Talk:Group marriage/Archive 1

"Polygynandry" is NOT even a word
The article currently also declares another false statement. It makes up a new word, saying that "group marriage" is sometimes called "polygynandry." I just looked up the word, and polygynandry does not exist. The person who added that word appears to have made up a word, and they did not even Cite sources. I'll check back in about a week to see if anyone has more to add about this. At that time, if there is nothing more to discuss or explain, I'll make the correction. Researcher 17:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

--- Citations for Polygynandry: (I don't LIKE the word, but it is a technical term in zoology)

   

There were at least 10 pages of hits off Altavista. Dunkelza 23:10, 8 August 2005 (EDT)


 * I am quite surprised at how much your citations are not valid either. I am not trying to shoot citations down, but, Dunkelza, you really got check the sources you're citing.    The first one is useless.  The second one is only about mating.  The third one has so many popups and ads that it appears as one of those out-for-profit-only money-maker sites that quickly throw content together in order to generate ad revenues based on keywords.  The fourth one is also only about mating.  None of these really justify calling "group marriage" as "polygynandry."  If it even is a word, in "zoology" as you note, although no dictionary seems to be showing "polygynandry" exists as a word, then it appears to me that that term is only applicable to mating systems of the animal kingdom.   It also seems more as animal promiscuity than "marriage," even for animals.  (While animals do not "marry," I do realize that some have "monogamous" bondings and "polygamous" bondings, as they term it zoologically.  But "polygynandyry" sounds like no permanent bonding is even possible, meaning promiscuity instead, animal-wise.)  That does not make it "another word" for "group marriage."   It could be mentioned in some other Wikipedia article about zoology and mating, but it does not seem to apply here at all.  Researcher 17:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I performed a BIOSIS search on ovid.com and found 31 journal references, reputable, I believe. Here are the first 10, some mentioning the word in the title, others not:


 * 1) Vermette, Richard [Reprint author]; Fairbairn, Daphne J. [Author; E-mail: daphne.fairbairn@ucr.edu]. How well do mating frequency and duration predict paternity success in the polygynandrous water strider Aquarius remigis? [Article] Evolution. 56(9). September, 2002. 1808-1820.
 * 2) Haydock, Joseph [Reprint author]; Koenig, Walter D. [Author; E-mail: haydock@gonzaga.edu]. Reproductive skew in the polygynandrous acorn woodpecker [Article] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 99(10). May 14, 2002. 7178-7183.
 * 3) Campbell, Veronique [Author]; Fairbairn, Daphne J. [Reprint author; E-mail: daphnef@citrus.ucr.edu]. Prolonged copulation and the internal dynamics of sperm transfer in the water strider Aquarius remigis [Article] Canadian Journal of Zoology. 79(10). October, 2001. 1801-1812.
 * 4) Winterbottom, M. [Author]; Burke, T. [Author]; Birkhead, T. R. [Reprint author; E-mail: t.r.birkhead@sheffield.ac.uk]. The phalloid organ, orgasm and sperm competition in a polygynandrous bird: The red-billed buffalo weaver (Bubalornis niger) [Article] Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology. 50(5). October, 2001. 474-482.
 * 5) Bishton, Glenn [Reprint author]. Social structure, habitat use and breeding biology of hedgerow Dunnocks Prunella modularis [Article] Bird Study. 48(2). July, 2001. 188-193.
 * 6) Jones, A. G. [Reprint author]; Avise, J. C. [Author; E-mail: jonesa@bcc.orst.edu]. Mating systems and sexual selection in male-pregnant pipefishes and seahorses: Insights from microsatellite-based studies of maternity [Article] Journal of Heredity. 92(2). March-April, 2001. 150-158.
 * 7) Chiba, Akira [Reprint author]; Nakamura, Masahiko [Author; E-mail: chiba@ngt.ndu.ac.jp]. Note on the morphology of the sperm storage tubules in the polygynandrous alpine accentor, Prunella collaris [Article] Journal of the Yamashina Institute for Ornithology. 32(2). 29 December, 2000. 73-79.
 * 8) Sommer, Volker [Reprint author]; Reichard, Ulrich [Author; E-mail: V.Sommer@ucl.ac.uk]. Deconstructing monogamy: Thailand's gibbons at Khao Yai [Meeting] Folia Primatologica. 71(5). September-October, 2000. 362.
 * 9) Briskie, James V. [Reprint author]. Song variation and the structure of local song dialects in the polygynandrous Smith's Longspur [Article] Canadian Journal of Zoology. 77(10). Oct., 1999. 1587-1594.
 * 10) Goldizen, Anne W. [Reprint author]; Buchan, Jason C. [Author]; Putland, David A. [Author]; Goldizen, Alan R. [Author]; Krebs, Elizabeth A. [Author]. Patterns of mate-sharing in a population of Tasmanian Native Hens Gallinula mortierii [Article] Ibis. 142(1). Jan., 2000. 40-47.

Nereocystis 13:36, 11 August 2005

Here's a quote from the Haydock article cited above:
 * This species provides a key test case because only a few vertebrates exhibit polygynandry (multiple breeders of both sexes within a group).

The relative rarity of the practice may explain your unfamiliarity with the word. The application to humans in group marriage is direct.

