Talk:Polygamy/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Honor Harrington

In the subsection on polygamy in science fiction I noticed the example of polygamy on the planet Grayson in the Honor Harrington series of David Weber. Why doesn't it mention that Honor Harrington herself entered the marriage of her lover Hamish Alexander (Earl White Haven) as his second wife alongside Emily Alexander?

An interesting detail is that her name after that marriage becomes Honor Alexander-Harrington and his Hamish Alexander-Harrington. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

HTML Comments Within Page

There are numerous HTML comments (<!...) within the page. I am unsure of the Wikipedia policy concerning these comments, but I feel that something should be done with the large blocks of text which are commented out. Perhaps moved to the talk page, or deleted altogether. Any suggestions? (Raztus (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Polygamy in European societies

I was surprised to see that there is no section on polygamy in European societies, particularly the traditional pre-Roman/pre-Christian societies of pagan Europe (ex. Celts, Germanic peoples, Basques, Saami, etc.). As it is now, the article almost seems to imply that only the Judaeo-Christian monogamous view is historically important with respect to European societies. There is surely a lot of information to be added to this article in this regard. Pictonon (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Judaism: Biblical practice

One source of polygamy was the practice of levirate marriage, wherein a man was required to marry and support his deceased brother's widow, as mandated by Deuteronomy 25:5-10. __ This sentence should be deleted, because it is incorrect. Once the brother dies there is no polygamy; there is the remarriage of a widow. The levirate marriage is largely symbolic and is to produce a son to continue the deceased's name. The sister-in-law may refuse the marriage by performing "HaLitza" a legal rejection ceremony, in front of qualified witnesses.

It's not the widow's polygamy, it's the brothers - he is obligated even if he is already married to someone else. And while she may refuse (and now always does), that wasn't always the case. (if you are trying to procreate, it's not "symbolic"...) FiveRings (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

__ The Torah, Judaism's central text, includes a few specific regulations on the practice of polygamy, such as Exodus 21:10, which states that multiple marriages are not to diminish the status of the first wife (specifically, her right to food, clothing and conjugal relations). Deuteronomy 21:15-17, states that a man must award the inheritance due to a first-born son __ It could be clarified that conjugal relations occurred with one wife at a time. This was not group sex, but separate relationships under the same roof.

that's why it's called "polygamy" and not "group sex" FiveRings (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

__ to the son who was actually born first, even if he hates that son's mother and likes another wife more; [26] and Deuteronomy 17:17 states that the king shall not have too many wives.[27] The king's behavior is condemned by Prophet Samuel in 1Samuel 8. Exodus 21:10 also speaks of Jewish concubines. Israeli lexicographer Vadim Cherny argues that the Torah carefully distinguishes concubines and "sub-standard" wives with prefix "to", lit. "took to wives."[28] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.151.125.140 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Gay marriage and/with Homosexual polygamy

The article should maybe mention the social phenomenon of homosexual polygamy, especially as it relates to gay marriage advocacy (cf Ford Motors advocacy [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50442]). Such a thing would be possible in some countries where gay marriage has already been legalized and where polygamy is de facto tolerated. ADM (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The World Net Daily isn't exactly an unbiased source. How about going to the Advocate article directly - [1] (and I would venture to say this is more about gay relationships in the polyamory community than poly relationships in the gay community) FiveRings (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

buddhism

I made some major changes to the section on buddhism and polygamy. It basically says the opposite to what it said before the edits, and I tried to provide references for the claims, unlike the previous article. I don't feel comfortable making such significant changes to the articles in wikipedia, so if someone might care to take a look, I'd appreciate it. Whats the right way of referencing some book accessible via google books? Sorry, I'm not involved in wiki editing frequently enough to delve into its regulations to verify if I referenced it satisfactory. Also, given that the previous author of that section seemed to have rather negative opinion of the status of polygamy in buddhist scripture and societies, perhaps double-checking the claim made by more eyeballs might not be a bad idea - has anyone seen the BBC documentary there mentioned? Does the claim polyandrous relationships documented there were involontary 'check out'? Just arranged marriages or something more violent? The only actual claim is - arranged marriage, but language of that paragraph (devoted in its entirety to the women being 'routinely forced, unwillingly, into polyandrous marriages by their families') seems anything but NPOV IMHO, particularly, since, according to the article on arranged marriages, they are customary and prevailent in south asia generally. I'd put some kind of NPOV-language on that paragraph, but can't dig up what would the appropriate template for it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.125.85 (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Polygamy in Judaism

There is a line in the present version of the article that states "In general, however, polygamy was never considered the ideal state...." The source given is this article from Chabad, which does nothing better than express the author's impression ("As far as Jewish thought is concerned, it would seem that polygamy is not, and never was, an ideal state"). I'm going to take this line out of the article because it is not verifiable and is nothing more than a cliché. Incidentally, in the Chabad article no source is given because the author is admitting that he has no sources for his impression. --Arabicas.Filerons (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Polygamy and spouse

