Talk:Polygamy/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Is this Bible reference in the "Biblical practice" section correct?

"The king's behavior is condemned by Prophet Samuel in 1Samuel 8" - I don't understand how is the king's behavior is condemned in that place of the Bible:

"Then said Elkanah her husband to her, Hannah, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to thee than ten sons?"

Is this reference correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trikita (talk • contribs) 14:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I am dissatisfied with much of the content in this "Judaism" section, including that point, which is obviously a botched reading of that passage in I Samuel. I intend to make several edits to this section, and hope to improve the accuracy of what's stated and the quality of references. Some of the information here is unciteable, and reflects the editors' biases.
The big danger in trying to present this topic accurately is that many individuals are afraid that if the Tanakh or historical Judaism represents polygyny in a positive light or even makes the practice appear acceptable, that will reflect poorly on modern (especially Western and Ashkenazic) Judaism's strong monogamous ethic. Wishing that something were true doesn't make it true, however. If anyone wants to dispute my edits, please do so here. Let's keep in mind what the introduction to this talk page says: "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them."
--Arabicas.Filerons (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Map color scheme

I understand that it is difficult to be objective in map color schemes, but this map seems to be pretty blatantly biased from a liberal, Western perspective. (I mean liberal in the broad philosophical sense.) At the very least, I feel that blue should signify legality and black or red should signify illegality. This map, however, has the countries that have banned polygamy in blue (signifying a form of freedom) with countries with legal polygamy in black (signifying a form of oppression). I know this might seem pedantic, but I think it's a legitimate issue to raise and discuss. Michipedian (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Good points. According to the info in Wikimedia Commons, this file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, which means you can remix it and share it with the same license if you attribute the source. Better yet, you can edit and upload a new version of the file with your desired colour scheme (see the revision history for examples). So it seems to me you have every right to do so yourself. --Arabicas.Filerons (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
OK great. Thanks for the information! Michipedian (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Map is too vague

The map of legal status of polygamy does not distinguish between polygyny and polyandry. From reading it seems like most or perhaps all jurisdictions are actually only legalizing polygyny. The map and legend need to clarify this.

It might also be interesting to distinguish between prohibition on legally marrying multiple people, vs. anti-cohabitation laws like the one in Utah which was recently struck down (and unusual for the U.S.). -- Beland (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits of 2015 Feb. 13

There were a few recent additions to the article by an IP editor who has now been blocked for soapbox edit warring. In the cumulative edits of the IP and other editors, the paragraph starting with "A study of Bedouin-Arab women..." still remains from that IP's edits. Off hand, I don't see any reason to remove it, but I'm mentioning it here, since nearly all other edits by the same user in other articles have now been reverted. If anyone feels differently, by all means, go ahead and remove that paragraph. – Robin Hood  (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about A study of Bedouin-Arab women

As Robin Hood pointed out the paragraph remains. And I would like to discuss it. If there is discussion is necessary to. So I hope this work. @RobinHood70, Bonadea, and TheLogician112: My own ideas about the current incorporation of the study is that with the modifier that shows that it was these kind of woman in this kind of culture that its okay as it stands. I was thinking about the weight and I re-read this article one more time and the rest of the criticism section and I think that the weight of the study is fine. Despite the low number of participants and suchs. (only like 400 something). If any of you have problems with this want more weight to be added to the study or want to remove it. Then please let me know I am more open for suggestions. I would also like you all if you have time to examine the other sources of the criticism section if you have the time. Which I will be doing now, and if necessary will make a reply to myself about them NathanWubs (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Incest

Do you think polygamy is exactly the same as incest?

Polygamy is defently is illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.6.135 (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Kobani/Ayn al-Arab

Syria is currently listed as Polygamous marriage performed: Nationwide in the template thing. It's now prohibited in Kobanî. http://syriadirect.org/news/syria-direct-news-update-8-31-15/ 2601:600:8500:B2D9:612B:3A31:E262:B037 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Anti-polygynous bias

I understand the inclusion of some field data that does indeed prove disadvantage points, but studies that claim economic disadvantages versus "traditional monogamy", "Rawlsian theory" and the original research done by the editors had to be removed. I can understand that some people feel strongly against polygyny, but the opposite side is not even represented in this article (saying it is under-represented is a massive understatement).

