Misplaced Pages

Talk:Polygamy

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Researcher99 (talk | contribs) at 20:17, 30 August 2005 (→Researcher's Response to Requests for comment/Researcher99 page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:17, 30 August 2005 by Researcher99 (talk | contribs) (→Researcher's Response to Requests for comment/Researcher99 page)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication:
Berkeley Journal of International Law

Archive

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4


Researcher's Response to Requests for comment/Researcher99 page

By Researcher 20:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users on the Requests for comment/Researcher99 page who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the summary is biased or incomplete. It is reposted here too, should discussion be possible.

I am now being falsely accused of not wanting a resolution. That is the furthest from the truth. Just before Uriah923 offered (on 16:31, 16 August 2005) their idea to possibly arbitrate, the polygamy TALK page was already in the middle of a dispute resolution process. Researcher's Offer for RESOLUTION (begun 17:06, 5 August 2005). As that shows, I had offered a seriously positive atempt for reoslution, giving so much, and only asking for one very small act of good faith act from Nereocystis.

Researcher's Offer for RESOLUTION 5 August 2005

Pattern Observed on how some disputed issues DID conclude
The Needed Steps to Change the Pattern in order to Resolve and Prevent these Disputes
Offers for Good Faith Acts
Hope for this Positive Conclusion
DISCUSSION Segment

We were almost there to a positive means of resolution. The only thing preventing that was waiting for one little tiny good faith act by Nereocystis to allow removal of an NPOV tag (as I would remove other similar tags and not add yet others of other disputes I had in the polygamy article).

When Uriah923 arrived (16:31, 16 August 2005), they offered their unofficial help. Here is what they said,

I have to admit, the back and forth on this Talk page just about blew my mind. Researcher99 and Nereocystis - how about I arbitrate? We can come up with a list of things to be resolved, I will lead discussion on them and we can vote on what belongs in the article. I think this would be a good way to avoid getting caught up in personal attacks and EXTREMELY VERBOSE arguments. What do you say? Uriah923 16:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

When Nereocystis answered and said that they were apprehensive and had some other preferences, Uriah923 replied,

I was partially ignorant of Misplaced Pages policy concerning dispute resolution, so forgive my poor choice of words if I gave you the impression that I could offer official mediation or arbitration. I am not on the mediation committee, so I cannot serve as an official mediator. However, I can serve in an unofficial manner if you both agree to allow me to guide the resolution. I don't think doing so would take long or be very painful. If you'd rather go straight to official mediation and submit a request, or pursue some other method such as seeking a third opinion, that's ok, too. One thing seems clear, though - you two aren't getting much of anywhere the way you are going right now. Uriah923 20:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

When I was able to reply, I declared the following.

Uriah923, I appreciate your observation and willingness to try to help. I agree that this does seem to be having the appearance of even being silly in not getting anywhere.

As Nereocystis knows, I have been waiting for for an AMA requested Advocate. My request was made one month ago today. I received an acceptance resonse that same day, with the note that that Admin was starting a new (real world) job and would need some time to get caught up. As I have long been patient in waiting (and waiting for the article to get restored back from the destructions since April), Nereocystis's repeated aggresiveness is typified by their perpetual unwillingness to be patient.

I was hopeful that the offer for resolution I made two weeks ago tomorrow could have helped us move forward. To my surprise and dismay, though, Nereocystis is so unwilling to work for a WIN-WIN, they have now even protacted the offer for resolution itself into an unnecessary drag-out of additional discussion.

All that we needed in order to go forward was the tiny example of Nereocystis being willing to show a good faith of GIVE-GIVE. From the original ofer, all they needed to do was allow the removal of one single NPOV tag, and I would GIVE so much more than they ever had to in that offer. I understand that Nereocystis thinks there is some NPOV issue there. If they would be patient, we will get to that. But it is another example of their aggressive impatience to not let that tag go for now. I have been patient since April and could even more easily fill the article with numerous NPOV tags myself. Yet I GIVE and so I do not. I am patient. I am trying to work for a WIN-WIN. But Nereocystis is unwilling to ever work for a WIN-WIN. For them, their mind requires only absolute total "conquest" in their destruction, so much so that they cannot even let one silly little NPOV tag be removed to show that WIN-WIN and GIVE-GIVE act of good faith, so that we could have moved forward.

Here is just a quick listing of only some of the disputes I have long been patient in trying get corrected. Two or three have since been corrected, but most still remain as outstanding. There are more disputes I have too, on top of the following listed items. In the listed items below, it should also be noted that I gave detailed edit-comments explaining the reasoning that anyone could easiy understand. The thing to also remember is that those edits were my attempts to bring the article closer back to TRUE STATUS QUO, so I was not trying to make "original changes" but actually making corrections back toward STATUS QUO in order to THEN TALK. These examples also show how aggressive Nereocystis is in not ever really being willing to TALK and follow Misplaced Pages Guidelines.

When I tried to offer a reasonable anti-polygamy article, they also very quickly suggested that some delete it, which then happened by very suspicious means. They fully sabotage everything I try to do, knowing they can easily enlist "help" from an overwhelming majority of bigoted anti-polygamists to assist them at most any turn of destorying the polygamy article.

Since April, they have implemented a strategy of aggressively edit and rv all my corrections. Knowing that the Misplaced Pages "Don't Be Reckless" Guidelines require that controversial articles be restored to STATUS QUO and THEN a TALK occurs in disputes, Nereocystis has protracted that never-let-me-post-or-correct-the-article strategy for all these months all so that they can now try to hide behind their intent to prevent that Misplaced Pages Guideline of STATUS QUO from being implemented. If we are truly to follow Misplaced Pages Guideliness, then those Guidelines require that the article be restored to TRUE STATUS QUO, so that we can then TALK about whatever changes Nereocystis wants to make to that version. However, the TRUE STATUS QUO goes back to March 31, and I myself am not out to remove all the other good edits that others have made since then. So, I made an extremely large food faith offer of being willing to drop that requirement so that we could move forward.

Unfortunately, despite so much of GIVING I offered, Nereocystis was not even willing to allow the one petty little asked act of good faith to remove one little NPOV tag.

