Talk:Polygamy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Is this Bible reference in the "Biblical practice" section correct?

"The king's behavior is condemned by Prophet Samuel in 1Samuel 8" - I don't understand how is the king's behavior is condemned in that place of the Bible:

"Then said Elkanah her husband to her, Hannah, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to thee than ten sons?"

Is this reference correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trikita (talk • contribs) 14:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I am dissatisfied with much of the content in this "Judaism" section, including that point, which is obviously a botched reading of that passage in I Samuel. I intend to make several edits to this section, and hope to improve the accuracy of what's stated and the quality of references. Some of the information here is unciteable, and reflects the editors' biases.

The big danger in trying to present this topic accurately is that many individuals are afraid that if the Tanakh or historical Judaism represents polygyny in a positive light or even makes the practice appear acceptable, that will reflect poorly on modern (especially Western and Ashkenazic) Judaism's strong monogamous ethic. Wishing that something were true doesn't make it true, however. If anyone wants to dispute my edits, please do so here. Let's keep in mind what the introduction to this talk page says: "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them."

--Arabicas.Filerons (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Map color scheme

I understand that it is difficult to be objective in map color schemes, but this map seems to be pretty blatantly biased from a liberal, Western perspective. (I mean liberal in the broad philosophical sense.) At the very least, I feel that blue should signify legality and black or red should signify illegality. This map, however, has the countries that have banned polygamy in blue (signifying a form of freedom) with countries with legal polygamy in black (signifying a form of oppression). I know this might seem pedantic, but I think it's a legitimate issue to raise and discuss. Michipedian (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Good points. According to the info in Wikimedia Commons, this file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, which means you can remix it and share it with the same license if you attribute the source. Better yet, you can edit and upload a new version of the file with your desired colour scheme (see the revision history for examples). So it seems to me you have every right to do so yourself. --Arabicas.Filerons (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

OK great. Thanks for the information! Michipedian (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Map is too vague

The map of legal status of polygamy does not distinguish between polygyny and polyandry. From reading it seems like most or perhaps all jurisdictions are actually only legalizing polygyny. The map and legend need to clarify this.

It might also be interesting to distinguish between prohibition on legally marrying multiple people, vs. anti-cohabitation laws like the one in Utah which was recently struck down (and unusual for the U.S.). -- Beland (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits of 2015 Feb. 13

There were a few recent additions to the article by an IP editor who has now been blocked for soapbox edit warring. In the cumulative edits of the IP and other editors, the paragraph starting with "A study of Bedouin-Arab women..." still remains from that IP's edits. Off hand, I don't see any reason to remove it, but I'm mentioning it here, since nearly all other edits by the same user in other articles have now been reverted. If anyone feels differently, by all means, go ahead and remove that paragraph. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 02:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about A study of Bedouin-Arab women

As Robin Hood pointed out the paragraph remains. And I would like to discuss it. If there is discussion is necessary to. So I hope this work. @RobinHood70, Bonadea, and TheLogician112: My own ideas about the current incorporation of the study is that with the modifier that shows that it was these kind of woman in this kind of culture that its okay as it stands. I was thinking about the weight and I re-read this article one more time and the rest of the criticism section and I think that the weight of the study is fine. Despite the low number of participants and suchs. (only like 400 something). If any of you have problems with this want more weight to be added to the study or want to remove it. Then please let me know I am more open for suggestions. I would also like you all if you have time to examine the other sources of the criticism section if you have the time. Which I will be doing now, and if necessary will make a reply to myself about them NathanWubs (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Incest

Do you think polygamy is exactly the same as incest?

Polygamy is defently is illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.6.135 (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)