strictly religious practice or that people don't engage in polygamy for reasons other than religion, so that argument is out the window too. In short, the external link seems to serve no other purpose other than to advertise a personals site. Whether it is related to polygamy or not isn't the issue...The fact that it adds nothing to the article and isn't encyclopedic is why it should remain gone. Just my two slivers of copper. →Reene 06:22, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

The link is pretty clearly not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. The suggested criteria for an external link on wikipedia:external links are:

1. "try to avoid sites requiring payment, registration, or extra applications"
2. "Misplaced Pages disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes"
3. "Pages that are linked to in an external links section should be high content, with information that is not found in the Misplaced Pages article"

In my view, the 2wives.com link meets none of these criteria:

1. The majority of the information appears to require registration
2. It looks like an advertising link
3. It contains almost no information on polygamy

Consequently, it should not be included in the article. --Carnildo 06:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about this (regarding 2Wives.com)?

In the above 2Wives.com discussion, two specific comments have been made which could reasonably give the solution here and the direction to take in this matter. One was made by Visorstuff and the other was made by Calair. (I have created this subsection only to keep the issue simple for reading.)

• Visorstuff said: If it were informative or used as a reference, perhaps it would be more appropriate, but in its current context it is not. Agree that if the article were about how polygamous couples meet, it may be appropriate...

• Calair suggested: ...if the 2Wives.com link is intended to prove a particular point - i.e. that some single women *do* voluntarily seek polygamy - then it becomes more appropriate, *if* presented in that light. Rather than putting it in the External Links section, use a context that makes it clear *why* we're linking to an advertising site: "Critics A and B have claimed that women never voluntarily seek polygamy; however, the existence of at least one personals site (link here) catering to single women seeking polygamous marriage indicates otherwise" would be far more appropriate.

My first comment is that, specifically, Calair "gets it," the reason why I have thought this exclusive site (2Wives.com) is a valuable addition in this wiki. There is truly such an anti-polygamy hostility in some circles who do try to suggest that no women would ever want polygamy. Visorstuff's suggestion also affirms the issue of using the link in similar context too.

My second comment is that I do very much understand the reasonable concerns many have expressed about possible future linkspam. I would not want that either. If I follow the suggestions from Calair and Visorstuff and create a little segment for such context, I would only want to do so in a brief way, so as not to open up any pandora's box of subsequent linkspam that way either. I only briefly want to make the point of the context and simply cite the only valid reference site, 2Wives.com.

So in keeping those two good points they raised in mind, how about this? Would others find it more acceptable if I indeed create a small segment as they suggest, and only cite the site that way, in order to show that some women DO actually seek polygamy, by the actual existence of such a site? -- Researcher99, 20 Jan 2005

I would suggest you find another site. If women that desire to enter into polygamy are as numerous as you would seem to have us believe this should not be an issue. And I do recall seeing multiple news stories over the years revolving around polygamous households including interviews with the wives saying they were quite happy. Why not use one of those? As Carnildo pointed out, the personal ad site isn't appropriate for multiple reasons. And there is still nothing in the article remotely suggesting that women do not voluntarily engage in polygamy. →Reene 21:13, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Is it necessary to link to the site in order to use it as evidence (leaving aside the need for such evidence)? Could you not say, in an appropriate place in the text, something like: "Though it is often assumed that the practice of polygamy is imposed on women by men in positions of power, usually or always in a rellgious context, this is confuted by the existence of at least one Web site....". --Mel Etitis 20:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think your suggested sentence works as a perfect and concise way to reference the necessary link, to just say that and be done with it. -- -- Researcher99, 23 Jan 2005

I think the site should not be linked at all. It meets none of the guidelines for external links. --Carnildo 20:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree — my point was that, if its existence is importance to the point being made, then it could be mentioned and described (briefly) without the necessity of a link. If anyone wanted to find it, they could Google for it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So are you saying that the point of Misplaced Pages is not to inform the user but to make wiki users work to find their information? (Also, as I have said before, Google is not the trustworthy tool as it used to be. So expecting wikipedia users to do that extra work with a specifically ineffective tool only makes it that much harder on the wiki users seeking information.) -- Researcher99, 25 Jan 2005

Misplaced Pages is not a link farm. The content of the site provides no information that the simple existance of the site does not, so there is no need to link to the site. --Carnildo 20:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree this is not a linkfarm. If there were all kinds of other sites doing 2Wives.com what does, I would be more inclined to see your point. But given that there is one -- and only one -- site like this, there is no risk of linkfarm problems. Placing that link here does not expose the wiki to other sites wanting to be added as a "linkfarm." The very existence of such a single site of its kind as 2Wives.com does provide more interesting information for the wiki user than would result by its absence from the wiki. -- Researcher99, 28 Jan 2005