It is further demonstation of their aggressively hostile "bad attitude" toward me, and that they really do not seek a real resolution which can only happen in a GIVE-GIVE approach for a WIN-WIN result. For another exmaple, even though I am now the one disputing the version of the "Tom Green and co-habitation" dispute they changed, when I said in my offer that issue that would be our first issue of discussion, Nereocystis impatiently tried to jump out ahead and change the entire discussion of that from what my dispute is, to their new desire for a completely different basis of that discussion. It has now become my dispute and here they were trying to change my dispute into a completely different discussion. While I would have no problem also discussing their extra addition to that, it was still another aggressive act of trying to have everything their way or no way. It is these kinds of examples of that kind of hostile aggressiveness that is really wearing me down and causing me concern that, until my requested AMA is able to assist me, Nereocystis will only continue to treat me so abusively. I know they do not think they are doing that, but it really is coming off as hard-core bullying to me and I do not have generally allow that kind of dysfunction from anyone else doing that to me in my life. I had been hopeful that their aggressiveness was on its way toward coming to an end, but now I will admit that I am beginning to despair of that hope.

I would appreciate any assistance you can offer, but I also admit, until my AMA is able to help, I am cautious. There have just been too many anti-polygamists unwilling to genuinely be accurate and NPOV on this article. I am not saying that that applies to you, but I only am trying to express my caution that it is possible that it could possibly also apply to you as it could apply to anyone else of course. (It is only that I do not know you yet, you see. It's not personal.) If you could genuinely be fair an unbigoted, then I would very much welcome your assistance, realizing that it is not "official" as you are not such an Admin for that.

While I know that Nereocystis likes to aggressively require that things be done with "one or two day deadlines" in order to push me into doing things faster than I might have time to do in my personal life, it is my hope that we can get this resolved in a more patient manner. There are times when it might not be possible to get back and respond so quickly. For example, I will be away for a long weekend this weekend, so I probably could not get back until Tuesday or Wednesday. It is my hope that maybe one day, I could take breaks like that when life requires and not have to be concerned that Nereocystis will use that to call for such a quick "deadline" and then aggressively act anyway because I was unable to return fast enough for their impatience.

However, as I said, I am having increasing despair. That Nereocystis could not even do this little bit of GIVE-GIVE or to seek a WIN-WIN with the NPOV tag has disappointed me greatly. Because of their unwillingness to be kind toward me in having a willingness to seek a WIN-WIN with me, I am now starting to think that we should probably just go back to the Misplaced Pages Guidelines that require the TRUE STATUS QUO in order to then TALK from there. If I am not allowed to have hope that they will work WITH me, then it seems that the only solution is to require the true Misplaced Pages Guidelines for disputed edits in controversial topics. While I await for my AMA, I welcome any fair, truthfully NPOV, and unbigoted help you could offer in the meantime, if you are able. Thank you. As I said above, I will be back next week. - Researcher 14:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Instead of listening to what I had said, Uriah923 effectively "ran right over me" and took over the article anyway. Uriah923 said,

Given that Researcher99 and Nereocystis have agreed to give my unofficial mediation a try, I will archive this page and we can start anew with the first step. Uriah923 15:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

While I had been glad to welcome any positive help within the parameters I had mentioned, I had not agreed to what Uriah923 then did and I made another post, saying so, right away.

So, the resulting TALK pages detailing Uriah923's method for "resolution" which were never agreed to in the beginning. To start a resolution, it requires an agreement as to process. We had not accomplished that at that point. So, as far as I was (and am) concerned, the only resolution issue that is valid is the one before it which was still in process, the one I had offered before Uriah923 arrived.


It is not fair or correct for Uriah923to ask me if I agree to let them mediate, and then for them to act anyway when I did not agree. It is even more unfair for anyone to then say that their subsequent "resolution" discussion on the polygamy TALK pages is even valid to begin with. It is even more unfair and incorrect than that to then say that I am somehow not willing to find or seek rsolution, when we were in the middle of a resolution process before Uriah923 arrived.


Truly, then, I am now being ganged up on and being maligned hre as if I have somehow been resistent to resolution. That is completely false. I repeat myself here: We were already in the process of an existing process for resolution and I did not accept what Uriah923 ambiguously offered. That means that, without my acceptance of that change of process to so ambiguous an offer to help, Uriah923's offered process for resolution is not valid to begin with, which they themselves acknowledged. So, I have not refused to resolve anything. I simply did not accept the problematic new offer that I could foresee would cause even more problems (such as dealing with numerous issues instead of one at a time). Plus, if not one of the others involved could be willing to listen to me in even deciding on how to start that process, it further proved that that would never let me speak with a voice in any resolution system anyway. Their inability to listen or compromise in good faith was very troubling, as it would be to any good faith person.

So, I am simply being ganged up on by those who know I have been waiting for AMA for weeks, since July 18, 2005, most particularly, Nereocystis who has given reason to wonder if they have operated with multiple Usernames (as I firmly apt to believe is the same person as Ghostintheshell for one example). They also know that the most recent offer was only premised on my support, and that if I did not accept it, we could return to the previous discussion of my offer for resolution. When there was no willingness to offer any small acts of good faith to have genuine WIN-WIN, I was unable to accept the bias. Throughout these past few months problem has been that they act extremely fast and aggressively, to destroy everything I do, and then to employ easily-found anti-polygamists to act like they have concensus for their abuse.

I have been a positively contributing editor of the polygamy article since the end of last year, with numerous amounts of knowledge on the subject. However, I have subsequently been attacked by POV anti-polygamists who have undermined the article with their POV agenda and who now consistently prevent me from editing anything in it since the end of April. I have produced volumes of evidence of the abuse in the TALK pages, which anti-polygamists have even attempted to hide by "archiving."

Here are some of the TALK articles giving the chronology of the abuse I have received. No fair decision can occur without fully reading all the evidence.


(Comprehensive evidence writings)


(Other subseqent timeline events)

So, the current changes occurring on the TALK pages of the polygamy article are not valid as part of any resolution. I have not refuse to resolve things, nor have I been difficult to work with.


Dunkelza, on the Requests for comment/Researcher99 page, is simply unhappy that I discovered that many of their attempted reference links were unusable as valid sources at all. When they made these citations, I then had pointed out how all but one was either usenet or forum discussion threads, and the other one did not even talk about the issue at all. When Dunkelza came back and made more citations, I tried to gently point out how those citations were not valid either, even one of them was nthing more than a copycat website of Misplaced Pages's older polygamy page, which is full circle! I even tried to encourage Dunkelza by stating at the end of my post, "I appreciate that you are making citations, but they really do need to be valid citations for us to rely upon them.". So, because I pointed that out, Dunkelza appears now to not be very happy with me, choosing instead to justify whatever Nereocystis has said in their abuse of me.


