Talk:Polygamy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Disputed

There is a lot of good information in Polygamy. However, there has been a lot of controversy with many changes lately. I want to discuss proposed changes, concentrating on facts with references, and try to avoid the personal attacks. The title Disputed is suggested in Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute. I would also like to clean up the text in the main article. Often, the article is repetitive.

Muslim polygamy--Resolved

Have these issues been resolved to everyone's satisfaction?

Nereocystis 23:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Polygamy#Polygamy_vs._bigamy

This sentence is not quite complete:

Polygamy is the anthropological term, which can be either polygyny (one man having multiple wives) or polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands). Historically, both practices have been found, but polygyny appears far more commonly than polyandry.

Group marriage is considered to be a form of polygamy, at least by many practioners of group marriage. I suggest the following rewording. Modified a bit. I removed "the anthropoligical term", since it didn't add anything.

Polygamy which can be:

• polygyny - one man having multiple wives, or
• polyandry - one woman having multiple husbands, or
• homosexual polygamy - more than two people of the same gender who form a family group
• group marriage - more than one man and more than one woman form a family unit

Historically, all practices have been found, but polygyny is the most common form of polygamy.

[[User::Researcher99]] says:

and to subtly re-define polygamy as group marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=13682713&oldid=13675602) even when it clearly is not

The group marriage page considers group marriage as a form of polygamy; that's my first reference for considering group marriage a form of polygamy. All group marriage is polygamy. Not all polygamy is group marriage. Therefore group marriage must be mentioned as a form of polygamy, though not the only form. Talk:Polygamy#Polygamy_is_about_marriage.2C_not_sex discusses Not all polygamy is group marriage. I am not redefining polygamy as group marriage, and I am not subtle.group marriage briefly, but most of the discussion is about polyamory vs polygamy. These are different. The discussion about group marriage vs polygamy is small. If anyone believes that group marriage is not a form of polygamy, please provide references, and we can include both points of view. Without references, don't make changes.

I am not trying to redefine polygamy as group marriage, and I am not subtle.Nereocystis 19:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there another term for group marriage that doesn't make you (or anybody) think it is talking strictly about sex, not total family, perhaps polygynandry or circle marriage? Tom Haws 22:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Just as polygamy makes some people think about sex, group marriage makes some people think about group sex. That doesn't mean that we should avoid either word. Marriage makes other people think about sex. Group marriage immediately suggests to me a group of people married to each other. polygynandry and circle marriage are a little bit more confusing. Also polygynandry does not include a homosexual group marriage, which would leave it off of my list. Of course, I have to rewrite my phrase a bit to include homosexual polygamous marriages.Nereocystis 20:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I threw in a sentence above about homosexual polygamy, but I'm not really happy with the current wording.Nereocystis 08:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• (different writer than above)I am no expert, but I was under the impression that polyandry was a term referring to what this author calls group marriage and not necessarily to a woman with multiple husbands. Admittedly, my information comes from a RealSex(the HBO Series) episode I watched over a year ago, and may not be accurate. If anyone can clarify all of the terms, add any new terms and maybe give a literal translation from the Greek root word, I think it would be a worthwhile aside. Also, because I have never tried to edit here, please excuse any rule breaking I may have done in posting this. I did not change any of the author's original wording. If this is the wrong place to do this, please feel free to erase, on the condition that myself or anyone else wanting to make comments are informed of where and how to do so.

To anon: Poly = many. Andro = male. Polyandry = many males. To Nereo: the idea of homosexuality as marriage is very marginal in the world. I'm interested to see how you add an explanation of this to the article. Tom Haws 18:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

To Haws: Thank you. I really wanted to know what 'andro' translated to; I now have a much clearer understanding, and welcome the correction of my mistake. However, with the understanding that most States do not allow or recognize homosexual marriage, some do, and to call any marriage(no matter how unconventional) "'very' marginal" is, to me, a bit opinionated and homophobic. If, as I am hoping, you were simply referring to the small number of recognized homosexual marriages and subsequently smaller number of homosexual polygamous marriages, I feel that even if there is only one such marriage in the world, it deserves mention. I would be most interested in seeing Nereo's additions to this topic as well as the 'explanation' you seek (provided the info is factual and backed with both sources and examples (as I have never heard of any cases of polygamous homosexuality). Although I was only unclear about the term 'polyandry', I think that the mini-glossary is a nice touch, especially for those of us who are just poking around to pass time. Thanks, Folks!

Gay polygamous marriage is probably quite uncommon, more so than straight polygamous marriage. Years ago, I had a friend who was involved in a gay 3-person relationship. I don't think that they called it marriage; I can't really remember the details. There were many aspects which were close to marriage. It may take me quite a while to find references on this topic. I may even fail. Nereocystis 20:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The whole Polygamy#Terminology section needs to be rewritten. It isn't really polygamy vs anything. Most of the words are either a subcategory of polygamy or polygamy is a subcategory of the word:

• bigamy is a type of polygamy. Also, bigamy is a legal word.
• All polygamy is a type of polyamory, but not all polyamory is a type of polygamy.
• All group marriages are polygamous, but not all polygamous marriages are group marriages.
• polygamy is a form of poly relationships, but not all poly relationships are polygamous.