It is attested that many widows and orphans have benefited from polygyny in Islamic countries, for which I will try to find proper sources, and most of the Islamic countries bar the ones in the African continent feel fine about the practice per their beliefs (which inherently clash with the Western notion of "human rights" - see Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam). Given that Africa is poor in general compared to the HDI of the Arabian peninsula, the removed studies are inherently flawed. --92slim (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

BLACK

Why do you show polygamous state in black like it was bad thing ??? The marriage is dumbness... Good daye... 87.67.236.218 (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, along with some inconsistencies and errors in the former map file. --92slim (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Why do you have the prejudice that black is bad? - Nunh-huh 08:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Because it doesn't highlight the countries that it has to, so it's mainly for visibility - this obvious fallacy doesn't pass here. --92slim (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid that doesn't explain "in black like it was bad thing." - Nunh-huh 11:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Because I never said that it was a bad thing, if you haven't realised. --92slim (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
If you and the anonymous user are the same person, you said that you expected bad things to appear in black. If you are not the anonymous user, I wasn't talking to you. - Nunh-huh 18:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, good bye then. --92slim (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

United Kingdom

One of the recent edits to the page made reference to the UK "Criminal Code", but this is a nonsensical statement - the UK consists of several different constituent states with differing criminal law systems but all are based, to some degree or another, on common law rather than a formal criminal code. References to legal recognition are also not absolute - the source only states that they *might* be recognised, not will. I've removed the statements from the article. ~Excesses~ (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

That's true, but apart from the criminal code phrase, the document clearly states that the polygamous marriages performed abroad by people domiciled abroad are legally recognised. --92slim (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The context is that of a 2008 Parliamentary Question on benefits, and is quoted in the library note to give historical background not as a statement of current law. Legal recognition of foreign marriages is, unsurprisingly, significantly more complicated. This document gives some more detail and although it's hosted on the current government web site, it's exact provenance is unclear which makes me wary of citing it - at best you could say that marriage may be recognised, depending on circumstance. That's an awfully vague statement for an encyclopaedia and remaining silent on the topic seems the sensible approach.
I can't parse the statement "not mentioned as a criminal offense in the United Kingdom" in a way that's helpful in a common law jurisdiction - this appears to be Original Research. ~Excesses~ (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That document you just provided...have you read section 8? It specifically mentions that it is legally recognised. You haven't provided a document which says it's not, pal. --92slim (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure which part of section 8 you refer to, but the purpose of linking to it was to demonstrate merely that recognition is complex and that the quote currently in the article does not accurately and completely reflect the current situation. The statement "not mentioned as a criminal offense" also still needs a citation. ~Excesses~ (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The criminal code citation comes from the Parliamentary document that you provided in the article, page 5 it says: Polygamy is not recognized as a specific offense by the criminal law. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not maintain a record of the number of defendants charged with or convicted of bigamy rather than polygamy (which is a specific offense under the criminal law in England and Wales). I mixed up 'code' with 'law', but the point is that it is not an offense. As for the legality of the marriage, it is specifically mentioned in both documents that it is legally recognized, regardless of the means tested benefits, so I'm not sure I understand your point. Nowhere in the article I could see an ambiguity as for the legality of those marriages. Even though the Government does not approve of them, the first document says on page 4: The law is drafted thus because the Government have no desire forcibly to sever relationships that have been lawfully contracted in other jurisdictions. This should not, however, be construed as government approval of polygamous marriage. The Government do not support polygamous marriage and support the law that prohibits parties from contracting polygamous marriages in this jurisdiction. This, as far as I understand, means that the Government recognizes only marriages contracted abroad by foreigners, and never the ones made by UK citizens or people domiciled in the UK. I don't see a contradiction in the wording that would suggest that those marriages performed abroad aren't recognized. --92slim (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

criticism gutted?

I have a hard time believing that there's only 2 paragraphs worth of criticism on this subject. Why has it been chopped down so much?142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how much contemporary academic criticism exists on this issue, but according to the Bible imposing monogamy is a Satanic plot against God's Law. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Criticism section

Polygamy is only allowed in Islamic countries. It doesn't need a criticism section, since it's only criticized by non-Muslim and therefore the section manifests blatant discriminatory views. If kept, it should be boldly mentioned it's only criticized by non-Muslims (kaffir). --92slim (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Disagree: There are Muslim scholars who have criticized polygamy[1] However, more secondary sources should be added for this. I corrected some typos but the Islam section on this page definitely requires improvement.

cӨde1+6TP 15:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ W. G. Clarence-Smith (2006). Islam and the Abolition of Slavery. Oxford University Press. pp. 198–. ISBN 978-0-19-522151-0.

@Code16: Comment There is a militant anti-Islamic force on Wikipedia which is only interested in keeping the bad apples of Islam and refuses to leave any benefits or good points. These editors (names are irrelevant now) only crusade for pointing out the bad and leave out the good. If you insist that we have to leave the Criticism section (absent from Monogamy, btw), which has currently an article about Nigeria undoubtly written from a pro-Christian POV - you'd know if you were from Nigeria), that's fine. But to complement it, it is necessary to add a Benefits section from a Muslim POV, otherwise the article reads like propaganda from Stephen Harper. You must understand that even though different points of view are acceptable, the Islamic POV are currently being erased totally from these articles. This is completely unacceptable, and shouldn't be allowed. Criticism is fine, erasing the benefits is anti-Muslim propaganda. --92slim (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@92slim and @Code16:. Removing something from an article just because it is against your religion is WP:IDLI. If you want to balance the article feel free to add sourced material. Please read WP:RS to see which sources are allowed. I am a practicing muslim and I am not sure as to how wikipedia is being biased against muslims. The militant anti-Islamic force on Wikipedia which is only interested in keeping the bad apples of Islam and refuses to leave any benefits or good points seems to be the editors who revert your POV edits. Of course we all know that WP:CABAL exists. So in a nutshell, please add relevant information if you want, deleting something just because you don't like it is a big no no here on wikipedia. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@FreeatlastChitchat: Freeat, I don't care if Wikipedia mentions Criticism against polygamy. Islam doesn't even recommend polygamy in the first place. But to see the other articles and comparing them, we can clearly see the discrepancy. In Monogamy, there is no criticism section. Do you really think it's fair that it has no criticism section? Should I add a criticism of monogamy and how its bad for society, expanding it and adding all sorts of sources from Psychology journals? I don't see that as necessary; but it would balance it out as it stands no. On the Muhammad article, sure, he was the founder of Islam. But neither of the sources included contain that; of course, you haven't checked the sources; if the sources are crooked, why do we still use them? Don't you see the problem? It's like discussing how to save a sinking ship. So deleting something because I don't like it is warranted when the content is added solely for pushing some Western-influenced POV, since Islam is literally the only religion that allows polygamy. A revisionist White nationalist wouldn't be allowed to edit the Obama article just as easily. There is no doubt on that. --92slim (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Erm... Have you read the section about the Latter Day Saint Movement? This Christian denomination is pretty much best known for practicing polygamy, above anything else (and for ringing your doorbell to ask if you have a moment to "discuss the Word of God"). It even has its own template dedicated to LDS and polygamy. So please, take off the tin foil hat; there is no conspiracy against Islam. It is all simply a matter of reliable vs unreliable sources. That said, the criticism section was really mistitled, considering the things it discussed - a case of WP:SYNTHESIS if you will. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
92slim, chill out and listen to FreeatlastChitchat and HyperGaruda. This is not the X-Files. On the 'criticism' section title, HyperGaruda's reasoning is valid, and I'll agree with the change. However we should still try and find secondary sources though for the Islam sub, which clarify that the Quran doesn't allow polygamy for the thrills. cӨde1+6TP 18:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Polygamy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

This article has lost any semblance of a neutral point of view - there is confusion between polygamy and polygyny and extensive negative discussion that derives from that confusion. Much of the content properly belongs on the polygyny article rather than here - the remaining religious content could possibly be shortened and the relevant sections moved to other articles that already exist. ~Excesses~ (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Polygyny should be merged with this article, since most of the occurrence of polygamy is polygyny, almost by default. The religious sections are in fact the main body of the article, not sure what you imply. I removed the tag, because you haven't explained why it violates NPOV. If anything, the article reads quite neutral now. --92slim (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Please stop acting like you own this article. The fact that the religious sections are the main body of the article and the repeated adding of criticism over the last couple of years is exactly why the article fails NPOV. ~Excesses~ (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Typical condescending response with no real meaning. The fact is that that's not an argument. Religious sources are necessary since the overwhelming majority of polygynous societies are Muslim. In turn, the majority of polygamous societies are polygynous, hence Muslim. Get over it. --92slim (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