Kewp has only made 4 posts in polygamy TALK, only starting since Aug 22. The first one is a pure anti-polygamy propaganda promoting underage issues, and the other three talk as if they had been a part of everything all along, Post #2, Post #3, and Post #4. Because they are clearly an anti-polygamist, with intent on pushing that propaganda POV, that is what explains their willingness to justify Nereocystis's abuse even though they have not been involved in any of the situation before Uriah923 interrupted the original resolution process.


Uriah923, on the Requests for comment/Researcher99 page, is simply seeking to defend their intent to offer a resolution. Since their resolution was not properly processed by having agreement to do it by all concerned (which means me in that list of parties), the offer to help was never in a position to be considered anything more than an ambigious offer to help. It certainly never yet reached the status of being a valid ongoing proposal yet. So, Uriah923 is incorrect to suggest that I was "extremely difficult to work with." While I appreciate their acknowledgement that I was not and am not abusive, it is further unfair to acuse me of being verbose and tangential when my only action that way is to provide all the mounds and mounds of evidence. If all the other parties wuld actually listen to me and use the credible arguments I present, there would be no need to present so much evidence to prove what I am saying. This is the Catch-22 that all of these individuals put me in, refusing to listen and then accusing me of verbosity for when I prove my point with evidence. So it is wrong for Uriah923 to add their voice to the Requests for comment/Researcher99 page.


To cohclude, as I have been saying as far back as May 7, when I wrote the subsection, Throughout, I sought Wiki Guidelines: STATUS QUO until TALKed in the larger evidentiary piece, The Ghostintheshell Situation, in controversial topics such as polygamy, the specific Misplaced Pages Guidelines that say Don't Be Reckless, declare that the STATUS QUO is supposed to be preserved and THEN a TALK is to proceed. Following those Misplaced Pages Guidelines is all I have been calling for from the beginning. But Nereocystis has acted with such speed and hostile aggressiveness that every time I try to get us to that, they find a new to destroy my attempt to get us back to Misplaced Pages Guidelines that way.

The same exact problem has now happened in the TALK pages of the polygamy article. I had not authorized Uriah923 to act so quickly, to hide the evidence of Nereocystis's abuse by "archiving" the polygamy TALK pages, to create a resolution process to which I knew was doomed before it starts. Now, Nereocystis is exploiting Uriah923 and two others who have not been involved except for the last couple of weeks, to try to prevent even the TALK pages from being brought back to the STATUS QUO of the original resolution process which we had been in before Uriah923 interrupted it and the other 2 later arrived afterward.

That all four have chosen to gang up on me is further proof that I was correct in foreseeing that Uriah923's ambigious offer would not work unless there was a true WIN-WIN attitude with genuine GIVE-GIVE. Unless someone is actually willing to really listen to me and to work with me, they are only "running over me" just as happened with this unneccessary creation of the Requests for comment/Researcher99 page.

From my perspective, like I've said abut the polygamy article itself, we should follow the Misplaced Pages Guidelines and restore to STATUS QUO in order to then TALK. The polygamy TALK page should be restored to STATUS QUO of 14:24, 18 August 2005. Then we can continue the TALK from there, using the original resolution process which is the only valid one at the moment anyway.

Like I also said before, in that original resolution, we were almost there. All we need for tat to proceed is a tiny good faith act by Nereocystis to allow one tiny NPOV tag to be removed, and I will do all the other good faith acts I offered in that resolution too.


As I have not heard from my requested AMA, it seems that I will need to make some new requests of others. I will be doing so shortly. Patience on everyone's part would be greatly appreciated, of course.


When all this finally reaches an end, I hope for some real fairness, and for the bullying to come to an end.

Researcher, originally posted 20:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Later Re-Edited and also posted on polygamy TALK: Researcher 20:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Researcher 20:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Researcher99 and Nereocystis have agreed to allow me (as an unoffical mediator) to guide them through a process that will hopefully end the dispute and provide an accurate and NPOV article on polygamy. See the archives for a history of the dispute. Uriah923 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agreed to welcoming your help to the situation. Please understand that I definitely did not agree to this TALK page being archived until the confidence for proceeding to a resolution can occur. There has been too much attempts in the past to hide the evidence of Nereocystis's past abuse. Archiving simply hides their extreme abuse of me. When they are ready to work WITH me in a WIN-WIN approach, then I would agree to that evidence of their abuses being removed. As long as the NPOV tag is still there in the article, they are showing they are not even willing to have any good faith act. I did not and do not agree without good faith acts being demonstrated to show we are on the path to a WIN-WIN. Otherwise, nothing changes, and their abuse only continues, and you will have, probably unknowingly, enabled it. I appreciate your desire to help, and I welcomed that if it is fair and not biased toward the bully abuser. Archiving the evidence before the good faith act is performed by Nereocystis leaves me further abused here. I repeat, I genuinely appreciate your help, but I need this rectified. As I know you want me to be able to trust you (and I want to!), then if we can rectify that, then I will be ready to accept the archiving. Thank you for understanding. Researcher 16:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

