Talk:Serial monogamy

Cultures

Might discuss (here or elsewhere): by whom, in what cultures and under what circumstances is marriage following the death of a spouse considered unacceptable. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:27, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Serial polygamy

from Talk:Serial polygamy this article needs to be renamed. It is not serial polygamy, it is "Serial Monogamy" -- just like a serial killer (a bad comparison, but useful) kills one person at a time, but over and over, a serial mogamist is married to one person at a time, but over and over. All the scholarly literature I know on this topic refers to it as serial mogamy or (the term I prefer) Chain Marriage, not serial polygamy Slrubenstein

Renaming sounds fine, but maybe this could redirect to the new one. I think I've heard the term 'serial polygamy' used in more popular writing, possibly something like Megatrends or Megatrends 2000. Is mogamy a contraction for monogamy? Wesley

Made a redirect. 'Serial polygamy' doesn't fit the definition of polygamy.

Vacuum

Serial polygamy was moved here to preserve the page history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angela (talk • contribs) 23:22, 6 January 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone that move because there's now a redirect at the "Serial polygamy" title. I've also imported two of the early edits from the May 2003 database dump to the history atTalk:Serial polygamy. Graham87 04:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for serial polygamy

The comment on serial polygamy does not conform to the verifiability policy of Wikipedia. If the comment on serial polygamy cannot be verified, it should be removed from this article. Kelly 20:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

This page in a nutshell: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Citations added. The comment most certainly DOES conform to the verifiability policy, as a ONE-second Google search showed.Dogface 11:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combination of the two

After perusing the history of these two pages (mono- and poly- serial marriage) it seems that they are both referring to the same phenomena. Looking at the two sections as they now are there seems to be a great overlap, the first taking the form ABC and the second ACD. I propose that a combination, of the form ABCD, be compiled. Alpha designations are explained in the table:

¶ Summary	Serial Monogamy	Serial Polygamy	Combination
series of single partners (A)	X	X	X
descriptive not prescriptive (B)	X		X
in all animals (C)	X	X	X
term comparison (D)		X	X

Red Baron 16:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pejorative "Polygamy"

I just searched dictionary.com, merriam-webster online, OneLook Dictionary Search, YourDictionary.com, Dictionary.msn, Cambridge dictionary, worldcentral.com, and thefreedictionary.com, to find serial monogamy and serial polygamy. I think two times I found the latter (both by reference to this Wikipedia page), and found the former in all. It seems that the latter is a pejorative that is used to demean those who practice this multiple marriage thing, by referencing it to the illegal practice of polygamy.Red Baron 17:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the feeling that Serial Polygamy is either WP:OR, a neologism or someone with an axe to grind. I think the whole article needs to be re-worked and I wouldn't mind doing so if I have the time. WLU 14:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be some web references to serial polygamy: one for every 62 (Yahoo) or 13 (Google) references to serial monogamy. So, I think that this term has some place in the article, but only insofar as saying something like: "Some people refer to this practice as serial polygamy, in order to add a stigma to the practice..."--Red Baron 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed Wikipedia's policy, categorizing serial polygamy as a neologism seems to be accurate. I think we should go ahead with a rewrite that reflects this.—Red Baron 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who made this major change?

Someone (user 81.169.185.225) has made a major change to the text of this article that has been substantially different than anything discussed here, in fact quite the opposite, without giving any justification for doing so. As stated above, the preference of polygamy seems to be dubious, yet this was made the authoritative term by the unknown editor. I see that this change has been reverted, and I am glad to see it.—Red Baron 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably the same person that has been messing with the article for a couple weeks now. I've reverted. WLU 15:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