Let me step in again and offer some suggestions. Researcher99, if you could put together a 200-words (or so) paragraph about how polyandrous "couples" meet, and cite this web page as one source (providing that there are other, similar online sites), and other forms of how they meet outside of a religious setting, then I am fine with it being included - but it must include multiple examples of multiple ways they meet. However, if this web site is an anomaly, then it really does a disservice the readership of Misplaced Pages - fringe information may be titillating to some, but irrelevant to others. Perphaps this link, if it is such an anomaly should be on some "little known facts about polygamy" web site we could link to. That would be more relevant. AS it stands, I think the consensus is that we don't include it without the appropriate (and thoughtfully research and presented) context of how polygamous "couples" meet outside of a religious setting. Without this context, adding in the link may spark an edit war -Visorstuff 23:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that I need to clarify my comment above - I do understand the difference, between polygamy, polygyny and polyandry - I feel that for the purposes of this discussion, the requirement of finding and including multiple sites on how those seeking multiple simoustaneous marriages sanctioned by their partners would be relevant to this article (providing they meet with the requirement I suggested above). However, I don't think there are many similar sites out there like this that help multiples meet for marriage - wheter polygamous, polygynous or polyandrous. This is why we feel that there just isn't the information out there to justify the content. I'd find nothing wrong with adding in women finding multiple men, and men seeking multiple women, and women or men seeking to become a part of a multiple marriage relationship - as long as it supports the context laid out above within the polygamy article. Frankly, I'd find it rather interesting, as long as the differences is clear to the reader between those seeking to become a part of a polygamy, polygyny and polyandry relationship. Hope this helps clarify. -Visorstuff 21:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just came hear from WP:RFC. After investigating the 2Wives.com website, I saw nothing on the website that would make it appropriate as an external link for the Polygamy article. There is no amount of finessing or explantory text that will change that. It is a dating website, and it costs to join. End of story! BlankVerse 14:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I see that you are new here, that you joined only 2 weeks ago. While I appreciate your opinion, I do not think it really needed to be stated as authoritatively as you wrote it --especially on such a controversial topic as polygamy, about which few people really have any researched background to know much about it. But anyway, again, welcome to Wikipdedia. -- Researcher99, 28 Jan 2005

Visorstuff, as I see that you are an admin, I very much appreciate and respect your input here. I like your suggestion. There is only one polygyny site where polygynous people can find proven-to-be-real single women who are actively seeking polygyny: 2Wives.com. The challenge in finding a similar site for polyandry, however, is that the mindset involved in that type of polygamy tends to connect more with the polyamory community. (Please see the discussion above that Calair and I had about polyamory vs. polygamy.) Accordingly, polyandrists who are "seeking" would be apt to be found in a polyamorous type of "seeking" site. Making any link to that kind of a polyamorous site would then be more appropriate in the polyamory wiki instead of the polygamy wiki. Indeed, as per the earlier conversation between Calair and I, it would indeed be inappropriate to link such a polyamorous site in the polygamy wiki. -- Researcher99, 28 Jan 2005

Researcher99, I completely understand the differences between the groups - especially having done as much research on the topic as I have (see my comments above). Although I will not share all of my dealings with polygamy, I think I have a better understanding than most with the culture and knowing those who live in polygamous relationships, as well as family members and ancestors who've live/ed it. I also understand the sensitivities you bring up on how polygamists view those who do the reversal (multiple spouses without marriage, multple husbands, etc.). My comment was not to endorse or promote the misunderstanding of polyamory within polygamy, but rather, show that there is a segment of the population that are interested in alternative marriage lifestyles. In addition, the link as it is should not be included, unless it is used in conjuction with another to support the point I mentioned above. Because I am unaware of any similar site condoning or helping those seeking for polygamous relationships, I believe (and still do) that using similar examples would fulfil the requirement for making this point. Again, as stated above the proper context should be given. Until a similar site is found, I firmly believe that including this link irrelevant to the article as it is an anomaly. Including it without consensus and support would be dangerous to the direction of this page, and would, again, lead to an edit war. -Visorstuff 21:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your input on all this. After further time and research, I have sought to accommodate your input here with the major edit I made today. It is a comprehensive addition and provides the necessary context you suggested. Thank you very much for your assistance. -- Researcher99, 7 Mar 2005

