Talk:Group marriage/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Group marriage" is not called "True polygamy"

The article currently declares a false statement, saying that "group marriage" is sometimes called "true polygamy." Not only does the person who wrote that statement not not know the meaning of the polygamy, but they did not even Wikipedia:Cite sources.

"Group marriage" can not be called "true polygamy" because it is not even polygamy at all. That is because polygamy is only one of two things. It is either polygyny (one man with more than wife) or it is polyandry (one woman with more than one husband). Either way, it is always a relationship of one-gender to multiple-other-gender.

That's why other arrangements of more than one gender with mutiple others of the other gender is not polygamy, although it is rightly called "group marriage," and is one form of polyamory.

I just did a quick search: Yahoo, for example. The only webpages that call "group marriage" as "true polygamy" are this Wikipedia article and sites that copy the Wikipedia article directly.

Because this the article is not correct with this statement icnluded, it will ned to be edited. I will await a response here in TALK for about a week. If no one has anything to add or discuss on this, I will then remove that false statement.

Researcher 17:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Polygamy - From the ancient greek poly (many) and gamos (marriage). Literally, "Many Marriages" or "Married to Many". The base term does not indicate sex. Because of the neutrality of the original term, some persons refer to group marriage as "true polygamy", as it is more sex neutral than either polyandry or polygyny.

Citations: [1] [2] [3] [4]

However, I agree that the term "true polygamy" is confusing in an encyclopedic entry. In the nine pages of hits off of Altavista, I found many religious groups using it to refer to certain types of polygyny. I have removed the term from the article for the sake of clarity.

Dunkelza 23:10, 8 August 2005 (EDT)

By deleting true polygamy, the only reference to polygamy was deleted. I see a few options:

1. Mention that group marriage is a form of polygamy
2. Decide that it isn't a form of polygamy (as Researcher99 states), and state this as so
3. Leave the article as is, and let people come to their own conclusions

I don't like 3, which ignores the issue. I suspect that 1 is correct, the dictionary definition supports it, but is there a more solid reference? This discussion will reemerge soon in polygamy.Nereocystis 21:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's a reference to group marriage being called polygamy:

Emens, Elizabeth F., "Monogamy's Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence" (February 2004). U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 58, p. 21. http://ssrn.com/abstract=506242

It also mentions multiple partners of the same sex, which is excluded by the current definition of group marriage in this article. Of course, polygynandry also excludes group marriages consisting only of one gender. Here's a possible rewrite, though this allows polygyny and polyandry to be types of group marriage. Is this acceptable?

Group marriage or Circle Marriage is a form of polygamous marriage in which three or more people form a family unit, and all members of the marriage share parental responsibility for any children arising from the marriage. Heterosexual group marriage is sometimes called polygynandry, from a combination of the words polygyny and polyandry.

Nereocystis 22:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that your rewrite works. Since group marriage is a form of polygamy, I'd go ahead and put it up. Dunkelza 11:21, 12 August 2005 (EDT)

I'll wait a little while for Researcher99 to respond. I know he disagrees with calling group marriage a form of polygamy. I also realize that with my rewrite, group marriage and polygamy are almost identical, with polygamy and polyandry being subsets of both. I had previously thought that group marriage was one type of polygamy, not including all of polygamy, but if the requirement of 2 of each gender is removed, a bigamous couple is engaged in a group marriage. Nereocystis 18:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

PolyGYNY and Polyandry. :) Polygamy is the sex-neutral term. That confusion in common parlance sparked the debate over "True Polygamy" in the first place. Some advocates of group marriage hold that it is the pure form of polygamy because it presents equal opportunity to both sexes. Even if some of the people in a group marriage are homosexual, the family could still contain both sexes, assuming there are some bisexuals in there. Basically, a group marriage must contain all one sex or at least two of each sex. Dunkelza 19:14, 12 August 2005 (EDT)

Hmm. There's a certain gender inequality which I don't quite like yet. Or maybe it's a sexual preference difference. I'm having trouble putting my finger on it, but I'll try. Let's pretend that intercourse, or sexual preference is what matters.