In the lead, it states that: polygyny (one man having more than one wife), or as polyandry (one woman having more than one husband)

Is'nt it also possible that polygyny could refer to a man having more than one men and polyandry refers to a woman having more than one women ? If this is so, it should state: polygyny (one man having more than one spouse), or as polyandry (one woman having more than one spouse)

The polygyny and polyandry articles should also be altered

As for the group marriage; this is -in my opinion- not a form of polygamy; as their isn't a single person that married multiple persons, it are multiple persons which married multiple persons. As such, it should be described as a marriage form on its own: a table can be made in the right column indicating the main marriage forms are: - monogamy - polygamy - group marriage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.165.179 (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Image

The main image is best a schematic of 2 people having each an arrow to each other, aswell as arrows to other people (drawn under each of the 2 people) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.165.179 (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture made, please include to article

I removed that image due to its amateur quality level, and because I don't think it successfully demonstrates the full concept of polygamy. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

An interesting quote

:While I hold no particularly strong opinion one way or the other on polygamy, and wish "Jenny" all the best, I must confess that at the present time and for the foreseeable future, I do not have 2 wives.--Jimbo Wales 23:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

-from User talk:Jimbo Wales

---

Untitled

Note: The citation of BJIL was in 2003, citing the version of Oct. 22, 2002. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia as an academic source#Published 2003.--Mightyms 22:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Judaism 3.4.1 Biblical practice

The current text mentions Abraham as an example of a polygamists in the Bible. The citation is very clear that Sarai asked him to have a child with her maidservant (Hagar) so that Sarai would be built up *through* Hagar. This is a clear example of a concubine, not a second wife. I propose that Abraham as an example should be removed.

Additionally: footnote 17 is an incorrect translation of the original hebrew. I propose that we change "perhaps I will obtain children through her" to Perhaps I will be built up through her".

As this page is marked controversal, I will wait for feedback before editing. Avery —Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyk (talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Every bit of the Abraham mention is not supported by a reliable source. Instead, the bible passage is quoted in a footnote. We can't simply quote the Bible passages and say that this or that person was a polygamist, based on scripture that has been interpreted a hundred ways. We must quote experts who state it plainly. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

National Geographic Magazine's February 2010 issue - Polygamy in America

This is worthy of reflecting the issue in America:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/
Native94080 (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

External links

2 links for Judaism (one about marriage) 2 links for the Mormons. Total links 4. No Islam, No Africa, No China. The majority of polygamist are neither in Judaism or Mormon faith. Yet they get 2 links each at the expensive of diversity to represent the issue of polygamy globally. I propose external links on the subject of Africa, Islam and China. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing about South Asia / India?

I think there's some strange editing about India and South Asia going on. Right now there's a vacuous, un-referenced statement about Hindu polygamy in Nepal and that's it, while discussions of Islam are largely minimized or ignored. I can't help but feel there's a bit of "Hindu-Muslim" tension among editors of this article. Many of the statements about Hinduism are un-sourced or poorly sourced, and bonafide polygamy in Islam is minimized. Maybe someone can re-edit this section a bit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.88.33 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Consort practice in Buddhism

In the Buddhism section, the article had:

Additionally, in Tibetan Buddhism it is not uncommon to take a consort in addition to a spouse, though it is namely for certain spiritual practices that the spouse may not be able/ready to participate in—or if the husband/wife are at different levels on their spiritual path.[citation needed] A consort is appropriate in such cases. Within this context, either the husband or wife, occasionally both, might take a spiritual consort. This is known as Consort Practice, and there are specific teachings and meditations that go along with it. Consort Practice is often very private, however, and not openly discussed outside of followers of Tibetan Vajrayana—which tends to be a very private form of Buddhism in general – hence it is not very well known. Husbands and wives also engage in Consort Practice together, monogamously.

I have deleted this paragraph. While there is a practice of taking a consort in Tibetan Buddhism, it is so exceptionally rare as to not merit a mention here, except for its sensational value. Not only was the paragraph mistaken about its frequency ("not uncommon"), but it also lacked sourcing of any kind, let alone a reliable one. Moonsell (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Afternote: An example of a reference for the exceptional rarity of consort practice is Thomas Laird, The Story of Tibet. Grove Press, 2006, page 81. Moonsell (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert Mistake

For the record, I made a mistake using Huggle and reverting a revision that 70.151.163.135 did to counteract vandalism. I undid my revert, and the current version at this point is the one that 70.151.163.135 made. --Ecstacy ^Xtcy3 04:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Some observations about the Asian/Chinese section

I am not a Chinese or history expert, but these are what I know from my personal knowledge.