Anon POV Edits

I am planning on reverting another anon POV edit - below is the text and rationalization. If no objections, will do revert around 00:00 4 Mar 2005. Trödel|talk 18:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or do the sneer quotes rile you too? "married" being the most obvious? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're both quite right (Trödel|talk and jpgordon). I completely agree with you. It's filled with typos, is very POV, and needs to be reverted. While I have made comment replies, individually, in your thread below, I quite agree that the whole edit made by that POV writer should be reverted. -- Researcher99 3 Mar 2005

Number of Marriages

"Although Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon sect denied he was practicing it, he was in fact "married" to more than 20 women, including several of the wives and daughters of his most loyal followers. He married at least two wives of followers that he personally dispatched on missions for the church while they were away. He also "married" several of his foster daughters, servants, and two girls that were 14."

the number of marriages is disputed as well as the nature of the marital relationship for some of these - need to be fully explained. Trödel|talk 18:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right. It is very POV to add that speculative anti-polygamy POV to this article. It doesn't even really belong. -- Researcher99 3 Mar 2005

Kept a secret

"Joseph Smith and other high ranking church leaders kept polygamy a secret from the main body of the mormon membership until several high ranking mormns not apart of the polygamy practicing group who were appalled by this behaviour published a newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor, detailing the practice. They promised in their second issue more details of the secret polygamy practices of Smith and his cohorts, as well as an expose of Smith's secret coronation as King of this Earth by his secret society which planned to take over the U.S. Smith responded by destroying the press and calling out his private militia. For these actions he was charged with treason and imprisoned in Nearby Carthage, Illinois, where he was killed in a gun battle with vigilantes."

"Gun battle" is definately POV. Although Joseph Smith feared (in this case rightfully) for his life should he disclose the revelation (thus it was kept from all but his most trusted advisors) he had received openly. The tone needs improvement. Trödel|talk 18:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hostile POV. Also, that visibly POV writer keeps using the word "polygamy" as if the Mormon polygamy is exclusively the definition of polygamy. Highly inappropriate and POV. -- Researcher99 3 Mar 2005

Succession Battle

"Brigham Young, after a three year succession battle, ultimately took control of the largest of the splinter groups that resulted from Smiths death and led them to Utah, which was then a part of Mexico. The polygamy practice was finally taught openly in Utah in 1852, as a "sacred ordinance." The church continued to deny that polygamy was practiced in England for several more decades. Since there were more men than women in Utah, only some members of the Church practiced polygamy, primarily the church leaders and their families."

This greatly simplifies the Succession crisis with POV terms. Trödel|talk 18:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right. -- Researcher99 3 Mar 2005

Manifesto

"The practice of polygamy ultimatley led to prosecution of the Church under anti-polygamy laws. (The U.S. Congress made the practice illegal in U.S. Territories in 1862). Many members of the Church fled to Canada in an attempt to set up communities free from prosecution (despite the fact that it was also illegal in Canada); for example, Cyril Ogston founded Seven Persons, Alberta. Although Latter-day Saints believed that their religiously-based practice of plural marriage was protected by the United States Constitution, opponents used it to delay Utah statehood until 1896. Increasingly harsh anti-polygamy legislation stripped Church members of their rights as citizens, disincorporated the Church, and permitted the seizure of Church property until the Church issued "the manifesto" regarding the cessation of polygamy in 1890."

Most of this is ok Trödel|talk 18:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here again, the anti-polygamy POV writer is referring to "polygamy" as if it is the exclusive idea of Mormons, which it is not. Polygamy goes back in history to the Biblical book called Genesis, long before the 1800s Mormon religion created its own brand of it. One might more reasonably refer to the "Mormon-particular practice of polygamy led to anti-polygamy laws," but one could not generically say that it was the "polygamy practice" itself in all the other forms not even addressed in those times. Those anti-polygamy laws were specifically targeted at the ways of the Mormon polygamy at the time was occurring. Only an anti-polygamy POV would try to word it that wrong way, as that POV writer was obviously trying to do. -- Researcher99 3 Mar 2005

Young Marriages

"Mormon fundamentalists claim that they are merely following the example of Joseph Smith who, as a middle aged man, took several 14, 15 and 16 year old girls as "wives."