I need to try for another rewrite of this section. Nereocystis 01:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tapestry Against Polygamy link removed--Resolved

This change [1] removes the Tapestry Against Polygamy link, claiming that it is duplicate. It is not duplicated. I wish to restore the link, or have someone show me where the link is duplicated.Nereocystis 19:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Move Polygamy#Mormon polygamy under Polygamy#Christianity--Resolved

Mormon is a type of Christianity, so Mormon should be a subcategory of Christianity, if polygamy remains categorized by religion. Nereocystis 08:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Polygamy#Mormons_-_Aggregate_in_Communities- negative view of Mormon polygamists

This section has a generally negative view of Mormon polygamists and women's lack of choice in marriages. This may be correct in some groups of fundamentalists, but definitely not in all. The negative POV in this section should more fairly describe Mormon polygamists now and pre-Manifesto. Nereocystis 20:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hindu Polygamy

I think the section regarding Hindu polygamy (Polygamy#Hinduism) needs to be re-worded a bit. It implies that Hinduism has no objections, but does not encourage polygamy. This is not entirely correct. In the Anusasana Parva, Section Forty-Four, it is written "A Brahmana can take three wives. A Kshatriya can take two wives. As regards the Vaishya, he should take a wife from only his own order. The children born of these wives should be regarded as equal." Point: Hinduism provides guidelines for polygamy, therefore the article should cite this quotation, with a comment something along the lines of "Though Hinduism does not encourage polygamy, it is technically permitted for certain castes. In the Anusana Parva..." etcetera. The rest of the section is fine, as it is indeed against the law in India for Hindus to marry more than one wife (the law dates to the time of British Conquest), and they are indeed looking at making the law apply equally to all religions. --User:Xaa

This sounds plausible to me. Nereocystis 17:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Polygamy#Muslims_.26_traditionalist_cultures

I want to split Muslims from other cultures for a few reasons:

1. I don't know a traditionalist culture when I see one.
2. I don't know why Muslims are considered traditionalist, but Christians are not.

Nereocystis 17:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Radical feminists against polygamy--Resolved

Polygamy#Current_proponents_and_critics claims that radical feminists are against polygamy. No examples are given. The sentence suggests that all forms of polygamy are opposed. I suspect that marrying underaged females is opposed by many feminists, and non-feminists, but I would like to see support about the opposition to polygamy extending to all radical feminists. Otherwise, I suggest rewording this paragraph. Nereocystis 08:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's a reference where the Utah National Organization for Women invited a polygamist wive to speak. Radical feminist's supposed opposition to polygamy sounds like an attack against feminists, rather than a description of their stand on the issue. I plan to delete this line, unless there is opposition and citations:

In contrast, radical feminism has generally aligned with Christian fundamentalists to stop polygamy.

Nereocystis 18:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polygamy#Legal_situation

This section is very oddly worded, though I'm not sure that it is inaccurate. Unfortunately, I don't know what the original author meant to say. Laws against the 'polygamous lifestyle' are mentioned, though 'polygamous lifestyle' is not clearly defined. What does 'parts of the United States' mean? Does this mean states. Please give examples. I assume this refers to Utah and Idaho primarily. "which is unusual" should be removed. I don't know what it refers to. I'll work on an alternate wording later.

Polygamy#Multiple_divorce_and_marriage_for_polygamy

This should be moved to Legal situation. The following phrase does not have a reference, and I believe that it is incorrect; it has been marked as disputed, as per the wikipedia's guidelines.

It was Green's crime of criminal non-support which initiated the case in that one state.

This case is discussed in detail under Talk:Polygamy#Tom_Green_precedent_for_commom-law_bigamy_conviction. Researcher, who is now renamed User:Researcher99 refused to provide meaningful references because the sentence is obvious. I disagree. I eventually grew tired of fighting, but I'm back again.

References about Tom Green's case have been removed by User:Researcher99. This references should be allowed to stay.

Another sentence says:

However, it does show the risks in using the system of multiple divorce and legal marriage and why many polygamists avoid it.