In terms of Chinese polygamy, there are some special cases relating to the Chinese Civil War. For example, there are thousands of cases where one spouse escaped with the Nationalists to Taiwan, but the other spouse somehow were left behind in Mainland China. If either then subsequently remarried, then he or she would be technically be guilty of polygamy. However, such cases were usually quickly fixed by local courts by invalidating the old marriage. Still, it makes for old sad reunions when the two somehow meet again.

As for "second woman", or yi-nai in Cantonese, yi means "two", and nai, this word has multiple meanings and connotations. Literally, it's written the same as "milk", which means i have to get into a Chinese lesson. This word is also associate with nai-ma, or literally "milk mother", someone hired to breast feed the baby when the mother cannot/will not do so herself, but sometimes simply referred to senior house-maid/baby-sitter. Another is "nai-nai", which is an affectionate term for "grandmother". However, the word is pronounced with a higher, rising tone, making it a separate word from "milk". The term itself describes woman, but with a negative connotation.

The term "yi-nai" has a very negative connotation to it, almost as bad as "prostitute" in some circles such as women's rights groups. It's also sometimes seen as a perverse status symbol among the men, as it's a way to flaunt one's wealth and taste in women. Yi-nai's are usually well-cared for, as the man are expected to pay for everything, from the housing to the expense accounts. Therefore, some housing complexes where a lot of yi-nai's congregate are known as yi-nai-chung (or second woman village, literally). Such villages are usually in the southern parts of China, but recently expanded to most major cities with International airports, where the rich merchants who can afford such luxuries, can reach easily. It started in the South as that is closest to Hong Kong, the primary doorway to China for hundreds of years.

Traditional Chinese marriage is monogamous. Taking concubines are NOT considered marriages for the most part. Indeed, in some cases the "groom" doesn't even need to show up. If they are rich enough, they just send a limo (or the period equivalent) and a lot of dowry/money to the "bride" residence to pick her up and drop off the gifts. Obviously, someone have to "arrange" the terms, but there's minimal "paperwork" involved. The "wife" is sometimes refered to as "yuan-pei" (mandarin) which seems to say "first match partner". Tai-tai, on the other hand, just means "female spouse". Indeed, wife can be refered to as "da-tai-tai" (big/first wife), first concubine, or 2nd wife, is "er-tai-tai", and so on.

Relationship among polygamy wives can vary greatly. Some are friendly, as if they are "sisters", some are merely cordial, while others can be outright hostile. Indeed, a lot of period drama plays on the theme of a young innocent girl pressured into being a concubine for an old rich merchant, who has an extremely jealous wife, and the tough life she faces. A typical plot is she falls for the young handsome son of her "husband". In the worst cases, the most junior of concubines may be little better than the servants.

--Kschang77 08:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some serious issues with the section on pre-contemporary China. The section says: "Before the establishment of the Republic of China, it was lawful to have a wife and multiple concubines within Chinese marriage (now this would indicate it's no longer legal afterward, immediately following the founding of the ROC, but however when you read on...). Even though before the Communist Revolution, taking concubines were legal, very few men in the Chinese society could afford to have more than one wife. Even for those who are wealthy and powerful enough to do so, taking too many wives was considered immoral (this part now contradicts the previous sentence, and it says that EVEN THOUGH - personally I think it's sort of a weasel word, seems used to try to "lessen the criticism" on the legality of polygamy in the ROC period - polygamy was LEGAL in ROC period, not many did it bec. it was hard to do so. Furthermore, it does not bother to quantify the "not many" part). Anyways, citations are needed and this part needs a complete overhaul. 207.216.33.144 (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Jurisdiction

What happens if some moves from a country, like Saudi Arabia, that does allow polygamy to a country, like the United States, where it's illegal? Are all marriages recognized or is the person forced to only accept the first spouse as legal? Emperor001 (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know British (and therefore Commonwealth) law acknowledges spouses and children from polygamous marriages from other countries for welfare and inheritance issues, but not much else. No idea about the US, but would assume that there would be a more intolerant viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.1.84 (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Samaritanism

I notice a section on "Samaritanism" under "Patterns of occurrence across religions" (added in this edit). It has some problems. Most importantly it makes an assertion that seems to me extremely doubtful: "Samaritanism is the only monotheistic religion that is monogamous". Well, what about most modern forms of Jewish and Christian belief? Also, there's no source cited for the section. It does refer to scripture, but there would still have to be a source indicating that the particular interpretation of scripture is the one that's used in the Samaritan religion. -- Why Not A Duck 21:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, the wording needs improved. Perhaps to say that Samaritanism is the only one explicitly anonymous, though I'm not sure if that's true of it. The wording is just very off. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Biology

is there really nothing in the sci lit out there about polygamy from biological (hormones etc) and such practice in animals are not found in external links —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArielGenesis (talk • contribs) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Mormonism and polygamy in the next world

