Talk:Polygamy

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)

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)