This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nunh-huh (talk | contribs) at 18:32, 13 January 2016 (→BLACK). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:32, 13 January 2016 by Nunh-huh (talk | contribs) (→BLACK)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Polygamy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Berkeley Journal of International Law |
Archives |
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.
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)
- Because I never said that it was a bad thing, if you haven't realised. --92slim (talk) 18:29, 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 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)
- Why do you have the prejudice that black is bad? - Nunh-huh 08:37, 12 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)
- 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