Talk:Polygamy/Draft

Actually, the breakdown of sections should probably be on this Talk page, with the actual text we're putting on the Polygamy article placed on the Polygamy/Rewrite article page. Dunkelza 19:15 September 2, 2005 (EDT)


 * Yeah, you're probably right. I'm not quite sure how to split it up. Feel free to give it a try. I imagine that the quotes go on the article page, though the final version may not include the quotes. The footnotes and references start to get confusing if there are other external links above the page.


 * Researcher99 has an AMA now, which may help the process. Nereocystis 23:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Green case, and state-by-state listing of legality
Once I get home from this monogamy I attended, I'll try to move over the subsections. However, I think that there's too much detail about the Tom Green case on the main polygamy article. Much of that should be reserved for the plural marriage article, as it's addressing a specific expression of polygamy, not the general academic subject. Basically, I'd keep the part about it not being legal in the U.S. and then provide links to relevant sections of the subarticles. - Dunkelza 23:25 September 4, 2005 (EDT)


 * The Tom Green section is probably too long, though it is important, because it is only recent case which has gone to a state supreme court determining whether polygamous relationships are protected.


 * However, I see 2 issues with the legality.


 * Are polygamous marriages legally recognized?
 * Are polygamous relationships allowed?


 * The Green case says that, in Utah, it is illegal to live in a polygamous relationship, even if the polygamous people are not officially married. This is especially true if the people call themselves husband and wife. In California, for example, polygamous relationships would probably not be illegal since common-law marriages are not recognized, and consenting adults are not limited in their sexual relationships.


 * The duality of polygamous relationships and marriage is similar to the duality of same-sex marriage, and homosexual relationships (and domestic partners). It is possible for same-sex marriage to be unrecognized, but still allow same-sex domestic partnership, whether legally recognized or informal. The same-sex marriage page lists US state by state coverage of both marriage and domestic partnerships. The Utah decision is similar to saying that same-sex couples are not allowed to live together.


 * The Utah decision did not limit itself to Mormon fundmanentalist polygamists; it applies to all polygamists, thus the decision is relevant here, rather than just in the polygamous Mormon fundamentalist page.


 * There is yet another question of whether polygamous relationships are commonly prosecuted. In Utah, it isn't common to prosecute, but it is done.


 * I would like to explain this succintly. So far, I have failed. If this section becomes too long, it should become a separate article.


 * I think that Researcher99 and I agree on the importance of polygamous lifestyles, even if we disagree on the importance of the Green case. Nereocystis 05:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not disagreeing with the notion of the information being available on Wikipedia, rather I'm suggesting that we put it on a more appropriate article. We could either lump it into plural marriage or put it into a subarticle like polygamy/legality/United States.  I don't think we need to break it down by state on the main page, but I think it would be good to say something like:


 * ''Polygamy is illegal in the every state in the United States. However, the states differ on their definition and treatment of polygamous lifestyles.  For more information, see polygamy/legality/United States.


 * My goal is to keep the main polygamy article simple and straightforward with lots of info available in subarticles and such. The current page is way too verbose and could easily be too confusing for an encyclopedic entry. - Dunkelza 21:40 September 5, 2005


 * Keeping it simple is good. I would like to split it out the legality section when it appears to be too long. The problem I have with your rewrite is that the definition of polygamy varies. Saying that polygamy is illegal is a bit confusing, I think, since polygamy can include a polygamous lifestyle. If we want a short version, I would prefer to say:


 * Polygamous marriages are not recognized in any state in the United States. The following states sometimes prosecute consenting polygamous relationships: Utah.


 * The list is short, currently. I suspect that Arizona belongs on the list as well. I agree that there should be a reference with more detail if we cut the section way back. Nereocystis 02:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * On thinking this over, I'm not sure what you're saying here: Do you think that tom green shouldn't be mentioned in the main article? Or just that the American state-by-state legality shouldn't be mentioned in the main article.  I agree with the latter, but the Tom Green case seems to be highly topical and relevant for the main Polygamy article. We might also mention how Arizona prosecuted polygamist in 1953's short creek raid--I think this might serve as a good example of how polygamy is difficult to prosecute. Kewp 06:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm having a hard time thinking up how to mention Tom Green on the main page without it turning into a huge paragraph. I think that we could say something like:


 * Polygamy is not legal in any state in the United States. However, the states differ on their definition and treatment of polygamous lifestyles.  In Utah, the Tom Green case provides a clear precedent; but, many states have more ambiguous laws.  For more information, see polygamy/legality/United States.


 * That's about as far as I'd want to go, simply because we're setting a precedent either way. If we go too verbose, the main article will turn into a dumping ground for lots of specifics that belong in sub-articles.  I'd rather keep the main article focused on general definitions and information (like a portal), while the sub-articles provide the in-depth examination. - Dunkelza 22:28 September 12, 2005 (EDT)