While I do not want you to feel abused, the past really has nothing to do with putting together a quality NPOV article. As I mentioned, I think it best to start with outlines. Quality content can be added to these and a preliminary article posted without a NPOV tag. I anticipate that will happen quickly after I receive your outlines. Uriah923 18:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I have been very abused here - for months even, and I am very exhausted as I do not allow this kind of thing in my real life. So, past history is critical to understand or else we'll just be spinning our wheels and it will put the abuser on equality with their victim. I know they think thay have not done so, but Nereocystis really has been extremely abusive and if that is not realized and changed, then it will only continue. NPOV is my goal, but I can never get there because of their abuse. I do not want us wasting our time. I am tired. I would like to forget the past too and move ahead. Unfortunately, Nereocystis has been so abusive and continues to have that aggressive "bad attitude," which means they are unwilling to work for a WIN-WIN with me. If Nereocystis is honestly so willing to "move ahead" without the article being changed while we do this, then they equally would be willing to let us go forward by using the Misplaced Pages Guidelines of first RESTORING the controversial article back to the TRUE STATUS QUO of March 31 while we do this process. But because they are the ones being allowed to have aggressively destroyed the article, and to then let it sit in that destroyed condition while we do this, of course> they are "willing" to pretend they want the past forgotten. But that is not right. It allows the abuser to get away with it and asks the victim of the abuse to continue to endure the destruction and abuse as if it never happened. If we are to have any honest hope of going forward, there has to be fairness, an obedience to Misplaced Pages Guidelines, and an end to the abuse. Since they are "willing" to let the article sit while we do this, then let's do so from the TRUE STATUS QUO position of March 31, before they began destroying the article. They know that I have been saying that from the very beginning, so this is not something "new" that I am saying here. The TRUE STATUS QUO is the requirement of the Misplaced Pages Guidelines for controversial topics like this one. But would Nereocystis then be so willing to move forward while the article sits in that TRUE STATUS QUO way while we do this? Most likely not. But that is exactly what this is expecting me to accept in the reverse if we do not follow those Misplaced Pages Guidelines, as I am the one who has been extremely abused here and the article is loaded with ther destructions. Please, let us simplfiy and do things rightly. I do not want any more battles. I am so very tired of it all. I never have these battles with people. I don't believe in such immature dysfunction. That's why I have come to sometimes detest the Misplaced Pages experience for not preventing all this should-never-be-allowed abuse and their just looking the other way. But I have to keep this issue from allowing Nereocystis to chase me (or anyone) away with their abuse, and from the article being even further destroyed with their destructions. If Nereocystis is not willing to get rid of that "bad attitude" toward me, and to not allow any hope for a true GIVE-GIVE, then any form of outlining re-write is not going to succeed. I want resolution to succeed. But if we go forward in this latest way which I did not yet fully agree, then unless the article is restored to TRUE STATUS QUO, then the past history shows that Nereocystis will simply exploit this latest opportunity to routinely "disagree," "deny," or overall prevent any new article from being completed on purpose. After all, by their preventing that resolution from succeeding, it will allow them to keep the article in its current destroyed version. That's why the TRUE STATUS QUO should occur first, if this has any chance of being fair. If Nereocystis can accept that, then that will be a sign of good faith that they really do want to remove the "bad attidude" and to actually work with me for a WIN-WIN. I genuinely hope that, when I come back next week, I will be able to see some fairness and good things things going on here, including from Nereocystis. Researcher 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Addressing how you have been harmed will not bring us any closer to a quality, non-disputed, NPOV article. That is my only goal. One way to do that would be to dig through the volumes of bickering between you two in an attempt to locate a status quo. However, due to the insane amount of edits and discussing, that way is painful and unnecessarily complicated. A much more effective way is to start CLEAN (which is fair to all involved). If we can avoid worrying about the past, this will progress much more quickly to what we all want (quality, non-disputed, NPOV article). Uriah923 19:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I was so hoping that when I got back, that I would see at least on example of your listening to me and my concerns. To my disappointment, I see nothing from you at all. Did you know that? Uriah923, do you realize that you run right over me? I cautiously welcomed help in general, but I did not authorize hiding the evidence of Nereocystis's abuse in TALK. Yet, you jumped on it with extreme quickness and removed it anyway. I welcomed your input but did not authorize a full-blown re-write from a blank canvas with Nereocystis who does not even know this topic. The reason that the past matters is that unless Nereocystis stops the abuse and stops running over my proven expertise, no agreement in real NPOV will ever be really achieved anyway. You will have wasted your time, our time, my time, and the article will only be in even worse shape than before. I am sure you do not want that. There really is no need to go searching for the TRUE STATUUS QUO. It is easily available, and I have been calling for it since April. It makes absolutely no sense to me that we should let some topical newby such as Nereocystis, who has proven they do not know this topic, be allowed to create some new outline for the article. So, if your genuinely interested in following Misplaced Pages guidelines of TRUE STATUS QUO, then we simply use the March 31, 2005 version, and start from there. But if not, then it seems that I am the only one who values the Misplaced Pages Guidelines, and that I will not be allowed to be treated fairly in any of this - at least until my AMA is ready to help. I really do ask that you understand, for us to achieve success in real NPOV here, the abuse has got be addressed and I really need you to show that you are capable of listening to me. I would appreciate that very much. Thank you. (I have just run out of time for more posting at this moment, so I will return tomorrow.) Researcher 20:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If by 'run over' you mean I have disregarded your arguments, that is true. I disregarded arguments from all parties because they were getting everyone nowhere. Starting from a blank canvas will allow all to see that ONLY valid, source-backed, NPOV material has been added. It will allow all, both self-avowed experts and those who are only interested, to contribute under the same criteria - that they provide NPOV, valid and note-worthy sources for the material contributed. There is absolutely no reason to address any alleged past abuse as it would only serve to soothe your wounds - not to produce a quality article.

