Talk:Polygamy/Archive 5

message: The discussion below occurred after an aggressive takeover that was not approved by all parties in the previous dispute.  The last valid version of this TALK page, before the hostile takeover, was on 14:24, 18 August 20.  All participation on thse subheaded subtopics should cease untilthe larger issues of dispute are resolved. Researcher 19:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ALL DISCUSSION IN SUBHEADINGS BELOW THIS ONE ARE  NOT LEGITIMATE

message: 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)
thread_title: Starting the Article

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for removing the time pressure on me that way.  Researcher 16:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Nereocystis, could you please use proper thread format in your replies?  Thanks.  Researcher 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Top-level outline 

message: This section is badly POV. There are a few issues.  Mormons consider themselves Christians. The phrase:
:Most Christian polygamists are usually quite geographically separated from other like-minded believers.
implicitly excludes polygamous Mormon fundamentalists, who make up a large part of Christian polygamists, and often live in communities of other Mormon polygamists,
This sentence:
:LoveNotForce.com sets the "standard of Christian Polygamy."
is also quite POV, suggesting that any other interpretation of Christian polygamy is inferior to this interpretation.
In addition, this section describes the teachings of truthbearer.org, which is a group or sect of Christian polygamists, the group that Researcher99 seems to be associated with.  I'm not sure what the right word is for this group. Other non-Mormon Christian polygamists disagree with this group. http://www.nccg.org/fecpp/CPM051-History.html describes some of the beliefs of other Christian polygamists.  I'm not clear about how many people these web sites represent, but they consider themselves to be Christian polygamists, who disagree with the love-not-force concept. God's Free Men and Women also has a different take on Christian polygamy.  Both of them were once associated, perhaps slightly, with truthbearer.org. Here's a possible rewrite
:Most non-Mormon Christian polygamists are geographically separated from other Christian polygamists.
:Truth Bearer, a Christian polygamist group, uses a standard which they call love-not-force (, should be in footnote).  Husbands are not allowed to force polygamy on any current wife.  If "God truly calls" a husband to polygamy, then a husband must wait until "God truly calls" the wife to also embrace polygamy.  Christian polygamy does not promise rewards for engaging in polygamy.  This branch of Christian polygamy is based on the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, on the instructions in Ephesians 5:22-25.  Because Christian polygamy involves no religious "rewards" for polygamy, there is no pressure upon women to embrace it.  Truth Bearer polygamous families seek moral, Christian women.  A Truth Bearer polygamist wife is often a secularly-divorced Christian mother whose ex-husband abandoned her and the children.
Researcher99 previously responded to this suggestion at Talk:Polygamy/Archive 4#NPOV - Yep, I know..., and objects to the rewrite, but did not give an alternative version. I have added this to RfCs Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society and law. Nereocystis 23:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this issue on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion page.  Did you make a mistake? thanks. Also, it seems like a discussion of how these other Christian polygamy groups, including God's Free Men and Women, differ from the truthbearer people would be appropriate. Kewp 06:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Polygamy#Christians & seculars - geographically separated]]

message: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy has been accepted; it is a merger of the two requests. A brief statement of the case would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy. Place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy/Evidence. From  Fred Bauder's post at User talk:Nereocystis#Arbitration accepted. Nereocystis 17:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration on polygamy has been accepted

message: I restored the definition of trigamy, since it is mentioned in the Oxford English Dictionary. I simplified the definition of bigamy.  Please comment here if either change seems inappropriate. Nereocystis 00:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we need to mention trigamy? It's merely a dictionary def., that should be obvious to anyone who knows English.--Prosfilaes 04:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't have a strong opinion but even though it is a dictionary definition I think that it is important to clarify the difference between polygamy and the subset of bigamy, so including trigamy might be a small interesting bit of information, no harm there.--Kewp (t) 15:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: oh, I was wondering what people felt about archiving the earlier contents of this talk page.  It seems like we should start with a clean slate? --Kewp (t) 15:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored trigamy