In the "Current proponents and opponents" section, the article currently says the following: However, men in the LDS Church still expect to take multiple wives in the next world after death. ­— with Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants provided as the source. I dispute the conclusion that all LDS men expect to practise polygamy in the eternities, or that the LDS Church teaches that all righteous LDS men will have plural wives in the hereafter, or that D&C 132 is a sufficient source for such a claim. I've marked the statement with a {{Syn}} (synthesis) tag; in my opinion, the statement needs to be removed (and possibly replaced by something, suitably tied to a reliable secondary source, indicating that some/many members of the LDS Church believe that some LDS men will have plural wives in the eternities). Richwales (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What does the church actually say about this? I think you can just correct it instead.Griswaldo (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a published ref. Unfortunately, you are not going to find anything on the official LDS sites about it. But the practice is known. Read the ref. "Men can marry 'for Eternity' in the temple again and again. When they lose a wife through death or divorce, she is still married to him in the next life. So in effect there's a policy of polygamy for men in the afterlife " The Doctrine and Covenants ref should be sufficient as well. --Manway (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a word for word quote from an ex-Mormon in a newspaper article, it does not qualify as a reliable source on this. It also does not verify the claim that Mormon men expect anything in the afterlife, it simply makes the case that hypothetically those who have been widowed will have more than one wife in the afterlife. Please read Richwales' particular problem with the statement. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As an active, believing, practising LDS, I can confirm that it is a generally accepted belief in the LDS Church that some men will have more than one wife in the next world. (And no, I am not suggesting using me as a reliable source for this or any other Wikipedia article.) The thing I'm taking issue with here is that the original text in the article suggests (to me, at least) that the LDS Church believes all worthy men will have multiple wives in the next world — something which is not believed by the LDS Church (I understand the polygamist breakoff groups generally do believe this, but we're not talking about them here). Further, I have a problem with citing D&C 132 as a source for this claim, since that is not in fact the current commonly accepted interpretation within the LDS Church (this is a good example of why we should report reliable secondary sources rather than apply our own WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to primary source material). Richwales (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Rich, I would appreciate any comments you might make to this discussion. I had provided a published ref regarding that claim, and the other editor deleted it, stating that it was invalid because she was "...one opinion of one girl who left the LDS." FWIW, I agree with you. It's not ALL men, but it can happen - especially with men being able to be sealed to other women after divorce or death of their current spouse, giving them, in effect, multiple wives in the hereafter. Thank you. --Manway (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Then why on earth were you using the reference to verify a statement you don't even agree with? Better actually read the problems that have been presented before pretending to know what is going on.Griswaldo (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore it is false to assume a divorced or widowed man sealed to two women will indeed expect to have a polygamous relationship with them in the hereafter. All relationships are voluntary, it's quite likely that a divorced spouse will want to keep it that way. Technically sealings only "enable" they do not "insure" any type of post-mortal relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.147.34 (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Image

I have absolutely no idea what the image at the top of the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polygamy_01.svg) is supposed to illustrate. It looks to me like there are 3 male/female couples, and the top-left female is connected to all three males. How does this "illustrate that 4 types of relationships are possible", as claimed in the image description? If I saw this image by itself, my guess would be that it represents a wife cheating on her husband with two other married men. This image needs to be seriously modified, explained better, or probably just removed. 66.68.86.167 (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, and I will remove it. If this image is re-added, it will need a very good caption to explain what it represents. Townlake (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

TLC series 'Sister Wives'

Well I just added the information about this new reality show, only to realize afterwards that the section I put it in was only about fictional references to polygamy. I still think that the information belongs in this article, but probably not at its current location. If anyone has a better spot for it, feel free to move it. << Fyrefly (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's not add this show in, redlinked, until it actually airs, and gets some notability under its belt. Wikipedia is not a place to plug upcoming shows.Griswaldo (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's notable since TLC actually filmed it. Please do not delete sourced material for such mundane reasons. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

They are not mundane reasons. You should start by creating an article on the actual series. The series is absolutely "not" notable enough to be mentioned in a general entry on "polygamy". If you think it is notable enough for an article of its own be my guest and write a well sourced article on the show, but a show that hasn't even aired yet does not get mention in an article on a broad topic like this.Griswaldo (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that an article on the series will be in place very soon.

Our ideas of notability differ then; the addition is well sourced ... do not delete again until we reach consensus here. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD, it works the other way around. You make an addition, it gets reverted then you discuss ... not edit war to keep it in. Sourcing has nothing to do with it. We don't add every piece of pop culture cruft related to polygamy, certainly not shows that haven't aired yet. If it merits inclusion it will in time. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should read BRD to discover what is is NOT about:

• BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus.

• BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.

• BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And I have. The show is not notable enough to be included here. It is not even aired and this is a page that covers polygamy as a topic generally speaking, throughout history and across the globe. You have not provided any proof that it belongs in the entry. I did not say you are required to follow BRD, but at least it is a guideline that people do follow unlike your opinion, which is not a guideline at all. The reason I reverted your changes is that they are unencyclopedic and not because "I don't like them". They could also be seen as promotional given that this show is about to air its premier soon -- more reason to be cautious with this kind of addition.Griswaldo (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And where do you get off thinking that your opinion = consensus? We are two people arguing here ... its not my point of view against those of 20 other people so this whole "consensus" business is rather insulting.Griswaldo (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Where did I say that my 'opinion = consensus' ? I reverted ONCE with my reason stated; you reverted TWICE, so I'm wondering if you think YOUR 'opinion = consensus' ? Keep manufacturing different 'reasons' for your reversions; maybe one of them will 'stick' to the wall. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I never said anything about consensus, you must be confusing me with yourself. For the record, my rationale for reverting this addition has always been lack of notability vis-a-vis the topic, at this date. Each one of my replies to you above has repeated this same reason so I have a very hard time understanding your comment about "manufacturing different reasons" has to do with anything. Should we start an RfC about this? Post to a community board? I welcome the input of others. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

1) 'notability'

2) 'unencyclopedic'

3) 'promotional'

4) don't include 'pop culture cruft'

etc.

Righto, you didn't say consensus! Consensus is what WP says we must attain here (not my idea, just the way it is). I would also welcome other opinions. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

All of these things are related. Yes Wikipedia runs on consensus but there has been no chance for a consensus here. Your accusations made it sound like I'm flaunting a consensus that has never occurred. That's my point. I posted to one of the noticeboards and provided a link below. If you want to ask for additional comments elsewhere please do so.Griswaldo (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You could very well be right about the show not being notable enough for this article, though it clearly merits a page of its own. I wouldn't really bother arguing about it, since I'm sure that within a couple of days that page will be created. And what's the deal with how you did the citation? << Fyrefly (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean mean by "how I did the citation"?Griswaldo (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant why did you do a direct link, instead of an inline citation with a link in the reference list at the bottom? I thought that was the standard. << Fyrefly (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Er, you're not the one that did the citation. I guess that's directed at Duke. << Fyrefly (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Content Discussion at noticeboard

I started a dsicussion on this topic here - Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Inclusion_of_a_yet_to_air_TV_show_in_the_general_topic_entry_Polygamy.Griswaldo (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Polygamy in fiction and popular culture

The section on pop culture seems mostly like trivia to me. What is its encyclopedic value? Where do we draw the limits to inclusion? Any thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The science fiction and historic fiction sections do read a bit like a references list and maybe should be formatted as such. I realize reference lists are usually iffy, so I guess their inclusion is still up for debate. However, the contemporary setting section has examples where polygamy is the main issue within the work and personally I'd like to see those expanded to include whatever message about polygamy was conveyed in each. I think examples like these say a lot about how society views the subject. << Fyrefly (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sister Wives (TV series)

I moved the mention of this to the contemporary culture section. This section is not just about fiction. The editor who keeps moving it says that the show isn't fiction. I realize that it is billed as a reality show, but the section covers popular culture and not just "fiction". Please discuss here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

1) The show isn't simply 'billed as reality' ... it is actually being lived out at this time in Utah.

2) The main subject of the reality series self-identifies as mormon.

3) The 'lifestyle' = polygamy.

4) Reality + mormon + 'lifestyle'= religious. Simple. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about a reality TV show and not about a practice. The reality TV show is the cultural artifact here not the practice it portrays. If the latter were the case then the show would be a source used in the religion section itself. Is that what you want? This is an example of a pop-culture artifact, so it belongs in that section, unless, once again, you want to use it as a source in the other section, but I doubt that it would pass WP:RS for that purpose.Griswaldo (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Religion section

The religion section of this entry is a bit confused in parts. It also appears to be organized around the centrality of a contemporary Christian POV -- because it assumes that if a religion does not address the practice it allows the practice, and therefore its inclusion is made meaningful. For instance, polygamy has historically been practiced by adherents of religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, in different cultural contexts. The reality is that these religions do not/did not regulate the practice in one way or another. In other words, the practitioners of polygamy in Buddhism and Hinduism are following cultural practices that are not denied by religious dogma, but on the other hand have nothing to do with their religious beliefs in the first place. Such practices do not belong in a section on "relgion". Ancient Judaism is arguably in a similar boat, though polygamy in the Hebrew Bible ought to be discussed for sure. Historical Mormonism and contemporary Mormon fundamentalists are clearly examples of religions which do belong in this section. Islam also does, because the issue is clearly addressed in the Qu'ran and because the practice does occur today, in direct connection to a religious identity and to religious communities. My suggestion here would be to completely strip down the Hinduism and Buddhism sections mentioning that adherents have practiced polygamy, and that religious canon does not address the practice, but that's about it. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sister Wives redirect

As per this message on my talk page, I have brought the conversation here. After creating the page Sister Wives (TV series), I noticed that the term "Sister wives" redirects to the Polygamy. Therefore, anybody searching for the television series by searching simply for "Sister Wives" would be unable to find it. To address this problem, I added a note to the top of the Polygamy page which directs people searching for the series over to that page. Griswaldo (talk · contribs) reverted it as an WP:UNDUE violation. I don't at all agree with that action, but I can see why he would feel it might not be the best solution. The way I figure it, there are three possible solutions, any of which I'm willing to go with depending on the WP:CONSENSUS developed:

1. Create a Sister Wives Disambiguation page that, once somebody gets to it, directs them either to the Polygamy page, or the Sister Wives (TV series) page, or whatever other pages might apply.
2. Restore the note I had created above.
3. Change the Sister wives redirect to go directly to the TV series page, rather than to the Polygamy one.