A website, Health 24.com, defines SM as "long-term, exclusive sexual relationships entered into consecutively over the lifespan."
A study by Helen Fisher has a biological slant at this Forum.
Serena Petrella (Department of Sociology, Carleton University, Canada) declares SM a norm in her article Only with You – Maybe – If You Make Me Happy: A Genealogy of Serial Monogamy as Governance and Self- Governance. The site Tikkun agrees.
Trivia-Library.com says that SM was "rife" in ancient Rome, and used to be "almost exclusively the province of kings and queens."
A Canadian Marriage Study is reported to state that most people who marry do not divorce; that 46% of those whose first marriage ends will remarry; but that fewer than 1% of the "ever married population" indulge in a third marriage.
The Moral Animal reportedly states that the negative economic effects from SM (on divorced women and their children) have potential to be worse than from polygamy

Red Baron 16:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE-Write

I hope all will scrutinize and embellish this article as they find more data. Especially, perhaps noting the rates of re-marriage in other western countries. Also, perhaps non-western perspective could be added.—Red Baron 17:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write looks good, kudos. I've edited a bit to remove names (personally I don't like to include researcher names unless they are specific experts in the fields and have their own wikipages) and the 'see also's that were already in the text (as per MOS). WLU 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to retain the distinction between polygamy and SM: "However, [using the term polygamy] is a misnomer because this behavior excludes the practice of having multiple sexual partners at one time" was deleted recently by 85.214.86.4 (Talk) with the description—(NPOV: removed prescriptive remark). I suppose the previous edit was prescriptive toward so-called "serial polygamy," but there does seem to be a norm against it (see neologism comments above).—Red Baron 16:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I was asked to come here from another RfC. Well, first of all, you've got to re-word the opener here - this article is about serial monogamy, not serial polygamy, and the reference to it in the first paragraph is confusing. It implies that serial monogamy is the SAME as serial polygamy - however, the reference (which I'm not sure meets WP:RS) doesn't agree with this; it's arguing, somewhat provactively, that the process these "serial monogamists" are in fact practicing a form of polygamy carried out in a society where polygamy is banned. I also don't see any indication that term "serial polygamy" is meant to disparage, in the sources provided - if anything, the article looks favorably upon the idea of polygamy; though it's more accurate to say that it's "neutral".

However, with that said, there is[1] some thread of disparagement going on here; however, it is only an insult insofar as you believe "polygamy" is an insult. I think this article needs to just tread more carefully in describing serial polygamy - say "This behavior is also described as a form of polygamy, known as serial polygamy etc". I don't think it's highly necessary to talk about it being disparaging unless you can find some clear references that state as much. Anyways, those are my thoughts. --Haemo 21:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Haemo on all of his comments - though the references do provide justifications for what is said in the text, they are the kind of references that only stand up of no-one challenges them. Since no-one has, they can stay as far as I'm concerned. At this point, I'd say that the serial polygamy is verging on a neologism, which is not a good thing. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. I think the distinction between serial monogamy and serial polygamy is a semantic one, verging on original research. I still think there's value to the point, not sure what to do though... WLU 21:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully my compromise version will be satisfactory to later edits by anons. It seems to overcome the alleged POV, reduces the neologism serial polygamy to a note at the bottom of the page, and the references are more accurately used.—Red Baron 14:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I take what anon's say with a very large pinch of salt. Sad but true, anon's get far less respect than accounts. And though your addition does help the term slightly, it is still not the best reference for the term 'serial polygamy'. I'm not saying take it down, but I am saying if someone challenges it, you'll have a hard time defending it. Until that day, I say leave it up as good work. I still think your edits have improved the article 173% over previous versions, but the references you've got for serial polygamy (the only problematic part of the article that I can see) still pretty much verge on 'some guy said this'. That the 'some guy' in this reference is a PhD adds some weight, but not enough to withstand a serious challenge. The unfortunate truth of wikipedia is that the bloody obvious is still problematic for inclusion if we don't have a reference for it. Still, kudos to you, I think it's good work. Ever read WP:RS by the way? Excellent policy and might be useful in identifying why other editors see some of the references as problematic. WLU 20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]