Talk:Polyandry in Tibet
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Polyandry in Tibet article.|
This article is pretty bad in my estimation. Admittedly, I didn't read the whole thing (I couldn't bear it) but here are two quick observations:
- The opening paragraph doesn't do a sufficient job distinguishing polyandry from polygamy.
- The "Goldstein" in the article is obviously Melvin Goldstein, not Marcus Goldstein.
I could go on with many more simple errors. Chosgrags 18:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I fixed the worst things, incl. the Marcus misidentification dating from 2005! But polyandry is a type of polygamy. Here, following the anthropological literature for the region, we also want to add discussion of polygynandry, the multi/multi variant, as well as treat polygyny and polyandry as manifestations of the same thing, translated for gender. The causes in Tibet of the two are alike. --Mareklug talk 08:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well here it is July 18th, 2010 and this article is still highly inaccurate, and blaringly bare of the actual life in a Polyandry family, (I personally changed the inaccurate statement that the actual father of the children is not of concern, it is the wife's responsibility to tell the family who the father of the child, her word is actual law concerning biological fatherhood.. ) for instance: All of the children, regardless of who their biological father is, call the eldest brother pitaji, or father, while the younger brothers are all called chacha, or uncle. Please someone with some actual Tibetian and Indian Polyandry knowledge step up and clean this mess up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit in Fraternal Polyandry Section
Sorry; I forgot to put this in the edit summary: I deleted "Tibet is a really cool place to be" from the end of the article. 4:10 26 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Polyandry or society article?
The sections about the different kinds of serfs are interesting, but they do not have much to do with polyandry. I independently started the articles Nangzan, Duiqoin and Tralpa with the few sources I could find on the net, before I discovered this article. I guess that "Mi-bo" is the same thing as "nangzan", but it is not certain.
Anyhow, the information should probably be merged or at least re-distributed between the articles. Anyone with access to better material than what is on-line, feel free to do so. I cannot really do it, as I do not know which of the sources in this article belong to what information. Mlewan (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Um, your three new articles are sub-stubs, and might not survive in their present form. And I'm not at all convinced that the terms you chose should be the ones used for these article titles (as opposed to be redirects). You can find far more substantive treatments online than the two you used for sources -- avail yourself of the external link to the archive of papers on line at Case Western Reserve University. Also, you might want to take a close look at the Polish Wikipedia interwiki link, as that article is far better sourced and annotated with references (they are all in English, and they are all scholarly; most of them are mentioned in our article's bibliography). One notable addition there is the 2001 thesis by Ben Jiao, also completely available online. Read all that, and then decide, what you want to do. A lot of the serf class information is needed in this article, because it is essential for making the polyandry understandable. Having said that, the polyandry sources for Tibet in anthropological literature online evidently contain a fair wealth of information about Tibetan serf classes, enough to document all three of your articles beyond dictionary-like entries that they are. Please read up on all that, and act accordingly. --Mareklug talk 08:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! Actually, I do not want my three articles to survive in their present form. Had I found this article first, I would probably not even have created them. Their main purpose was to make it possible for people to find the different kinds of serfdom regardless of what transcription is used. It is true that there are some good sources in the Polish article, as well as in this one. One reason I had not found them was that they use yet another transcription for the words.
- Clearly, all this needs to be cleaned up by someone. I still think it is strange to keep information about serf types only in an article about polyandry. My guess is that the best thing would be a dedicated article to "Tibetan serfs" or something like that, with references from the polyandry article and redirect from my three articles. However, I cannot promise I will find time to do that any time soon. Mlewan (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, a devoted article needs to be set up on Tibetan serfdom. It might help clear up the controversies in other articles too, which would be a blessing in itself. I'm attempting to revive WikiProject Tibet. If I can get a critical mass of editors willing to start a collaboration or something, serfdom should definitely be a priority article. Please help if you can? Gimme danger (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)