If you refuse to participate, then there is no chance of any resolution.Uriah923 21:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the point. We will not successfully get anywhere unless the abuse stops. Today we have another example of proof. I wanted to post here today, but instead, Nereocystis had once again forced me into having to disprove their abusive ideas. Please see the Nereocystis's double-standard post I was forced to have to make today at the group marriage article's TALK page. That took so much time to write that, to respond to that abuse, that it prevented me from any time in posting more on this. That is just one of the ways in which Nereocystis abuses me and keeps anything from actually getting done. This is not about me not wanting to participate. This is about my being abused and prevented at every step of the way. As long as the abuse is allowed and not addressed, it will keep us from moving forward no matter what we do. I have now run out of time to add anything more. I will try to get back tomorrow. Researcher 20:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Your point is that the 'abuse' must stop before we can continue. I agree that if someone was abusing you rather than participating then it would be hindering our progress. That has not happened. The only thing holding us back at present is the lack of an outline from you. Uriah923 21:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I would like to point out that I have seen no abuse on either Talk page, and would rather that Researcher99 focus on providing an outline and NPOV citations (NOT limited to "Christian Polygamy") for his input. I would also like to suggest locking the group marriage, polygyny, and polyandry pages and restricting commentary to this forum until this dispute is resolved. That way energy can be focused, and we can go through the articles one at a time. Dunkelza 19:51, 25 August 2005 (EDT)
I agree with Dunkelza. I screwed up by continuing to discuss items on the group marriage page while we are trying work on compromise here. I don't know whether we need a real lock, or an informal agreement to not edit. Nereocystis 00:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
It is offensive to me that some now try to deny the abuse, as Dunkelza is now trying to assert without really investigating all the archives back to April. Also, it was totally abusive for Nereocystis to make the attack on the group marriage TALK page that forced me into spending my time on that rather than being able to post here yesterday. Their subsequent attack replying to my post yesterday was even more abusive. The long-term problem with Nereocystis is that I am constantly being run over, as if all the time I spent trying to explain to others was all in vain. They are advancing purposely hostile POVs in trying to say things which things do not say. (Now that you have shown your willingness to run over me too, Nereocystis has begun again to try to re-assert their pure propaganda POV agenda of the underage issue.) Being run over all of these months is now what adds further concern to me now most of all about your arrival here, Uriah923. When you first offered to help, I never said that I supported your aggressive takeover of this article resolution issue or of the hiding of the past abuses by Nereocystis by archiving. But you did so very aggressively, despite what I said. That showed me you are not able to listen. Like Nereocystis, you act aggressively and then run over me as if I am the hindrance. Now you accuse me of stopping the resolution when I never yet authorized your idea, although I have been trying to see if you will be neutral enough to let me accept it. You need to understand that my reply to you last week was simply a yellow light, a friendly welcome with the oncoming red light behind it. Instead, you ignored my friendly but yellow light, and just floored the gas, completely running over me. When I asked you to not empower the abuser, you insisted on only empowering them, rather than listen to me there either. Please. Listen. One of the greatest problems with the abuser Nereocystis is that they deliberately overwhelm with "issues" in order to prevent the article from actually becoming NPOV. Before you arrived, we were almost about to at least address only one issue at a time. But now your idea of re-writing an entire article is only going to further empower that overwhelming tactic of Nereocystis. I do not have time to battle so many fronts. I don't even want to battle. That's why I have been waiting for my AMA. That's why I offered a true NPOV proposed solution to the polygamy issue on the group marriage TALK pages today, "The true NPOV solution to Polygamy question about Group Marriage." As well, as you have now concerned me enough to see that you are currently just as willing to run over me as Nereocystis constantly does, you have given me no reason to know you won't do that with the article too. I admit, I am very concerned that the minute I post another yellow light with the outline you request, you will then floor the gas, run over me again, and then use that to destroy the article before I accept it. That is exactly what Nereocystis is practically salivating for you to do. Then they will be able to pertpetually obfuscate and keep the article from ever being resolved. Please. You have to listen or you force me to consider what you did this TALK page last week was unapproved vandalism. It is not my intent to rv it back to last week so that the original resolution discussion can recur. But maybe that's what will need to be done. You, yourself, have said your offer requires my support. I have never given you that yet. I could be willing to do so, but you have to prove that you are not here to help and copy Nereocystis in running me over the same way they do. I am tired. I am tired of being bullied. Plase check out that post I made today in group marriage TALK, titled, "The true NPOV solution to Polygamy question about Group Marriage." It shows that I really am dedicated to true NPOV and valid solutions. I do not agree to ignoring that post either, as it is a perfect NPOV solution which easily solves that issue immediately. Dodging it is only the intent to further attack me and run over me yet again. it is so easy and needs no battle. It solves the problem in the most NPOV way, which shows that I really am dedicated to that. Please. I simply have to be treated with respect and not being run over. When you can show you will listen, I will be glad to be more open. I hope you can understand. Thanks. Researcher 18:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I understand that you have been involved in a long dispute that has offended you. I also understand that you think you think you have the answer as far as resolution. However, there is more than one party involved here and, therefore, I have presented a way to resolve the conflict in an unbiased fashion. I've explained this many times and asked you to forget the past and participate in creating a quality, source-backed, NPOV article. Until you are unwilling to do so, I will leave you to wait for official help. Uriah923 18:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
It would be my hope that you had done that, Uriah923. Unfortunately, and maybe without knowing it, you have offered only to assist and justify Nereocystis's bullying. All I want is true unbiased treatment, but you have, so far, only offered a biased one-side-win for Nereocystis. Just moments ago, Nereocystis proved again how much of a bully they are, unwilling to work with any real NPOV solution. Today, I had given them an easy way to let us start with some good faith. They chose not to do it, as they always do in their bullying ways. If they had acted on that little and very easy act of good faith today in the group marriage TALK pages, we would have been so much closer to perhaps getting started on your offer. If that had happened and if you had demonstrated at least some evidence of listening to me without bias, my outline would have been prepared for you very quickly. I just needed a little proof that all parties are genuinely committed to a good faith treatment of me and all seek a WIN-WIN for me, for all of us, for NPOV, in this too. It is wrong to expect that any resolution will ever succeed unless I will also be treated respectfully and without bullying. Without that, your offer to help was doomed before it started. It is not really my intent to see you go or to rv the TALK pages back to last week's position of that previous form with my offer of resolution. But if you are not able or willing to at least be unbiased toward me and to actually work with me for all of us to reach a WIN-WIN, and if you still decide you have to leave, then I guess we will have to get back to that former discussion of my offer of resolution until my official AMA help arrives. It is so frustrating that Nereocystis has become so skilled in keeping people who drop by here from actually being able to help us get this resolved (or from exploiting other people's anti-polygamy biases who drop by as another way of to preventing resolution that happening). I hope you'll stay, listen, and help with true unbias. But if you must leave, I guess I do understand. If that is the case, thank you for trying. I really wish you could help, though. Researcher 20:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
If you would simply provide an outline then the process could get started. If, at any point along the way, I demonstrate any sort of bias with regards to the article and its content, then feel free to withdraw. Thus far, however, such has not been the case and your allegations of bias are unfounded.
My previous offer stands; provide an outline so we can begin or else I can do nothing. Uriah923 20:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
If they were unfounded, the NPOV tag would be removed from last week's discussion. I also do not yet have any reason for confidence that, once I provide the outline, I really would "be free to withdraw" and then get the situation back to prior to your arrival here. So, if my views were unfounded, there would be at least some act of good faith somewhere for me to note. Instead, I have no demonstration from you yet that you are willing to do anything but seem to empower Nereocystis to further leave the article destroyed. So, here's a way for you to help see that about you. If you would like to show me that you genuinely believe in NPOV and resolution, I will be waiting over the weekend to then see how you handle the obvious NPOV resolution I offered on the group marriage TALK page for one of the issues there, "The true NPOV solution to Polygamy question about Group Marriage." That resolution there is a perfect example of total verified NPOV. Yet Nereocystis has proven to be so abusive as the bully they are, they even refuse to even allow that very easy perfect NPOV resolution there. Their behavior on that is a typical example of their abusive behavior and unwillingness to really resolve issues with NPOV. You can help me have confidence in you that you really do care about NPOV and resolution without bias, and that you are not here only to empower Nereocystis. To do that, please feel free to show me how you act in that case. I welcome your proving to be unbiased in that obviously NPOV case. Please take the weekend or a day or so more if you need to deal with that issue, "The true NPOV solution to Polygamy question about Group Marriage." I will take the weekend off and come back at the start of next week to see what you come up with. If you prove to be as NPOV and unbiased as you self-avow, I am confident that your actions will reveal that there, and I will be glad to have more confidence in you. At that point, we could be on the path to where I could be willing to place an outline as you request. Of course, it will also be helpful if Nereocystis would now abandon their abusively bully behavior and instead put forth a good faith act in that case as well by doing the easy thing needed there. A good faith act can go a long way toward helping resolving the issues. Thanks again, Uriah923. I look forward to seeing what you come up with when I get back at the start of the week. Researcher 23:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, is Researcher99 going to submit an outline or not? So far I haven't seen anything except complaints and demands for special treatment. I would like the outline submissions closed on time in accordance with the dispute resolution procedure. Those willing to move forward should be able to do so. Dunkelza 23:13, August 26 2005 (EDT)
Thanks, Uriah923, this looks like a good step. Let's concentrate on the structure of the article rather than the past history. Nereocystis 18:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Are we still on for resolution, or did Researcher99 withdraw? Nereocystis 21:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, we're still on. Researcher99 has a week to submit an outline, so I will give him until the 26th. Hopefully, we will then be able to progress quickly towards at least a basic article that has been agreed on. Uriah923 14:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Researcher99, if you would place some of your efforts into writing the outline, we can move forward. Stop worrying about everything else, and write the outline. Please. Nereocystis 23:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Starting the Article