This sentence is irrelevant, since common-law marriage does not require divorce. Of course, the decision did not effect any polygamous marriage which took place before the Green case. So it is double irrelevant. I plan to remove this sentence, unless there is documentation for why it should stay.Nereocystis 00:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Researcher99 provides a reference of an interview with Mark the Founder of a ministry, perhaps truthbearer.org, where the founder says that Green was prosecuted because of criminal non-support. It is not clear who "Mark the Founder" is, or why one should trust his view on this issue. I don't consider this a valid reference for resolving the question of why Tom Green was prosecuted. However, I am willing to listen to a reason why I should trust Mark the Founder.Nereocystis 22:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

David O. Leavitt was the prosecutor in the Tom Green bigamy and child-rape cases. He is no longer the Juab County Prosecutor, but he states the reasons for his prosecution of Green. While Leavitt mentions government support, he claims that it is not the reason for the prosecution. Look at this ReligionNewsBlog article:

I agree that not all polygamists, sexually or otherwise, abuse children. I understand that some don't scam the government. But the harm to society and to innocent individuals is so great that even the exceptions cannot be justified. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1879 rejected polygamy, stating that monogamy is the only acceptable form of marriage because it preserves our culture and our families.

In another page which claims to be from a Reuter's article, Leavitt says:

whenever someone confesses to commission of a felony on national television in my jurisdiction I'm going to prosecute him

These two quotes provide evidence that Green's prosecution was not because of criminal non-support, but because:

1. Green publicly talked about his polygamy
2. Anyone guilty of polygamy should be prosecuted.

Can Researcher99 provide evidence which support his view? Nereocystis 21:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I usually use fewer words than Researcher99. I have trimmed unneeded words. I would also add the above links about the prosecutors views on the case. My suggested wording for this section is:

Some polygamous families use a system of multiple divorce and marriage. For polygynous relationships, the husband marries the first wife, she takes his last name, he divorces her and then marries the next wife who takes his name. This is repeated until he has married and divorced all his wives, except possibly the last one. The wives call themselves Mrs. [husband's last name] and, while legally they're divorced from the husband, they act still married to him and expect those around them to acknowledge and respect this. For polyandrous relationships, the wife marries and divorces the husbands.

Since only one wife is married to the husband at any one time, no law was being broken and so this type of polygamous family unit could be overt about their relationship. In 2001, however, the state of Utah in the United States convicted Tom Green of criminal non-support and four counts of bigamy for having 5 serially monogomous marriages, while living with previous legally divorced wives. Green's conviction was affirmed by the Utah Supreme Court in State of Utah v. Green. This case applies only in Utah.

Nereocystis 08:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Mormon fundamentalists - so-called and otherwise

If you look at the definition of fundamentalist, it is clear that the polygamists are Mormon fundamentalists, they are returning to earlier Mormon teachings. I like User:TacoDeposit's changing, but want to remove additional so-called. Is there anyone who doubts that they are Mormon fundamentalists? "So-called" suggests that the term is inaccurate and that there are other phrases to describe these people. You may have doubts that the fundamentals which they are practicing are important to Mormonism, but they are traditional Mormon values, nevertheless.Nereocystis 23:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think "so-called" is used because of the term Mormon not because of any issue with fundamentalism. As you can see from the Latter Day Saint movement pages and discussion, the term Mormon is used either 1) as a synonym for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or 2) as a term for all who believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet (like the Community of Christ which disputes that it is a break off but a continuation of the church that JS founded). Since some which can be called Mormons never practiced polygamy, the term Mormon Fundamentalist has a specific meaning, i.e. those that broke off from the LDS Church after the practice of polygamy was halted, and it is "so-called" since the term is not strictly correct but no better term I can think of could be used. Trödel|talk 22:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I consider "so-called" Mormon fundamentalists to be the equivalent of:

Mormons are "so-called" Christians.

"So-called" has a derogatory suggestion which shouldn't be used here. Since they are called "Mormon fundamentalists", there shouldn't be a so-called in front of the word, unless you are suggesting that they shouldn't be called that. There is already a disclaimer that they are not LDS, though the sentence is very awkward and should be edited down.Nereocystis 23:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Trying to think of a neutral term Trödel|talk 14:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the answer yet, but I'll add information here until there is an answer. Here's the official LDS view on fundamentalist Mormon, but the LDS church doesn't suggest an alternative name. Of course, the LDS Church doesn't really approve of the use of Mormon, either. Here is a reasonable, unofficial article on Mormon fundamentalists. Should there be an article on Mormon fundamentism, or would that name be too controversial? "Self-proclaimed" is worse than "so-called". "Self-described" is better, but still doesn't feel correct.Nereocystis 17:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I added a discussion for this topic outside of polygamy, since it really is a wider issue: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Use_of_.22Mormon_fundamentalist.22 Nereocystis 18:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Please use disputed section

User:Researcher99 made a large number of changes which are being discussed under the disputed section of the talk page. Please discuss items there. Follow the rules. Nereocystis 22:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This dispute does not seem like it will be resolved without outside help. I have requested outside help in Wikipedia:Third_opinion. I also made a request under User_talk:Researcher99 for the user to follow protocol. This is a necessary step before making a request for an action against this user. I hope that we can reach an agreement without outside intervention, but it seems unlikely. Nereocystis 22:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)