message: I'm not entirely sure where to put this question, but would it be possible/acceptable to place the description of Mormon polygamy as a subheading under Christian polygamy?  It seems like the current outlined format implies that Mormons are not Christians, although I know that the fact that Mormons do consider themselves Christians has been acknowledged on this Talk page. JordeeBec 18:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormon vs. Christian polygamy 

message: in Polygamy#Islam it's written:
'Even though Muhammed was himself polygamous, he expressed disapproval of it for his own daughter, Fatima, and recognised that it would emotionally upset her. According to Bukhari (who mentions the hadith twice, Book 7, Number 115 and 152),
:"I heard Allah’s apostle who was in the pulpit saying "The Bano-hisham bin Al-Mughira have requested me to allow them to marry their daughter to Ali bin Abi Taleb, but I do not give them permission and will not give permission unless Ali divorces my daughter because Fatima is a part of my body, and I hate what she hates to see and what hurts her." '
this is a sunni viewpoint. by shi'ite(shia) viewpoint, this is certainly wrong. shi'ites believe that Imam Ali ibn Abitalib didn't want to marry anyone when Fatima(daughter of Muhammad) was alive. shi'ites believe that Bukhari is corrupted.
:Would you mind putting four tildas (~) after your posts so we can see your name and when you edited?  I doubt this is the Sunni view as a matter of fact because they are unlikely to claim that Muhammed thought polygamy was wrong for his daughter.  But it is a valid reading of the historical source material.  Which is a different claim.  Can you think of a way of making it clear what the Shia point of view is? Lao Wai 09:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad and polygamy, for his own daughter  

message: I just reverted a series of changes by 4.246.30.203, all of which sought to whitewash Mormon history.  The original text was supported by a number of sources, including both the Krakaur and Brodie books, so it's not a lack of citation.  It was altered because it was accurate but not flattering to Mormons.  My guess is that these changes were by a Mormon who is embarassed by their religion's past.  In short, the changes were contrary to verifiable sources and were POV.  I consider the change to be vandalism.
While I'm here, I should explain a change I'm about to make.  Currently, the Mormon section is separated from the Christian section by Islam.  Since Mormonism is a form of Christianity, albeit a distinct one that is not in the mainstream, it should be grouped under, or at least near, Christianity. Alienus 08:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion of Mormon changes

message: "Both polygamy and polyandry were practiced in ancient times among certain sections of the Hindu society. " 
Besides my knowledge, my immediate source of this statement was this very section. The section already says that:
* Women were allowed to marry more than once (and/or have multiple husbands). See for example, Draupadi.
* Certain sections were not allowed to be polygamous, and in effect only kings were polygamous.  deeptrivia (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polygamy in Hinduism  

message: I’ve tried to remove redundant text and to tighten the wording of the section. The following is mostly for Xaaan5, but anyone else with the necessary knowledge (or, at least, mastery of the languages involved and ability to use Google) is also very strongly invited to help:
* I’ve put  where things need to be backed up. Note that they really need to be backed up and if they aren’t, they will be removed eventually.
* I have also removed all links to search engine results, which are really completely useless.
* Please try to add citations of sources where indicated (or where you consider it necessary). Do so by adding links, or by using the ref element, or some other appropriate method. In particular, these citations must be visible to the reader.
* Also, if at all possible, cite English sources, because they are much easier to verify for most other editors and readers.
* Regarding the length of the section, I suggest that you provide citations for what is there before adding content.
* Regarding Confucius, the translation to which you have linked does not yield the interpretation in the article. Is there a published translation where multiple wives are explicitely mentioned? Cite that, please (or remove the statement).
Is that acceptable? —xyzzyn 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Xaaan (if this is you), you are grossly contradicting yourself. If you claim there are academic references for what you say, it should be possible for you to link to them. Moreover, you continue to miss the point, which is that Wikipedia is not for academics (although I admit I am one!), not for people doing original research, but just for the elegant colation of information already in the public domain. mgekelly 03:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polygamy in Chinese Culture (again)

message: I take it no-one's really started cleaning up the material added by Xaaan5? A blanket issue concerning his edits which concerns me is that most of it seems to be about marital infidelity rather than polygamy per se. Some of it seems to me to be clearly irrelevant. For example, it stated that Mao had an extramarital lover, and seemed to imply that this was in contravention of anti-poylgamy laws. Unless there is a different concept of polygamy in China, this seems to be nonsense. However, if Taiwanese businessmen have second families in China, well that looks a lot more like polygamy. Still, there is a clear distinction between one's wife and one's mistress in law. What does anyone think? mgekelly 15:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While Chinese polygamy has been banned sucessively since the 50s, and the modern form of cross-border affairs/polygamy is debatable, concubinage existed before the ban should belong to this article. --Kvasir 01:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There's alot of info to be found in the Chinese marriage article. There appears to be a different definition when it comes to polygamy in the criminal code. According to the article, in Chinese criminal law, married people who leave home to live with their lovers are considered to have committed bigamy. This I think is hard to prove and enforce but nevertheless that is the law. --Kvasir 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Xaaan5's edits 

message: Last I checked, a Mormon man can be sealed to multiple women in a number of cases (such as when his first wife dies and he remarries).  This would mean that he would be married to both in the afterlife, which is post-mortem polygamy as part of celestial marriage.  Am I mistaken? Al 21:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormon post-mortem polygamy. 

message: Although polygamy is not recognized as "marriage", is the polygamous lifestyle legal or illegal in California? Just Curious. Zachorious 10:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal In California? 

message: I'm new to this article, but it's not clear why these tags were added? I can't find any reason given for them being added, and this article has sources. Are we able to move the unreferenced tag to appropriate sub-sections, and/or use  tags? Mdwh 02:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup / Unreferenced? 

message: :Group marriage, or circle marriage, may exist in a number of forms, such as where more than one man and more than one woman form a single family unit, and all members of the marriage share parental responsibility for any children arising from the marriage. Another possible arrangement not thought to exist in reality, although occurring in science fiction (notably in Robert Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress), is the long-lived line marriage, in which deceased or departing spouses in the group are continually replaced by others, so that family property never becomes dispersed through inheritance.
It sounds to me like this is missing another key possible form (don't know whether it has ever occured) that is when there are more then one man and more then one woman but the women are only primarily or solely responsible for their own children (and not the children of other women). In modern days, it would also be much more easily possible for the men to be primarily or solely responsible for their own children (obvious, without DNA testing this would be more difficult although it would depend on the arrangement) Nil Einne 06:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 forms/group marriage 

message: :For polyandrists, there are no web-sites dedicated to providing ads for single men seeking polyandry or even for polyandrous families seeking such single men. The only online opportunities for such ads would likely be found on polyamory sites such as PolyMatchMaker.com.
:However, the very different kinds of relationship-seekers who would advertise on such polyamory sites involve additional issues with which most polygynists would never be interested in nor comfortable with being associated. Mormon, Muslim, and Christian polygamists are all exclusively polygyny-based, and all typically do not involve bisexual issues. Even most secular polygamists tend to be polygynists too.
This is a bit confusing. As far as I can tell, polymatchmaker welcomes all poly-ies so to speak, whether polygynysts, polyandrists, polyarmourists or whatever so it isn't really a polyamory website. Also, the talk of bisexual issues seems confusing. While I appreciate that traditional polygyny-based cultures do not support or allow sexual contact between wives, from my understanding of polygyny the term it self simply describes a situation where there is one husband and multiple wives. Therefore, a living situation where the wives have sexual contact with each other would still be polygynist.
Perhaps the issue is not 'bisexuality' but that these sites welcome those interested in group marriages and polyandrous marriages and therefore these people would be present as well. However I would assume want each person wants would be clearly labelled and in any case are issues for all participants. A person interested in groups marriages we can presume would NOT be interested in someone interested in polyandrous or polygynys marriages. Similarly with someone interested in polyandrous relationships.
Nil Einne 06:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet? 