I agree with Dunkelza. It was my impression that Researcher99 had until August 26 to finish his outline, which was yesterday. He has been given enough time to do this and our progress on this article should not be delayed any longer. I suggest that we focus our energy on fine-tuning Nereocystis' outline and begin work on rewriting the article. If Researcher99 doesn't want to give any valuable input and insists on rehashing old, perceived "abuses," then we should proceed without him.Kewp 12:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Top-level outline

The first thing I want from both Researcher99 and Nereocystis is a top-level outline of the ideal contents of the article. This should be brief and contain no text - only headings and maybe some sub-headings. As Researcher99 is going to be out of town, we will allow approximately a week for both of you to provide the outline. Uriah923 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the time pressure on me that way. Researcher 16:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, we skip discussion of disputes in these sections, and do not write, "I think section A needs to be completely rewritten, it is badly biased". I'll work on the outline soon. Of course, the structure is subject to change as time goes on.Nereocystis 18:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. After we have a solid, agreed upon foundation of what topics need to be covered and in what order we can move on to slowly add content that is NPOV and backed by valid references. Uriah923 18:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Uriah923, we really have to first start fair toward me here, or this is just another example of allowing Nereocystis the ability to abuse me again. Asking me to start from the harmed position is NOT fair under any negotiating idea. We must have a WIN-WIN, and I am only open to your help under the condition of being treated fairly for a WIN-WIN, not requioring me to start this from harmed position, while the abuser gets to get away with it again. As I said before, I am awaiting my AMA. While I said I was glad for help, I did not agree to acting this quickly, especially without anything fair being demonstrated toward me yet. I am hopeful that, when I get back next week, I might be able to see that you have found a way to genuinely bring fairness toward me is going to be a reality. Researcher 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not about anyone 'getting away with' anything or about anyone being 'harmed.' The only goal here is to improve the article. As the two of you have been unable to do this, I have offered to provide structure to facilitate it. Arguing over past hurts will only delay any progress. Uriah923 19:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I ask that you please understand that, not only did I not authorize the quick action and takeover approach that you took when I generally welcomed your general help, but I need to know that you are not out to set me up. If every action you have taken so far shows me that you do not listen to anything I say, then you prevent me from knowing that you are any more serious for NPOV than Nereocystis. If NPOV is your genuine goal, then, really, you must listen to me. Unfortunatley, I am still waiting for some evidence that shows me that you will listen to me and to my valid concerns as well. If you could solve that, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks. I really do want the matter resolved, and am hopeful that you are willing to listen. Researcher 20:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I have listened to and addressed each of your concerns. However, I am not going to give you preferential treatment. All parties will start on an equal footing and, as I mentioned in the above thread, will be given the same requirements for submitting content. If you are the expert you claim to be, and if Nereocystis is as uknowledgeable as you say he is, then this will work in your favor as you will be able to provide more valid, source-backed, NPOV material. Uriah923 21:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Nereocystis, could you please use proper thread format in your replies? Thanks. Researcher 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I am very willing to stop the discussion on Group marriage, discuss only on the polygamy talk page. However, I want a clear agreement from Researcher that he is willing to proceed with the steps outlined by Uriah923. If so, please produce a sample outline. Nereocystis 20:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Where do we stand? After more than a week Researcher99 hasn't agreed to the plan outlined by Uriah923, but he hasn't disagreed either. I don't mind waiting for a little bit longer before giving up on an agreement, but I would like some indication that Researcher99 wants to reach a resolution. Please, Researcher99, state your agreement with the plan, or your rejection of the plan, in clear terms. Nereocystis 18:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I would like to continue the polygamy rewrite, even if Researcher99 does not participate. Is Dunkelza willing to try to lead us forward in the face of possible adversity? Perhaps Researcher99 will join us later, but we shouldn't depend upon it. Nereocystis 20:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Nereocystis's outline

Here's my first draft of the outline.

  • Definition of polygamy (article header)
  • Forms of polygamy
    Details under polygyny, polyandry, group marriage
  • Related terms
    Details under polygamy
  • Polygamy worldwide - prevalence of polygamy geographically
    Details under polygyny, polyandry, group marriage
  • Polygamy and religion - history and current status within different religions
    Details under polygyny, polyandry, group marriage
  • Current status of civil polygamous marriage (formerly Legal situation) - legal status of polygamy in various locals
    Details under polygamy
  • Current proponents and opponents - notable organizations/individuals fighting for or against polygamy
    Details under polygamy
  • Polygamy in fiction - notable works of fiction that mention polygamy
    Details under polygamy
  • See also
  • References
  • External links

Should Polygamy and religion be under polygamy worldwide, as it is at present. I initially moved it there. I'm not sure now.

I suggest merging "How polygamists find more spouses" into "Polygamy and religion". Each type of polygamy could be described.