As I said, I'm fine with any of the three solutions. However, I think at least one of them is necessary, otherwise it will be virtually impossible for your average reader to find the TV series page at all. I'm hoping for suggestions. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 12:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I vote #3. The redirect Sister wives does not need to point to this article. Binksternet (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I vote #1. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Vote #3. Sister wives should not be redirecting here at all, and there should be no need to disambiguate between this page and the TV show. It is a colloquialism that refers only to one form of polygamy which is covered in another entry Mormonism and polygamy. It does not refer to polygamy in general, historically and cross-culturally. If you want to consider a redirect to that entry that's another matter, but not this one.Griswaldo (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record when I removed it I did not realize that Sister wives was redirecting here. Now that I know this I understand exactly whey Hunter put the hatnote up, but the real solution is to change the redirect in the first place, as I have now done.Griswaldo (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I definitely vote #3 as well. I was confused from the very first time I searched for Sister Wives and ended up on this page. In my opinion the redirect to Polygamy was a mistake from the start, and an even worse idea now that there is another article with that exact title.

I do feel compelled to add though, that you need to act less abruptly, Griswaldo. When someone opens something for discussion on talk, including a vote, you shouldn't abruptly make a change in the middle of voting without even a day having gone by since the discussion started. Any time you put the words "as I have now done" into your vote, that should be a red flag that you've acted without waiting for consensus. << Fyrefly (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In these situations its better to just be bold. Sister wives should clearly not redirect here. Why waste more time discussing the issue here? Technically this isn't the right venue to discuss where to send the redirect, Talk:Sister wives would be. We should be deciding what to do with this entry here. I'd also like to point out that adding a reference to this TV show to this entry appears to be done out of just as much "haste". There has been no attempt to establish a consensus on the talk page for this addition but I don't see any complaints about that ... and ironically that is actually a topic that should be discussed here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"In these situations its better to just be bold." "Why waste more time discussing the issue here?" This is exactly the wrong type of attitude to have on Wikipedia and will surely lead to many unconstructive edit wars in the future, just as it has on this page and most likely many other times in the past. I'm not taking a side on your other dispute with Duke, nor will I comment on it. But when you ignore an active, productive discussion like this vote and just act according to your own opinion, you're showing total disregard for the discussion process and for the opinions of others. << Fyrefly (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If Duke or anyone else disagrees with the change they can revert it and I'll happily respect WP:BRD, something that Duke is unwilling to do himself. This entry has serious issues ... it's really a big mess, and people seem disinterested in discussing them or helping to fix the entry, but we're supposed to discuss a clearly mistaken redirect? Polygamy refers to a variety of historical and cross-cultural martial arrangements. It is a very broad topic, and as long as the only attention this article gets is from people POV-pushing, one way or the other, about Mormonism its going to remain a mess. Let's do some actual work here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm fine with Option #3 and the change that has already been implemented. For the record though, I tend to agree with Fyrefly about the haste at which the redirect was changed. Once my hatnote was reverted (even though the hatnote itself explained about the "Sister wives" redirect) I didn't revert back, but instead brought it here to seek consensus. Then only three hours into the discussion, a change is implemented by the same person who reverted me in the first place. I have no knowledge of any of this Duke business or any other past edits to this page, and don't plan to get involved. I'm just saying that based on my brief encounter here, it appears to me that some further respect for WP:CONSENSUS might be warranted, and I just wanted to politely point it out. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 18:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Polygamy by Country

I've created a new Polygamy by country section for all the countries, however, I think this should not be made exhaustive and instead should focus on notable countries/regions and general observations using specific countries as examples. For example, I think it is silly to have a Canada section when Canada clearly doesn't allow polygamy, but it might be worth having a Saskatuan section to mention the apparent legality in that province. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you source the "apparent legality" of polygamy in Saskatchewan? As far as I can tell this is a rumor and internet meme because I've found no sources for it and as far as I can tell federal Canadian criminal law strictly forbids polygamy. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Polygamy in Pop Culture

Polygamy's presence in pop culture is growing; there are many television programs on polygamous families. The most popular is Big Love, starring Ginnifer Goodwin and Chloe Sevigny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.203.199 (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Polygamy Vs. Romantic Relationship With More Than One Woman Who Know Of The Other Women

