Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:19, 28 June 2016

Template:Vital article

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. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anthropology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Family and relationships (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Latter Day Saint movement Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Berkeley Journal of International Law

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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.

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)

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)

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 However, more secondary sources should be added for this. I corrected some typos but the Islam section on this page definitely requires improvement.

cӨde1+6 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 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 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 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 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 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 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+6 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. ~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)

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:

• 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 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. — 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)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Anthropology articles
• Mid-importance Anthropology articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Mid-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles