| Revision as of 00:07, 12 July 2016 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Polygamy/Archive 8) (bot← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:48, 26 March 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,276,309 edits Reminder of an inactive anchor: Remove 1 non-defunct anchor |
| (47 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} |
|
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Life|class=B}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{Not a forum|personal beliefs, nor for engaging in ]/]s}} |
|
{{Not a forum|personal beliefs, nor for engaging in ]/]s}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=b|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexuality|class=b|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|class=b|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Family and relationships|class=b|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Family and relationships}} |
|
{{WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement|class=b|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement|importance=mid}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Notable Citation|Berkeley Journal of International Law}} |
|
{{Notable Citation|Berkeley Journal of International Law}} |
| Line 37: |
Line 36: |
|
| indexhere = yes |
|
| indexhere = yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
⚫ |
== Polygamy in Indonesia == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why map say "Polygamy is legal in some regions (Indonesia)"? There is no national law than ban polygamy national wide. Even the latest law (the 2019 Marriage Law) does not prohibit it. (Poke {{ping|Pharexia}}) -- ] ] 09:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
== Map Accuracy? == |
|
|
|
== "Bigamy (in Canon Law)" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 12:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
== "Bigamy (in Civil Law)" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 13:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Lack of research == |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The prevalence section of the article says „Research into the prevalence of polyamory has been limited“ but then doesnt stick to it. I think we should be trimming this section, specifically the percentages. We should be grounded here and stick with the simple fact that there is not much solid research. |
|
== criticism gutted? == |
|
|
|
Also, Amy Moors specifically is not a good source. There is a lot of criiticism against her, like her messing around with samples and sample sizes. At the very least we shouldnt quote her. But generally I think the section should be smaller. ] (]) 13:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
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?] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:43, 23 January 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. ] (]) 11:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{reply|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. ] (]) 17:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Fixed the map. --] (]) 02:19, 28 June 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). --] (]) 10:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: '''Disagree:''' There are Muslim scholars who have criticized polygamy<ref name="Clarence-Smith2006">{{cite book|author=W. G. Clarence-Smith|title=Islam and the Abolition of Slavery|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=nQbylEdqJKkC&pg=PA198|year=2006|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-522151-0|pages=198–}}</ref> However, more secondary sources should be added for this. I corrected some typos but the Islam section on this page definitely requires improvement. |
|
|
|
|
|
]<sup>]</sup> 15:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|User:Code16}} '''Comment''' There is a militant anti-Islamic force on Misplaced Pages 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 ], 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. --] (]) 06:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:@] and {{ping|User:Code16}}. Removing something from an article just because it is against your religion is ]. If you want to balance the article feel free to add sourced material. Please read ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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. ] (]) 07:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{ping|User:FreeatlastChitchat}} Freeat, I don't care if Misplaced Pages 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 ], 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. --] (]) 10:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Erm... Have you read the section about the ]? 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 ]. 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 ] if you will. - ] (]) 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:36, 14 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 09:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130630225551/http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/13b02776122d4838802568b900360e80 to http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/13b02776122d4838802568b900360e80 |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 13:20, 27 February 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. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:''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. ] (]) 22:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC) |
|
Why map say "Polygamy is legal in some regions (Indonesia)"? There is no national law than ban polygamy national wide. Even the latest law (the 2019 Marriage Law) does not prohibit it. (Poke @Pharexia:) -- BayuAH 09:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The prevalence section of the article says „Research into the prevalence of polyamory has been limited“ but then doesnt stick to it. I think we should be trimming this section, specifically the percentages. We should be grounded here and stick with the simple fact that there is not much solid research.
Also, Amy Moors specifically is not a good source. There is a lot of criiticism against her, like her messing around with samples and sample sizes. At the very least we shouldnt quote her. But generally I think the section should be smaller. 141.15.24.32 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bigamy (in Canon Law) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Bigamy (in Canon Law) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)