Is there a term to define the second thing labeled in this discussion? If not, it's going to be quite a mouthful. Anyway, is there a real clear and definitive line between Polygamy and a loving relationship between more than one woman, without marriage? If so, I believe states can't criminalize people as such; as love is part of free speech. Unless someone can confirm otherwise? 68.190.118.106 (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Merging in to Polygamy article

Disagree This character warrants an independent article.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 19:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What character are you referring to? It is not obvious based on the section heading or your comment. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume Mohammed Bello Abubakar since that's the section proposed for merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalname37 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The polygamy page should be left as it is, for the clarity of science. Polygamy is a type of mating system, whether that be for animals or humans, and confusing it, by mergig it with Mohammed Bello Abubakar is a bad idea in my opinion. 92.234.162.68 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Lindsey 92.234.162.68 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Only heterosexual relations among polygamists.

Regarding: "Though there are three or more parties to such marriages, sexual activities between the parties are normally only heterosexual."

Is there any literature or evidence supporting the assertion of the article's fourth sentence, or is this an assumption of it's author, or is it part of the definition of "polyamory"? To wit: Is it known that multiple spouses do not "normally" engage in (perhaps covert) homosexual activity?

See the researched book "Mormon Polygamy". It documents hundreds of polygamous hetrosexual families, with extensive quotes and biblography to original woman journal sources. Seconday sources such as Bushman's numerous books and also Flanders all document, and comment on Mormon hetrosexual polygamy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrsmck (talk • contribs) 22:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A reference or clarification would he helpful here. 24.84.76.37 (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a section from psychologist talking about affects of it on children / women or criticisms of it?

I think there should be a section for the analysis of the institution itself. If politicians have a section for "criticisms" or "controversies" shouldn't polygamy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myclob (talk • contribs) 02:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I second the motion. I would think there must be some research -- or at least speculation -- on the effects of polygamy on the participants. Surely criticism of polygamy is not limited to the victimless-crime morality of religion; it seems to me that even if it's only hypothetical, the informed professional opinion of a psychologist as to harm that might be caused to participants would be a more valid criticism than clerical assertions that "it's bad because God says so." Also, I believe sociologists or anthropologists or somesuch may have written about effects or potential harmful effects of widespread polygamy on the society as a whole, which would also have the benefit, even if it can't be proved for lack of evidence from an actual polygamous society, still has more merit than "we can't change the definition of marriage" and other undefended assertions made by those advocating for religion-based laws. I have a vague recollection of reading somewhere that (due to the predominance of heterosexuality in human societies) polygamy is liable to create a gender imbalance; young women tend to favour older, wealthy/powerful men, leaving large numbers of young men without marriage prospects, and that this increases the young men's risk of becoming involved in gang-type activity. I don't know if this is true, but it seems to me that somebody at least expressed this opinion. I wish I could remember where I heard or read this; sorry I can't be more helpful here! Mia229 (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

B4 u jump for monotheistic glee review wiki policy on criticism section. @ Mia, if you pick a society such as America, and look at African-Americans, who seem to represent a high prison population you will soon realize your theories on consquences of polygamy do not apply across the board in reality. homosexuality will balance out this issue for you. Anyway why am i adding to this forum style debate?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically, neither the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam nor the gods of Hinduism and Buddhism ever condemned polygyny. So, in this sense, God never said a bad word about polygyny. It is because Christianity has adapted to heathen practice (Greek, Roman, Egyptian) that monogamy has become the standard. Monogamy-only goes against the scriptures of mainstream revealed religions.

Scientifically considered, see this link (paid access, so I won't read it): http://www.springerlink.com/content/j38p534256848326/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

From Wheel of Time section: Removed the line about Rand Al'Thor.

As of book 13 in the series, the penultimate volume, Rand Al'Thor is not married to any of the three women mentioned in the article. He has had sexual relations with each in different circumstances, but none of them are married to Rand or to each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.250.243 (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

External Link: debatepedia.idebate.org

I would like to add a link to this website:

• debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Polygamy, but this is being blocked as spam.

Debatepedia is the Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues. A project of the 501c3 non-profit International Debate Education Association (IDEA), Debatepedia utilizes the same wiki technology powering Wikipedia to centralize arguments and quotes found in editorials, op-eds, political statements, and books into comprehensive pro/con articles. This helps citizens and decision-makers better deliberate on the world's most important questions. Debatepedia is endorsed by the National Forensic League.

This link uses the wikipedia model to allow others to list pros and cons of different ideas. Any web-page has a bias. However in the encyclopedia world we are supposed to link to unbiased sources of information. I believe the best way to do this is to link to news articles and websites that try to be unbiased. The above link specifically tries to put reasons to agree and disagree on the same page in separate columns. If you believe in Wikipedia, if you believe in the power of crowds, if you believe in seeing both sides of an issue, I believe the above external link will allow internet viewers see gain access to more information. myclob (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to review Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources & Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Polygamy is not polygyny. Split the material?