Imagine 2 men A and B, and two women Y and Z. A is bi, B is gay, Y and Z and straight. B, Y, and Z have sex only with A and not with each other. How is this different from a polygynous relationship? Polygynandry is fine if everyone is straight, but may fall apart if some are not straight. Nereocystis 23:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's save the gender issue for later, and just restore polygamous for now. Here's my current suggestion:

Group marriage or Circle Marriage is a form of polygamous marriage in which more than one man and more than one woman form a family unit, and all members of the marriage share parental responsibility for any children arising from the marriage. Group marriage is sometimes called polygynandry, from a combination of the words polygyny and polyandry.

Nereocystis 22:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that sounds fine. The whole issue of sex and marriage is fairly murky because of confusion around the meaning of the word "marriage". Indeed, the Greek term "gamos" was more specifically heterosexual because its meaning was more akin to "matrimony" in English, which is a specific religious rite. Given this uncertainty, I think we should stick with the general anthropological definition of polygamy, which includes group marriage.

Dunkelza 23:40, 13 August 2005 (EDT)

Why does Dunkelza have a user name that does not exist? Researcher 13:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that Researcher99 misunderstands Dunkelza's status. As wikipedia says when you click on [[User:Dunkelza|Dunkelza]:

Wikipedia does not yet have a User page called Dunkelza.

That doesn't mean that the user name doesn't exist, only that the page doesn't exist, and users are not required to have user pages. If you click on "User contributions", you will get a list of Dunkelza's contributions, as you would for any user. Nereocystis 14:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said on Dunkelza's TALK page, I am glad we got that cleared up. - Researcher 14:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

That's Polyamory, not Polygamy

None of the references that Dunkelza provided offer any valid verification of "group marriage" being legitimately called "true polygamy." All but the first citation are simply usenet or forum threads. Mere discussions on threads do not qualify as legitimate Wikipedia:Verifiability sources. The first cited source is a tiny page that does not even mention "group marriage." Plus, the closest comment the page there makes about "true polygamy" is actually disproving the idea of using that as a definition. It said, "I know of no documented social milieu which practiced "true" polygamy (multiple spouses of any gender).".

Also, the one citation that Nereocystis makes also does not have the words "polygamy" or "group marriage" on it at all. Actually, that article is about polyamory. It is true that "group marriage" is a subset of polyamory but it is not a subset of polygamy.

An easier way to understand this is by remembering who is called a "polygamist." In polygyny, the husband is called the "polygamist" but his wives are not - they are his "polygamous wives." In polyandry, the wife is called the "polygamist" but her husbands are not - they are her "polygamous husbands."

The reason why polygamy is a description of one-gender-to-many-of-other-gender is that it is based upon the relationship that the one-gender has with each of the other-gender. In polygyny, for example, the wives are not "married" to each other - they each have their marriage with the husband. The same for polyandry, the husbands are not "married" to each other - they each have their marriage with the wife.

The concept of "group marriage" explodes that concept into something it is not. It is definitely a form of polyamory but it is not possible to be a "form" of polygamy because it implies marriage between everyone in the group to everyone else in the group.

So, to use the re-write offered by Nereocystis, I would say that the word polygamous needs to be replaced with polyamorous and the last sentence needs to be removed. It would read as this:

Group marriage or Circle Marriage is a form of polyamorous marriage in which more than one man and more than one woman form a family unit, and all members of the marriage share parental responsibility for any children arising from the marriage.

Researcher 13:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't read the entire 87 pages of Emens word by word, :). Sorry, I should have given a more specific reference. Look at p 21:

Frank's comment highlights a common problem of terminology. The term polygamy is often used to mean two different things: 1) marriage to more than one person, regardless of sex; and 2) the marriage of one man to more than one woman. As noted above,120 the latter--one man with multiple wives--is specifically called "polygyny." Polygyny is the opposite of "polyandry," one woman with multiple husbands.121 The elision of the two is exemplified, with some acknowledgement of the confusion, by the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "polygamy": "Marriage with several, or more than one, at once; plurality of spouses; the practice or custom according to which one man has several wives (distinctively called polygyny), or one woman several husbands (polyandry), at the same time. Most commonly used of the former."122 To avoid this confusion, the article uses the term "polygamy" to mean several spouses, regardless of sex. It is, however, significant that polygamy commonly refers to a man with many wives. I agree with Congressman Frank that this is one reason that people object to the idea of plural marriage. To try to supplement this perception, this article offers several examples of multi-party relationships that are not structured by institutionalized patriarchy.