"Muslims only" in the map

Is this distinction helpful? In most Islamic countries there is no civil marriage. And since most of these countries recognize, besides Islam, only Christianity and Judaism, this effectively means that polygamy is legal for Muslims only. So this would be true for almost all countries, or at least many of those that are now black. I think any country that allows polygamy for at least some group of the population should be black. The rest is more confusing than helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.142.107 (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

So this would be true for almost all countries Definitely not. Polygamy is illegal in most countries, both for Muslims and for non-Muslims. Although you have a point about the fact that most countries that allow polygamy are Muslim majority countries, the reason for the "only for Muslims" distinction in the map is because in fact, because those specific countries in detailed in green (Eritrea, Philippines, Singapore, and Sri Lanka) are not Muslim-majority countries. Pd. Colour code black is used to imply illegality, not legality. 92slim (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Polygamy not illegal in India

Some people have misinterpreted Supreme Court's judgement in 2015 about Polygamy for Indian Muslims based on incorrect information provided by this IBTimes news article http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/india-bans-polygamy-muslims-not-fundamental-right-islam-1487356. However the Supreme Court never banned polygamy, it only stated that it's not a fundantal part of Islam. I have read about this earlier also. Not only that as of October 2015, the Supreme Court was still considering banning polygamy http://indiatoday.intoday.in/education/story/banning-polygamy/1/511127.html. Hence the assumption of some people that polygamy has been completely banned in India is wrong. Therefore, I ask India to be given green colour to present polygamy is legal for Muslims. I can't understand how to change the colour myself. Thank you in advance. Lakhbir87 (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lakhbir87: Yeah, you're right about that. I've just read both of the sources you gave and even searched about polygamy online. It turns out it never was banned, the court only stated that it was not a fundamental part of Islam. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Fixed the map. --92slim (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Polygamy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod

@Johnbod:

The image is not obscure. Jacob is a notable biblical figure, and every Christian, Jew, and Muslim who reads their Scriptures know about him.Setabepiw3547747 (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Not only that, rabbis, priests, and imams talk about him in churches, synagogues and mosques, where every member of the Abrahamic religions can hear them. Setabepiw3547747 (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Johnbod:, could you care to reply to this talk page please?Setabepiw3547747 (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
You're just wrong; the incident, and its relevance to polygamy, will be very obscure to most readers. UI notice a lot of your bold postings of images are running into trouble, and not just from me. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, since Wikipedia is meant for the intelligent layman, most Abrahamic readers would be knowedgeable enough about Jacob. The nation Israel even gets its name from him. Strong point about the relevance to polygamy though. Thanks for the commentary!Setabepiw3547747 (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Wait, now that I think about it, obscurity is not even an argument, since the purpose of WIkipedia is to inform! What do you have to say about this?Setabepiw3547747 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Setabepiw3547747, per WP:LEADIMAGE, Johnbod is correct. You keep adding religious and mythology images all over as lead images, even at the Liberty article. You need to think about lead images more carefully, and keep in mind what I stated about them on your talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Polygamy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Minor edit

Changed "polygamy is currently illegal" to "polygamy is illegal" in the United States. The "currently" seemed extraneous. Cheers. Thelastauroch (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Thelastauroch

Map Accuracy?

The map notes say "India, Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia and Sri Lanka:legal for Muslims only," but those countries represent 3/4 colors from the key. At the very least, Sri Lanka's dark blue color contradicts that statement (and Eritrea's contradicts note 2), and it brings into question the accuracy of the map as a whole.

Polygamy is illegal in Myanmar since 2015 . M P Htoo (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Germany

Polygamy is now tolerated in Germany. See https://www.nordbayern.de/region/zwei-frauen-13-kinder-mehrfach-ehe-darf-fortgesetzt-werden-1.7369834

2001:16B8:50CF:7C00:881:6C77:2BC:5FC1 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Polygamy in Myanmar was made illegal in 2015

Polygamy in Myanmar was made illegal in 2015.[1][2] Please change the map to dark blue. 2A02:2F0F:B1FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:D051 (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. You should go to the page of the respective file; File:Legality of polygamy.svg (which is on Commons); and make your request there RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, perhaps somebody else can fix it...2A02:2F0F:B1FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:D051 (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 2 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yasminekhiri.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Polygamy

Relationship between women 105.0.3.217 (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy/Archive_8&oldid=1138304270"