This article adopts the most generic definition of "polygamy" (and is almost certainly correct in doing so). As text early in the article points out, many different practices and insitutions fall under that definition, including polygyny, polyandry, group marriage... and very different forms of each of these.

However, at around the point where it starts to talk about ethnography, the article seems to begin to conflate "polygamy" with "polygyny", and this conflation seems pervasive in the bulk of the article.

In fact, the conflation is not only with polygyny as the predominant form of polygamy within a culture, but with cases in which polygyny is institutionalized as the only accepted form of polygamy, often in a culturally conservative patriarchal context. It's not clear even that all of these obligate polygynous institutions are in any meaningful way the "same", but it is quite clear that there are polygamous practices and institutions that don't fall into this mold.

I believe that most of this material specific to polygyny should be merged into the Polygyny article, and that the polygamy article should be confined to--

1. discussing matters that are universal to all forms of polygamy, and
2. providing pointers to the articles on specific forms of polygamy
3. probably pointing out the very conflation I'm bringing up

It might be argued in response that the sort of obligate polygyny on which this article concentrates is the predominant form of polygamy. However, this should not affect the organization of the articles for several reasons:

1. Regardless of relative prevalence, all of the practices are notable and deserve coverage. At present, this article essentially "erases" all of the other practices in favor of obligate polygyny.
2. Polygyny already has its own article (as do many of the other possible practices). The polygyny article appears to duplicate this one in many respects. It makes sense to concentrate all of the information on polygyny in one well organized place.
3. This article is not the only place, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, in which "polygamy" and "obligate polygyny" are conflated. The conflation can even be found in the scholarly literature, and this can cause the unwary to apply the results of studies on obligate polygyny to completely different institutions. By making a clear separation (and by explicitly discussing the conflation issue in the article text), Wikipedia can help readers to make better sense of other sources.
4. The question of relative prevalence is actually subject to dispute, particularly in Western countries, whose cultures are likely to be of special interest to English Wikipedia readers
   • The ethnographic data cited are old, and are subject to an "ethnographer's bias"... Western ethnographers do not tend to examine their own societies with the same eyes they use for others, and were even more prone to this bias in the past.
   • There's a growing movement toward Polyamory in much of the West. Although polyamory includes many things that are clearly not polygamy in any sense, it also includes things that are. Many of the forms adopted under the banner of polyamory are radically different from obligate polygyny. This polyamory movement is relatively recent and ill-researched by scholars. As a result, its prevalence relative to the prevalence of obligate polygyny, especially in Western countries, is ill understood. Furthermore, the cultural salience of polyamory may be disproportionate to its present numerical prevalence.

76.10.176.53 (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Polygamy in African countries

I found this article extremely interesting and I love learning about different views and practices. I thought that the section discussing polygamy in African countries could benefit from new information. I read an article about the views of polygamy in Kenya (http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/w_islam/poly.htm) and found a few statistics that could be of use: Of the Kenyan women surveyed, a whopping 76% viewed polygamy positively. Another survey focusing specifically on rural Kenyan women came up with 25 out of 27 women preferring polygamy to monogamy. These Kenyan women would opt for polygamy as long as the wives can unite and get along. The idea of polygamy is taken under such positive light in many countries of Africa that Protestant churches are starting to tolerate it more and more. Maryfrancespace (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitions

In the lead section it says:

When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, the relationship is called polygyny, and there is no marriage bond between the wives; and when a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry, and there is no marriage bond between the husbands.

I am no expert in this area, so I'm reluctant to edit this, but it seems illogical: it denies the possibility of three people of two sexes all bonded in marriage to each other. Perhaps it should read:

When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, and there is no marriage bond between the wives, the relationship is called polygyny; and when a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, and there is no marriage bond between the husbands, it is called polyandry.

Or else perhaps the "there is no marriage bond" clauses should simply be deleted. Would someone who knows what they're talking about in this field please fix it?

--50.100.191.118 (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree, this seems to be a basic logic problem. I suggest that you go ahead and fix it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the "marriage bond" bit is needed to exclude group marriage. The proposed wording is good. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Legalization Section Is Too One-Sided

There needs to be arguments both for and against the proposal to legalize polygamy in order for it to be neutral. Showing only arguments from sources that support its legalization is not neutral in anyway.50.157.103.28 (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There are *no* arguments supporting it's legalization in that section. Only blanket statements about groups who support it, while there is a huge,lopsided argument against leagalization at the end. There needs to be some balance here. Remove the mention of libertarian party, etc. and replace it with a prominent argument in favor of polygamy's legalization. This will balance the argument presented against it. Listing parties in favor is just fluff making the appearance of fairness. If it must be included it should be under a new section "the politics of polygamy in the United States" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.44.147 (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Utah

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56894145-78/utah-waddoups-brown-family.html.csp Prcc27 (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)