| Revision as of 23:43, 23 January 2016 editTgeorgescu (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users54,762 edits →criticism gutted?: reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:48, 26 March 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,314,701 edits Reminder of an inactive anchor: Remove 1 non-defunct anchor |
| (80 intermediate revisions by 37 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) |
|
|
::::I'm afraid that doesn't explain "in black like it was bad thing." - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 11:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Because I never said that it was a bad thing, if you haven't realised. --] (]) 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. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 18:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Ok, good bye then. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. 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 ]. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The ''criminal code'' citation comes from the 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. --] (]) 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?] (]) 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' Law. ] (]) 23:43, 23 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)
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)