message: There is a brief statement in the article that polygamists may find it harder to obtain immigrant status, but what is the legal status of polygamists from countries where it is legal who visit countries such as the U.S.?  Does the law recognize all, one, or none of them as wives for purposes of directing medical care, inheritance, suing for divorce, applying for citizenship, and so on?  Are they regarded as violating a law when they are all in the U.S.?  Mike Serfas 02:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't many high-profile examples but in the UK there's a precedent for the government to ignore it in the case of visitors. If immigrants go on to naturalise, it seems only one spouse is considered legitimate and the others are not legally married. Which in the UK would leave them without automatic (or free) inheritance, automatic citizenship, or any grounds for divorce or settlement. Since all health care is free here that is theoretically unaffected as long as their own visas are in order. Sorry that this doesn't really answer the question (about the US).Leushenko 23:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: International affairs

message: Are all either broken, or to xtian sites, not jewish ones. Why was this reverted when I removed them? FiveRings 21:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links under Jewish Polygamy 

message: I have deleted most of the text in this section as it is a) completely false and b) largely made up of long quotes from the Quran which b.1) are not in an encyclopedic style and b.2) have been selectively taken from that source so to further the author's point of view.
Basically the section was so misleading and point of view biased that in its current state it detracts from a factual article. I have flagged it with the "expert needed" tag so that someone who knows the laws and statistics in specific countries and who has more available time than I, can add precise - and hopefully this time - factual information. Canderra 02:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well! The question is that whether explanation should be according to practice in Muslim countries or through Islamic point of view, because Qur'an says which was written there already. But there are no two opinions that polygamy is widely practiced in Arabian countries. How much it is Islamic, that is another question. TruthSpreaderTalk 14:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Prophet's multipled wives have been discussed in Muhammad's marriages. As prophet was given special permission in Qur'an and which is not applicable to all Muslims, hence I don't think this is the appropriate article to discuss. TruthSpreaderreply 23:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polygamy in Islam 

message: The source is a general discussion of the one child policy and isn't related to the statement at all.
Unlike polygyny, polyandry is considered taboo. However, the One-Child Policy has been increasing the male to female ratio,  which may force a revisiting of this attitude. 
Roadrunner 10:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing problems 

message: It excludes South Africa, Many christians zulu have more than one wife.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 14:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The map is wrong

message: I intend to be  bold and edit the lead to reflect that polygamy is not one form of marriage, but several. The edit will replace "a" with "any". I am aware that changing the second sentence of a lead paragraph on a controversial topic can cause a stir. Please believe my intention is to improve the article, not to offensively push any particular POV. If my edit offends someone, please explain why! Sdsds 05:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any form, rather than a form 

message: This is a rather unorthodox interpretation of the Great Learning
In Confucianism, the ability of a man to manage a family, which usually meant more than one wife and set of children, was emphasised as part of the steps of learning for personal growth in Daxue (Great Learning) .  
 Quoting Professor Xu who explained the Confucianism (大學之道)Quoting 徐醒民教授《儒學簡說》: 格物、致知、誠意、正心、修身、齊家、治國、平天下 which
Zhu Xi had summarized from the book of Great Learning(Daxue).
The 8 learning steps & use 
Text quote in Chinese with pronunciation 
Original text Daxue I. 4 & 5 
Also, looking through the citations, they all seem to be summaries of the Great Learning, and they don't mention polygamy at all.
Roadrunner 03:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Learning 

message: The recent edit putting The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under a new "Pseudo-Christian Groups" section is, I believe, a breach of WP:NPOV.  Even-handed discussion of whether Mormons are Christians would more properly belong in the article on Mormonism and Christianity.  Richwales 05:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've removed this. --Xyzzyplugh 22:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling Mormons "pseudo-Christian" is POV