I imagine "Current status of civil polygamous marriage" as being similar to Same-sex marriage#Current status of same-sex civil marriage. Nereocystis 20:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we keep only one copy of your outline and one copy of Researcher's outline (when it is posted) up as a working document. I trimmed down your outline to keep things simple at first. I also added descriptions for some sections. It should be noted, however, that my changes are procedural and not based on my opinion of the outline contents. Feel free to modify the descriptions or add/delete sections, as it's your outline. Uriah923 21:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good. Simple means less room for argument before we need it. One copy is also a good idea. Nereocystis 21:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


You have a "Current Proponents and Opponents" section. Should we have a "Historical Proponents and Opponents" section as well, or maybe just merge them? I would also like to see a historical treatment in the "Polygamy Worldwide" section as well. Dunkelza 13:43, 21 August 2005 (EDT)

Actually, in reviewing some of the Talk archives, it seems that the outline you've presented may need to be expanded with subcategories. There seems to be an awful lot that people want to say, and the smaller format may not be sufficient. This could be the source of some of Researcher99's complaints. For instance, the underage-marriage issue, which is certainly a part of the history of polygamy, but which is not a facet of the general academic concept of polygamy. I definitely think that the "Forms of Polygamy" section is going to require A TON of subsets, so that we are clearly separating plural marriage from general polygyny, and so on.
Dunkelza 14:06, 21 August 2005 (EDT)
I would disagree-It's unclear to me, even after having read Researcher99's numerous comments to the Talk archives, how underage-marriage is not "a facet of the general academic concept of polygamy." In fact the structure of a polygamous society often requires that the males be older in order to reduce competition among them, while the women are generally much younger. This seems to be an integral part of the issue from an anthropological stance. No matter how often Researcher99 claims that underage marriage is a NPOV digression from the topic at hand, it is readily obvious to an outside observer that he/she has a strong POV agenda to push. Kewp 04:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I was unclear. What I mean by this is that a discussion of underage-marriage issues belongs in the subcategories, not in the broad definitions. For instance, while the marriage of very young women was a common trend in Mormon plural marriage, marriage below a culturally appropriate age isn't common throughout polygamous families in general. I'm not saying don't include these kinds of things in the article, just that we need to be careful where things that are very strong pro/con are located, so that the overall article is NPOV. Dunkelza 22:26, 22 August 2005 (EDT)

Originally, I had a number of subcategories. In the interest of an easy first step, Uriah923 removed the subcategories. Agreeing on the major categories may be difficult enough. Here is an earlier version. I removed "current" from "proponents and opponents". The category can be ordered historically, if need be.

"Forms of polygamy" currently just lists polygyny, polyandry, and group marriage. "Forms of polygamy" is a bad title here, though introducing the idea of polygyny, polyandry, group marriage, and possible gender neutral groups is important, since polygamy is often used as strictly polygyny. I'm troubled by having religion and worldwide as separate categories. I don't know what goes where. Perhaps these should be combined. Religion is often important to polygamy, but so is the country. Please make suggestions. I'll save under-age polygamy until the topics are better fleshed out. I don't know which articles it belongs in yet. Let's handle the outlines first, later will come the controversies. Nereocystis 04:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah. I can see how that would be important early on. I do think that we break out the subcategories that we should be sure to include all of the specific forms that we can find citations for. What this might mean is that under each subcategory (polygyny, etc.), we create a sub-subcategory for specific examples. I think that it's really important, for instance, to differentiate Islamic polygyny from Mormon plural marriage and Native American polygyny.
I'd also like to see the religion piece kept separate from the general worldwide cultural discussion. While many forms of polygamy are driven clear religious imperatives, many are not. This is especially true of polyandry and group marriage, which often seem to be adaptations to environmental factors. Dunkelza 22:26, 22 August 2005 (EDT)

Let's try seperating religion from geography, and see what happens. There is a lot of cross-over. I would like one section to be very short, describing the 3 basic forms of heterosexual polygamy. A later section should split polygamy into sub-subcategories. I don't like the title "Related terms", but it is important to explain that polygamy is not identical to polyamory. Perhaps the definition of marriage and family needs to be tightened while we're at it, using anthropological definitions, and allowing modern variations on the theme. That may explain the differences between polyamory and polygamy more clearly. Nereocystis 17:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would put the three basic forms in the first part (definition)- they have article pages of their own. The "forms of" section should probably be where we break these out into classifications, giving only short definitions that tie into any available articles for them. I DEFINITELY agree on clarifying the distinction between polyamory and polygamy! Dunkelza 19:54, 23 August 2005 (EDT)
How much should the polygamy and polygyny articles overlap? many of the examples on the current polygamy page are of polygyny for which there all ready exists a substantial article. Kewp 15:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a really good question. We could make polygamy an overview article with links to polygyny, polyandry, and group marriage covering most of the details. None of these issues covers the issue of marriage to more than one person, regardless of sex, such as suggested by Template:Journal reference issue I suppose that gets covered in polygamy, unless group marriage is willing to take it.

I see the following articles as strongly related:

Can we cover all of the articles, marriage briefly, defining it with a standard anthropology definition; then hit monogamy; cover the types of polygamy under polygyny, polyandry, and group marriage, then fill in the details at polygamy again? Under polygamy we would have a synopsis of topics covered elsewhere, and more details in certain areas.

I split the outline above into the areas where I think the most details belongs. Many of the choices are arbitrary. The group marriage discussion started about the time Researcher99 and I tried resolving our differences. It was painful, as usual.

We can back out the outline changes if this is too confusing for now. Nereocystis 18:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think there should be only a little overlap. We may need to rework polygyny and polyandry and (possibly) group marriage as well once we've a better idea of the content. It might make sense to put more of the specific details on the subpages, and to make sure that there are articles for major incarnations of polygamy as well (Islamic polygyny, Mormon plural marriage, Christian Polygamy, etc.). Indeed, we might want to apply some form of this outline to all of the polygamy family pages, whatever we decide that they are. Heck, a template might be cool. Dunkelza 11:43, August 27, 2005 (EDT)
Actually, now that I look at it, even the Marriage page needs a reworking, though I'm not ready to tackle THAT project at the moment. I think that it might be a good idea to build our outline, and/or template, to make it appropriate for the whole marriage article tree. Dunkelza 11:57, August 27, 2005 (EDT)

A template is an interesting idea. I don't know exactly what it would look like, but someone should try it.

Could we start with a definition of marriage. Murdock 1949 says:

The family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation, and reproduction.
The family is to be distinguished from marriage, which is a complex of customs centering upon the relationship between a sexually associating pair of adults within the family.