Emens uses polygamy to allow multiple partners, regardless of sex, and uses the Oxford English Dictionary as one reference for this definition. We could allow a note that some people do not consider group marriage as polygamy, if there is a reference supporting this position. Nereocystis 17:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It took awhile, but I found the link for the download. Your comment actually confirms what I am saying.

First, the paper does not even use polygamy in the title, but polyamory. It is titled, Monogamy's Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence .

Second, the paragraph you cite follows a preceding paragraph, which further notes that it is addressing the confusion which most people have about what polygamy means.

...In addition, the image of polygamy as a Muslim practice undoubtedly adds to its negative public image, historically and also particularly in the wake of September 11, 2001.116 Arguably, one reason Americans oppose multi-party relationships is that these relationships evoke the image of a man sanctioned by a patriarchal religious society to have many wives as emblems of his power or chosen status. As discussed later,117 there is some disagreement among scholars as well as polygynists as to whether this model is necessarily bad for women, but certainly it is widely thought to be so.118 Thus, as Barney Frank has said about why people oppose plural marriage, "First, it’s almost always polygamy and not polyamory. So a lot of women don’t like it."119

Frank’s comment highlights a common problem of terminology. The term polygamy is often used to mean two different things: 1) marriage to more than one person, regardless of sex; and 2) the marriage of one man to more than one woman. As noted above,120 the latter --one man with multiple wives-- is specifically called "polygyny." Polygyny is the opposite of "polyandry," one woman with multiple husbands.121 The elision of the two is exemplified, with some acknowledgement of the confusion, by the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "polygamy": "Marriage with several, or more than one, at once; plurality of spouses; the practice or custom according to which one man has several wives (distinctively called polygyny), or one woman several husbands (polyandry), at the same time. Most commonly used of the former."122 To avoid this confusion, the article uses the term "polygamy" to mean several spouses, regardless of sex. It is, however, significant that polygamy commonly refers to a man with many wives. I agree with Congressman Frank that this is one reason that people object to the idea of plural marriage. To try to supplement this perception, this article offers several examples of multi-party relationships that are not structured by institutionalized patriarchy. (Emphasis added.)

The point of the paragraph you cited (the second one I cited above) explains how most people confuse the meaning of polygamy. As such, the first sentence did not provide a definition of two forms of polygamy. Instead, it noted how the term polygamy is often used mistakenly! (For example, people often think polygamy is simply polygyny.) The author then proceeds to explain the true definition, citing the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "polygamy": "Marriage with several, or more than one, at once; plurality of spouses; the practice or custom according to which one man has several wives (distinctively called polygyny), or one woman several husbands (polyandry), at the same time. Most commonly used of the former." That dictionary definition did not incorporate "group marriage" into the definition there at all. For an even easier understanding, simply read that definition's first sentence again by preceding it with "A polygamist's" so that you understand that it is "A polygamist's Marriage with several, or more than one, at once." (As I explained before, a "polygamist" is only understood as a polygynist with his polygamous wives or as a polyandrist with her polygamous husbands. There is no interjection of "group" there whatsoever.) The remainder of that cited Oxford English Dictionary definition additionally clarified that specific differentiation that polygamy is only either polygyny or polyandry. At the end, the author then explained what she herself was choosing to use as a definition for the purposes of her article. As a matter of technicality, the remainder of her article only goes on to mostly address polyamory as she says in her own language, to offer "several examples of multi-party relationships" which do not fall within the definition of polygamy at all. Still, though, her "choice" to use her own designed version of a term for use in her article does not then give valid basis for us to re-define polygamy outside of that article beyond its actual meaning, as shown by the Oxford English Dictionary definition which she herself provided.

Third, later in that piece you cite, on Pg. 30, the only example of "group marriage" in the piece that is provided, is in the subsection titled as "A Four-Partner Family: Eddie Simmons". Throughout that subsection dealing with that situation of two men and two women together, the piece calls that arrangement polyamory. It does not call it polygamy.

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

Researcher 16:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dunkelza wrote:

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

Dunkelza 23:24, 16 August 2005 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

Synopsis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dunkelza 19:24, 18 August 2005 (EDT)

Wilson, in Sociobiology says:

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

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

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

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

I found a better reference. In Murdock, George Peter (1949). Social Structure. New York: The MacMillan Company. pp. page 24. ISBN 0029222907. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

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

And on page 25

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

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

And on page 2:

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

And from a footnote on the same page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nereocystis's double-standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Researcher99, I have 2 questions for you:

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

Nereocystis 20:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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