This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
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)
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))
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)
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.
__
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.
__ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-from User talk:Jimbo Wales
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)
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)
This is worthy of reflecting the issue in America:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/
Native94080 (
talk) 09:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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! — Hun ter Ka hn 12:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Disagree This character warrants an independent article. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 19:40, 9 February 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)
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)
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)
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)
I would like to add a link to this website:
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)
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--
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:
76.10.176.53 ( talk) 17:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
In the lead section it says:
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:
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)
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)
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56894145-78/utah-waddoups-brown-family.html.csp Prcc27 ( talk) 06:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
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)
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))
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)
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.
__
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.
__ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-from User talk:Jimbo Wales
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)
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)
This is worthy of reflecting the issue in America:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/
Native94080 (
talk) 09:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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! — Hun ter Ka hn 12:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Disagree This character warrants an independent article. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 19:40, 9 February 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)
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)
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)
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)
I would like to add a link to this website:
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)
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--
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:
76.10.176.53 ( talk) 17:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
In the lead section it says:
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:
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)
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)
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56894145-78/utah-waddoups-brown-family.html.csp Prcc27 ( talk) 06:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)