He later describes polygamous relationships of course. I can't quickly find a definition in his "Ethnographic Atlas", which is quite short. His definition of marriage doesn't mention gender, though his types of polygamy do mention gender quite specifically. A newer definition of marriage from anthropology would be good. For now, I would limit my changes to marriage to that definition.

I prefer the indentation standard in Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Layout, especially in a long series of back of forth. It prevents later conversations taking place in the far right. However, there is room for confusion with this indentation style as well. Nereocystis 16:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that we should skip the definition of "marriage" for now. I think that we can all agree that polygamy is a form of marriage, so we can fix that page later. :) I think that the important thing is to find MODERN scientific definitions anthropology, sociology, zoology, etc. that we can reconcile with each other until we arrive at a unified definition. Actually, we should break out the outline into sections in the Talk page, with subsections for subtopics, so that each section can be discussed separately. Dunkelza 17:36, August 27 2005 (EDT)

This looks good so far. I agree with modern. I apologize for using an older definition, though so many of WP's references, and others as well led to this source. I do think that finding a definition of marriage helps to explain polygamy, for the anthropology and sociology sections. One or two sentences should be enough. Perhaps it doesn't need to be moved to the marriage article yet, but we need it for our purposes. Since any anthropological or sociological definition of polygamy has to refer to marriage, this won't cost us much. Nereocystis 17:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I filled in some information at the beginning of Dunkelza's outline. I hope this is the right direction. Nereocystis 03:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of Outline Sections

Added to facilitate discussion of specific article components. Dunkelza 17:45, August 27 2005 (EDT)

Definition of polygamy (article header)

I am not expecting these subsections to appear in the article header, but rather because this is such a thorny issue, I want to be able to distinguish the types of definitions that people are drawing from. I believe that once we have some citations in each area, we can discuss the overall definition that we'll actually put on the article page. Dunkelza 17:52 August 27, 2005 (EDT)

Anthropological Definitions

Restricted to uses in the context of the science of Anthropology/Sociology/Etc.


Life Sciences Definitions

Restricted to uses in the context of the science of Zoology/Biology/Etc.
Polygamy in the broad sense covers any form of multiple mating. ... In the narrower sense preferred by zoologists, polygamy also implies the formation of at least a temporary pair bond. Otherwise, multiple matings are commonly defined as promiscuous.
Monogamy is the condition in which one male and one female join to rear at least a single brood.

Vernacular Defintions

To explain confusion between common uses and "actual" definitions.

We ought to note how "polygamy" is often used as shorthand for "polygyny," for example Polygamous Mormon fundamentalists, and how the few cases of polyandry are named as such. Kewp 06:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


Other Formal Definitions

General Dictionaries, Philosophy, etc.

Forms of polygamy

Life Sciences Definitions

  • Details under polygyny, polyandry, group marriage?

We should wait on this until we resolve the definition section. Dunkelza 17:55 August 27, 2005 (EDT)

Originally, I thought waiting would be good. However, in looking up the sociobiology definition of polygamy, I found the related terms. It was easier adding them all immediately, rather than finding them again later. Nereocystis 02:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Simultaneous polygamy
"the matings take place at more or less the same time"
Polygyny
"A single male mates with more than one female."
Harem polygyny
"simultaneous polygyny is sometimes referred to as harem polygyny"
Polyandry
"mating of one female with more than one male."
Simultaneous polygamy
"the matings take place at more or less the same time"

Related terms

  • Details under polygamy


Polygamy worldwide

- prevalence of polygamy geographically

  • Details under polygyny, polyandry, group marriage


Polygamy and religion

- history and current status within different religions

  • Details under polygyny, polyandry, group marriage


Current status of civil polygamous marriage

(formerly Legal situation) - legal status of polygamy in various locals

  • Details under polygamy


Proponents and Opponents

- notable organizations/individuals fighting for or against polygamy

  • Details under polygamy


Polygamy in fiction

- notable works of fiction that mention polygamy

  • Details under polygamy


See also

References

As this is such a controversial issue, what does everyone think about temporarily including the text of the reference - or at least the page number - so it can be checked? Uriah923 21:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Nereocystis 14:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

External links

Footnotes

  1. Wilson, E.O., Sociobiology, p. 164-165.
  2. Wilson, E.O., Sociobiology, p. 164.
  3. Wilson, E.O., Sociobiology, p. 164.
  4. Wilson, E.O., Sociobiology, p. 164.
  5. Wilson, E.O., Sociobiology, p. 164.
  6. Wilson, E.O., Sociobiology, p. 164

Requests for comment on Researcher99's conduct

I have been having problems with Researcher99's conduct since May. I have created an RFC page for him Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Researcher99. There needs to be one more person involved in the conflict who is willing to sign this page in the next 48 hours. I appreciate everyone's help with trying to resolve this conflict.

If anyone feels that my conduct needs an RFC, feel free to add me to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct.

Now back to polygamy. Nereocystis 17:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

If anyone other than Researcher99 feels that my descriptions are inaccurate, we should be able to change the description. Researcher99, of course, should respond in the appropriate section. Nereocystis 19:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I should have been more specific. It is best if you could certify the results under Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Researcher99#Users certifying the basis for this dispute, if you feel comfortable doing so. Then the RFC can move down the list to approved list on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct. Dunkelza has definitely made suggestions which Researcher99 did not follow.

With some luck, other users will comment, and perhaps Researcher99 will follow their suggestions on behavior. Alternatively, the users may suggest that my behavior should change. Either way, we have outside views which will allow us to move forward, if the views are followed by the participants. Nereocystis 19:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's comment. I still have a slight problem. My goal is to work with Researcher99, and I hope that a RFC will help him to play nicely.

Unfortunately, I need one more person to sign the section "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". Without the additional signature, the RFC will be deleted. Both Uriah923 and Dunkelza requested that Researcher99 emphasize the article rather than past behavior. I think that it is reasonable to sign this section, but if they don't, perhaps we can come up with an alternative.

Did I include too much detail for anyone else to sign? The people who were involved earlier are not currently involved. One (Hawstom) is in the middle of a wiki break.

Should I remove the ancient history from the RFC. If I start with Uriah's entrance, it simplifies the RFC significantly. It would stop dwelling on past history, which may be fair, given the circumstances.

Removing the history removes the evidence of months of bad behavior, but this really isn't necessary.

Please provide some guidance. I am concerned that unless Researcher99 has very strong suggestions for improving his behavior, that he will continue to distract the polygamy page from making progress. Nereocystis 01:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)