Talk:Polyandry

message: I linked this article to Gryllus bimaculatus to provide an example of polyandry in animals other than humans. Emiliaromagna1 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Under Polyandry#Known cases a paragraph begins with
:It also occurs or has occurred in Nigeria, the Nymba ...
The reference makes no mention of the Nymba, which seems from the sentence structure to be the name of a region. It might be the Nyimba District of Zambia; it might be related to this documentary, "Nymba Ntobhu - Women Marrying Women" (YouTube 27:55) from the Mgongowazi project 2004, in Kiagata village, Musoma, Tanzania (I found it with a Google search but haven't watched it), or something else.
Thnidu (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nymba 

message: Consider this paragraph:
:Of the 1,231 societies listed in the 1980 Ethnographic Atlas, 186 were found to be monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry.[1] Polyandry is less rare than this figure which listed only those examples found in the Himalayan mountains (28 societies). More recent studies have found more than 50 other societies practicing polyandry.[2]
As it stands, "this figure" can refer only to the number 4 in the previous sentence, which the rest of the sentence equates to 28. Obviously, this doesn't work out. Something must be missing. 
--Thnidu (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers don't add up 

message: You should not have removed the category Polygamy from this article. The term polygamy includes polyandry, polygyny, and group marriage. Please restore the categorization. --Thnidu (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. I see that it's in :Category: Polyandry, which is a subcategory of Polygamy. Sorry to have bothered you. --Thnidu (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polyandry is polygamy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Polyandry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090529002250/https://www.taiwandna.com:80/ChineseXinjiangPage.html to http://www.taiwandna.com/ChineseXinjiangPage.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.inquirewithin.biz/history/american_pacific/oceania/courtship-weddings.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Strictly speaking, Maasai are polygamous. That is A man may have multiple wives. However, Husbands may entertain a guest by allowing the guest have access to one of his wives as a gesture of honor. This is not permanent. Hence in my learned opinion, the notion that Maasai are polyandrous is to me a misplaced one. Suggesting more references... Shadychiri (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polyandry among the Maasai 

message: The article is about polyandry while map is about polygyny.
It does not make sense. Kindly remove map of polygyny and add map of polyandry.Smatrah (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  polyandry or polygyny 

message: The text below is from the section on Polyandry and Islam. Some editors have argued that it is original research/synthesis. Should the text below be kept or removed? Nblund talk 17:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: now that last statement is really SYNTH, and unclear, unless the original husband was known to be dead,  because this is discussing the legality of the relationship, not the possibility. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The last SYNTHY stmt is what supposedly merits inclusion. Treating a prize of war's previous marriage as polyandry is really stretching a technicality.Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