Synopsis:

Researcher99 stated that polygynandry is not a word. References have been supplied showing that it is a word. Is there anything more which needs to be done with polygynandry? Nereocystis 19:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * References have NOT shown that it is a word, although a few invalid links have shown that some may have made up the word. More than that, I akcnoledged that even if it is a word, it is only applicable in the zoological context as that is the only thing where it comes from in the supposed "references." 1.) What is the "link" to the "Haydock" article?  I find no link to find the article at all.  2.) Does a term not found in dictionary qualify for saying it exists?  3.) If the term only applies zoologically, and is not being used in addressing humans in "group marriage," then it is only subjectivity trying to label it as "group marriage" when not one mention has called it that.  As I said before, mayeb it could be in a zoological article about mating, but does not seem to have any basis for being in the "group marriage"  article.  4.) The references have all not been that quality anyway, as I have shown. (If the other, unlinked "references" have links, I would be glad to check them, too.)  With all this, it is very aggressive to try to quickly suggest the discussion is altready "over" when there has not been any evidence that human "group marriage" is ever actually called by the "zoological term" of polygyandry. 19:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Please search for Haydock above. It's an article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, a respected journal. You may be able to retrieve it as http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/10/7178, but I'm not sure that translates outside my site. I included 10 references total from journals, all respected. I can give you more. You'll have to look up the journals yourself, however.

Here's another reference which refers specifically to humans:
 * Title: Mental health aspects of Arab-Israeli adolescents from polygamous versus monogamous families.
 * Author: Al-Krenawi, Alean Graham, John R Slonim-Nevo, Vered
 * Source: Journal of Social Psychology, 142 (4): 446(15), August 2002. ISSN: 0022-4545


 * Polygamy has been defined as "a marital relationship involving multiple wives" (Kottak, 1978, as cited in Low, 1988, p. 189). It occurs in Europe, North America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Oceania (Altman & Gmat, 1996). It includes three types, the first of which is most prevalent worldwide and was the sole concern in the present study: (a) Polygyny occurs when one husband is married to two or more wives and is hereinafter referred to as polygamy; (b) polyandry occurs when one wife is married to two or more husbands; and (c) polygynandry is a group marriage scenario in which two or more wives are simultaneously married to two or more husbands.

This author uses the definition of polygamy which is limited to one husband and multiple wives, but includes the use of the word polygynandry for humans.

We have 10 references to scientific biological journals, one to a psychology journal, plus multiple altavista hits. Polygynandry is a word, and it applies to humans. Is there anything else which needs to be done before this issue is closed? Nereocystis 20:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, just to throw another log on the fire, I'd like to point out that "polygamy" is also a zoological term, and in such cases ONLY refers to multiple sex partners, not marriage (opposite the statement on the [Talk:Polygamy] page). Humans are animals, and as such, zoological terms can be applied to us as well. In many cases, physical anthropologists share terminology with zoologists and biologists so as to avoid confusion. This has led to such terms being widely appropriated by other social scientists. Dunkelza 19:40, 18 August 2005 (EDT)

An Archived TALK at Polygamy, led to "Poly Relationship" article
In November, 2004, Calair and I had a productive discussion about the issues pertaining to polygamy, polyamory, etc., addressing what are the applicable subsets and so on. The result of the excellent discussion was the creation of a new article by Calair, on 04:54, 13 December 2004, called, Poly relationship. In understanding the differences, editors will want to read both that new article and the discussion that prompted it. Researcher 15:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Polygamy is about marriage, not sex (the discussion)
 * Poly relationship


 * This discussion did not resolve the question of whether group marriage is a type of polygamy. Calair did not agree with you on the topic. Do you have a reference which says that polygamy does not include group marriage?


 * Group marriage is a form of marriage, which is a specific type of amorous relationship. In fact, marriage does not have to include romance or love at all. Saying that group marriage is a type of poly relationship is too general.  We might as well say that group marriage is a form of interpersonal relationship. True, but too general. We still need to change this.


 * Perhaps Researcher99 should move this discussion to Talk:Polygamy, where we are trying to resolve the flow of the polygamy article, rather than overwhelming people on other articles. Will you agree, Researcher99? Nereocystis 22:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is my first chance back. Poly relationship is really the only broad enough term to correctly encompass it.  I have not seen any valid reference yet that definitively declares human group marriage ever being "called polygynandry.".  Drawing an inferrence is not citing a reference.  Anyway, I can see that it is just too easy for people to confuse polygamy with group marriage, and I have been trying to explain it but have not been able to put my finger on the right words to communicate what I mean.   Then I found this from google: Group Marriage (is not Polygamy).  It puts into better words what I have been trying to explain.  Its explanations of the difference of what it calls "poly monogamy" (polygamy) and "poly polygamy" (group marriage) put it better than I have been able to. That article also shows me more clearly why people are able to make that confusion.  In google news search, I found another link which also declares how group marriage is not polygamy.  About a different report, it states, "a sentence early in the report very accurately explained that it was addressing, 'a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and beyond - to 'polyamory,' or group marriage.'   Indeed, most of the report focused on the 'beyond polygamy' subjects, dealing more specifically with the liberal, unbiblical concepts of polyamory and group marriage - neither of which are definitions of actual polygamy."  Hopefully, these have better explained what I have not been able to do as well. Essentially, calling group marriage as polygamy is as wrong as saying polygamy is monogamy. Researcher 19:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Welcome back.


 * We have two issues here:
 * Does polygynandry apply to humans?
 * Is it appropriate to apply polygamy to group marriage?


 * Issue 1 is covered in, which includes references to using polygynandry to apply to humans.


 * Issue 2 is covered in, which includes many references to group marriage being a form of polygamy, including Murdock, which was an expert on the matter. I prefer to keep the discussions in these headings, rather than repeat the issue here. Nereocystis 20:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)