If we include this need to put in context as marriages at that age were more common in the early 1800s

Again, only a hostile anti-polygamy POV would try to include this irelevant addition. For NPOV, it is not necessary to include, because it is no different than the age at which most "monogamists" of the era also used to marry. -- Researcher99 3 Mar 2005

other wrong historical facts

Please see my other comments at ]

I have included a couple thoughts below from that page about accuracy:

I don't get teh 1906 date this person is fixated with (similar changes at Polygamy) that was the date that the twelve released Apostles John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley for continuing to teach and practice, and when JFS was convicted of unlawful co-habitation (although he was granted amnesty from U.S. President Benjamin Harrison in September 1891). Teh second manifesto was 1904 but at the october conference in 1910, the Church sustained an initiative for stake presidents to ecommunicate those who performed plural marriages after 1904 (and husbands). Even Quinn who is rather naturalistic agrees with this. Upon further research, the church did not saction or authorize any plural marriages under the administration of Lorenzo Snow, but did authorize them in mexico under JFS during 1901-2, but that then ceased.

This editor is using an outdated anti-mormon work typically used during the 80s for the basis of information, and is inaccurate. You'd think people would check facts for themselves on controversial subjects, but they don't. Instead they walk in blind obedience to men who think that the ends justify the means. Too funny for me. -Visorstuff 16:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gratifying to see this polygamy wiki cited

I noticed the new posting at the head of this discussion page that This page has been cited by Berkeley Journal of International Law. As I have been enjoying doing the extensive organization and work on this polygamy wiki these past few months, it is gratifying to see it now acknowledged this way. --Researcher99 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On Muslims in the "HOW Polygamists Find More Spouses" section

The original version of this subsection was last presented on 12:30, 31 Mar 2005. Since that time, Ghostintheshell has been attempting to make edits to it. The edits do not belong in this section. To try to accommodate Ghostintheshell, I moved their added paragraph to the Islam section 10:12, 28 Apr 2005.

In the original (and restored) version of this section, it succinctly notes the difference between Muslim polygamists living in Muslim countries. Accordingly, it was unnecessary to redundantly explain that in those Muslim countries that such Muslim polygamists do not aggregate in their own communities. (The polygamy wiki is already a huge web-page, and we do not need to be duplicative in the article.)

Anyway, that original paragraph then appropriately explains how other Muslim polygamists who are not living in Muslim countries find such additional spouses. It is completely true that such ones do aggregate in such Muslim immigrant communities where they all share that common bond.

From the edits, one thing I notice is that it appears that Ghostintheshell's edits are POV attempts to prevent the wiki from informing readers about the issues regarding fundamentalist Muslim polygamy which explain why most in the West do not accept Muslim polygamy. For NPOV, therefore, the edits had to be restored again.

To better understand this subsection more clearly, the thing to do is to read the entire subsection as one mini-article within the article: "HOW Polygamists Find More Spouses." The opening of the section notes there are two subdivisions as to the where and how polygamists are able to find other wives: aggregated type and separated type. All are then noted together in the "on the internet" subsegment. Realizing this structure, it then becomes clear that the edits are completely altering the section's article, content, structure, fluidity, and NPOV.

Accordingly, some of the edits being made lately by the brand new wiki user, Ghostintheshell, are simply not appropriate to this particular section. After reverting back to the original again, I will try to put some of Ghostintheshell's edis appropriately in the proper place in the Islam section, though. -- Researcher99 15:55 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your statements are not only extremely inaccurate, they are totally false. So-called 'fundamentalist' Muslim polygamy in the West and other non-Muslim countries is either so rare or, far more likely, non-existent. I've never come across any widespread examples of this, or even any isolated examples. Thus, you are blatantly spreading false information. Your section on Mormons is also severely biased, and the section on Christians is as POV as you can get, what with promoting a 'polygamy dating' website. Ghostintheshell 22:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your hostile POV actions are now becoming abusive. I have tried to accommodate your input, but you want only to put your spin on things. Researcher99 23:23 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not putting 'any' spin on things, and I am certainly not being abusive. Facts are facts, and the fact is that you are spreading lies and misinformation. You are unable to back up your sources as regards to Muslim polygamy, and thus you make accusations against me, and you have a history of antagonising other Misplaced Pages contributors to this article, especially those who criticised your inclusion of a polygamy-related dating website, and the bombastic promotion of your self-styled Christian polygamy, while attacking Mormons and Muslims. I know nothing of Mormon or Christian polygamy, and thus would not attempt to comment on those two areas, and you have shown yourself to know nothing of polygamy amongst Muslims, and you should refrain in your attempts to paint such a blatantly inaccurate picture. You can revert as much as you want, but I will be here to revert as well. Misplaced Pages is not a playground for promoting untruth and bombast. Good luck. Ghostintheshell 00:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)