text: The women who are taken as captive (or slaves as may be) and, possibly forcefully, married are not in a polyandrous relationship - they are expected to be faithful to their new husbands. As I see it - Islamic jurisprudence had some questions on the issues - some viewed this initially as an annulment of the initial marriage whereas those objecting to the practice asserted that the original marriage was not annulled - either way, the captive woman was not sleeping with her original husband.Icewhiz (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with with your statement "Islamic jurisprudence had some questions on the issues - some viewed this initially as an annulment of the initial marriage whereas those objecting to the practice asserted that the original marriage was not annulled", this is exactly what the sources given hold. However, then you go on to involve sexual relationships in the discussion. Sexual intercourse is not a requisite for marriage. In islam there is proof of this in the fact that Muhammad remained married to a wife who explicitly gave up all rights to sexual relations with him. So the statement you make actually makes it clear why one of the arguments to remove the section is invalid. Anyway, the question I ask remains unanswered. 94.234.55.174 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you find an Islamic text (or much better critique thereof) supporting the practice that also treats the relationship as polyandry explicitly (non-annulled marriage) - that would be a much stronger case for inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found such sources! In The Perplexity of a Muslim Woman: Over Inheritance, Marriage, and Homosexuality by Olfa Youssef (pp 77-79)the author states that Muslim scholars themselves were perplexed by this passage in the Quran because it allows marriage to married women, Mujahid even saying that "If I knew anyone knowing its meaning I would slaughter a camel"."One's goal behind this observation is not to assert the possibility that a woman could be married to more than one spouse, but to demonstrate that what allows this assertion is not an absolute text but a prevalent custom".He goes on to say that the ban on polyandry hence is traditional. He points to the fact that polyandry in Tunisia is not forbidden by law, only polygamy, from the same argument. So here's a secondary source clearly holding what is now stated in the section, even stating that islamic scholars have been baffled by this allowance to marry married women! Furthermore, I have found a secondary source which also connects this issue with the "ownership" of orphans in early islam, Companion to the Qur'an: Based on the Arberry Translation by W.M. Watt. First he describes how there were still many traces of polyandry and similar practices in early islamic society, the rules concerning orphans allowing one such practice, then he further states: "Marry two...three...four, the point is presumably that if each Muslim marries several wives, no girl orphans need be left in the inferior polyandrous condition, it is to be noted that this verse, on which the permission for a muslim to have four wives is based, does not restrict a previous unlimited polyandry." Here, polyandry is described as inferior in the view of early islam, not banned. So now the request for strong secondary sources has been fulfilled. Maybe the section should be extended, not removed? Gammalflamma (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Olfa Yousseff makes the perplexity of understanding what the Quran actually states and what scholars have interpreted even clearer by saying that the same contradiction which is found between the Quran allowing marrying married men while scholars ban polyandry, is to be found in the interpretation of the Quran allowing everybody to have sex with what their right hands possess, while scholars have interpreted this to exclude women. The fact that the text says one thing and scholars another is corroborated by sources saying that women in early islam acted on the allowance to have sex with their male slaves. It may be taxing to readers, as Jzsj states above, but with these sources there is ample proof that this is not a case of Wp:SYN nor OR. Gammalflamma (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Watt is discussing pre-Islamic practices that are already mentioned in the entry. The S.B. Zaki citation also only discusses polyandry as a pre-Islamic practice that was banned by Islam. The Youssef source seems helpful. But she doesn't appear to claim that any Islamic scholar ever endorsed that interpretation, nor does she appear to claim anyone ever actually practiced polyandry on the basis of this passage. I think citing Youssef in-text would probably help the OR issue, but it might still raise issues of relevance and due weight. Nblund talk 18:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on polyandry in Islam 

message: * Remove The text of this section is strikingly close to the example of original synthesis given WP:SYN. I can find no reliable source that supports the claim that this passage endorses anything resembling polyandry, and multiple sources unambiguously state that Islam prohibits polyandry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nblund (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: now that last statement is really SYNTH, and unclear, unless the original husband was known to be dead,  because this is discussing the legality of the relationship, not the possibility. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The last SYNTHY stmt is what supposedly merits inclusion. Treating a prize of war's previous marriage as polyandry is really stretching a technicality.Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses

message: Is the section only relevant if islamic scholars would call it polyandry? In that case we could lose it instantly since of course in patriarchal religions that would be impossible. Or is the section relevant if others, scholars and/or critics, could call it bigamy or polyandry? (Not to mention the married women who are taken slaves and married by force to their masters... )In that case we should keep the section since sources are provided that show the occurrence of technical bigamy. It seems to me this question is at the heart of the entire discussion that has been entertained until now. Those who want to remove are of the first opinion, those who want to keep are of the second. So, do we want a critical text or do we want a text stating an islamic point of view? Could the text be rephrased to be clear on the difference? 94.234.55.174 (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The women who are taken as captive (or slaves as may be) and, possibly forcefully, married are not in a polyandrous relationship - they are expected to be faithful to their new husbands. As I see it - Islamic jurisprudence had some questions on the issues - some viewed this initially as an annulment of the initial marriage whereas those objecting to the practice asserted that the original marriage was not annulled - either way, the captive woman was not sleeping with her original husband.Icewhiz (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with with your statement "Islamic jurisprudence had some questions on the issues - some viewed this initially as an annulment of the initial marriage whereas those objecting to the practice asserted that the original marriage was not annulled", this is exactly what the sources given hold. However, then you go on to involve sexual relationships in the discussion. Sexual intercourse is not a requisite for marriage. In islam there is proof of this in the fact that Muhammad remained married to a wife who explicitly gave up all rights to sexual relations with him. So the statement you make actually makes it clear why one of the arguments to remove the section is invalid. Anyway, the question I ask remains unanswered. 94.234.55.174 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you find an Islamic text (or much better critique thereof) supporting the practice that also treats the relationship as polyandry explicitly (non-annulled marriage) - that would be a much stronger case for inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found such sources! In The Perplexity of a Muslim Woman: Over Inheritance, Marriage, and Homosexuality by Olfa Youssef (pp 77-79)the author states that Muslim scholars themselves were perplexed by this passage in the Quran because it allows marriage to married women, Mujahid even saying that "If I knew anyone knowing its meaning I would slaughter a camel"."One's goal behind this observation is not to assert the possibility that a woman could be married to more than one spouse, but to demonstrate that what allows this assertion is not an absolute text but a prevalent custom".He goes on to say that the ban on polyandry hence is traditional. He points to the fact that polyandry in Tunisia is not forbidden by law, only polygamy, from the same argument. So here's a secondary source clearly holding what is now stated in the section, even stating that islamic scholars have been baffled by this allowance to marry married women! Furthermore, I have found a secondary source which also connects this issue with the "ownership" of orphans in early islam, Companion to the Qur'an: Based on the Arberry Translation by W.M. Watt. First he describes how there were still many traces of polyandry and similar practices in early islamic society, the rules concerning orphans allowing one such practice, then he further states: "Marry two...three...four, the point is presumably that if each Muslim marries several wives, no girl orphans need be left in the inferior polyandrous condition, it is to be noted that this verse, on which the permission for a muslim to have four wives is based, does not restrict a previous unlimited polyandry." Here, polyandry is described as inferior in the view of early islam, not banned. So now the request for strong secondary sources has been fulfilled. Maybe the section should be extended, not removed? Gammalflamma (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Olfa Yousseff makes the perplexity of understanding what the Quran actually states and what scholars have interpreted even clearer by saying that the same contradiction which is found between the Quran allowing marrying married men while scholars ban polyandry, is to be found in the interpretation of the Quran allowing everybody to have sex with what their right hands possess, while scholars have interpreted this to exclude women. The fact that the text says one thing and scholars another is corroborated by sources saying that women in early islam acted on the allowance to have sex with their male slaves. It may be taxing to readers, as Jzsj states above, but with these sources there is ample proof that this is not a case of Wp:SYN nor OR. Gammalflamma (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Watt is discussing pre-Islamic practices that are already mentioned in the entry. The S.B. Zaki citation also only discusses polyandry as a pre-Islamic practice that was banned by Islam. The Youssef source seems helpful. But she doesn't appear to claim that any Islamic scholar ever endorsed that interpretation, nor does she appear to claim anyone ever actually practiced polyandry on the basis of this passage. I think citing Youssef in-text would probably help the OR issue, but it might still raise issues of relevance and due weight. Nblund talk 18:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Discussion

message: The current version of the article says, Fraternal polyandry is permitted in Sri Lanka under Kandyan Marriage law, often described using the euphemism eka-ge-kama (literally "eating in one house"). However, the cited source says that it concerns "traditional" (which I take to imply "not necessarily either current or statutory") marriage laws. It also adds "and customs" and says that its content was "Culled from medieval Sinhalese, Kandyan and early British era literary sources". As I read section six of this source", neither polygyny nor polyandry are permitted under Kandyan law. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sri Lanka 

message: The word ανήρ doesn’t make sense because though it means man, it doesn’t explain the etymology so well as άνδρας. Hellenophile07 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ανήρ is the nominative singular, while ανδρ- is the oblique and plural stem... AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of subject 

message: There is virtually little amount of polyandry couples around the world
Can you explain it.  -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:8000:1027:85F6:3510:36E:2A0A:6A5C (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what the UN has to do with it, but you could read works by evolutionary psychologists.  According to common sexual dimorphism criteria, it's likely that human hunter-gatherer societies were often moderately polygynous -- i.e. a few exceptional men were able to attract and keep more than one woman at a time... AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

text: I despise anonymous edits, particularly when they're silly and ungrammatical. Candidate for deletion I think. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason to remove 2404:8000:1027:85F6:3510:36E:2A0A:6A5C's comment above -- it's a legitimate question related to the article (though poorly phrased). AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why polyandy is frowned upon according to UN 

message: Why there is no mention of word indonesia in this article? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:A958:5DEB:3F43:D77B (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesia? 

message: polyandy is frowned upon according to UN 2001:E68:5400:2AB3:A418:E846:B781:5F09 (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  polyandy is frowned upon according to UN