Revision as of 10:16, 12 January 2016 edit92slim (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,333 edits →BLACK← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:48, 26 March 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,332,552 edits Reminder of an inactive anchor: Remove 1 non-defunct anchor |
(92 intermediate revisions by 39 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}} |
|
{{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|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Life|class=B}} |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBanners|1= |
|
|
{{WPAnthro|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=b|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexuality|class=b|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|class=b|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Family and relationships}} |
|
{{WikiProject Family and relationships|class=b|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement|importance=mid}} |
⚫ |
{{LDSproject|class=b|importance=mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Notable Citation|Berkeley Journal of International Law}} |
|
{{Notable Citation|Berkeley Journal of International Law}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{archive box |
|
{{Archive box |
|
| auto = yes |
|
| auto = yes |
|
| search = yes |
|
| search = yes |
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. |
|
== Kobani/Ayn al-Arab == |
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
Syria is currently listed as Polygamous marriage performed: Nationwide in the template thing. It's now prohibited in ]. http://syriadirect.org/news/syria-direct-news-update-8-31-15/ ] (]) 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 ]). Given that Africa is poor in general compared to the HDI of the Arabian peninsula, the removed studies are inherently flawed. --] (]) 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... ] (]) 01:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Fixed, along with some inconsistencies and errors in the former map file. --] (]) 06:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Why do you have the prejudice that black is bad? - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 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. --] (]) 10:16, 12 January 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)