Talk:Value of monogamy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Released June 14, 2006

[edit] Proposed move

I can't see any reason for Monogamy to be capitalised. Would there be any objection to a move to Value of monogamy? Loganberry (Talk) 23:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Or indeed for all the other "X of Monogamy" articles to capitalise the word. Why has it been done? Loganberry (Talk) 06:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Last call: if nobody explains the capitalisation of Monogamy here, I intend to move all the "X of Monogamy" articles to "X of monogamy" soon. Loganberry (Talk) 23:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Right; nearly four months is long enough. Making those moves now. Loganberry (Talk) 00:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any reason for the tags to remain?

If the tags were related to the move, they should be removed. If the tags are not related to the move, then please discuss or they will be removed soon.

[edit] Re-write

This page needs to be re-written, it reads like an essay and there are far too many quotes. I may have a go at it, but as is it's like something written for anthropology 101 but worse 'cause no professor alive would allow this many quotes in a paper. That's not to say the English is not technically good, just that it's the wrong tone. The single footnoted reference is sufficient for the quotations (which again should be removed or summarized). I can't find the policy right now, but if anyone is interested I'll try to dig it up. WLU 18:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Issues with Unnatural and Defense Sections

The main problem here is that it is not properly written in terms of other wikipedia articles. For example, it states "Monogamy is . . . " instead of "Critics contend . . ." This is okay if it is referring strictly to a scientific fact about monogamy, but that's not the case in the article. Also there is a strange line about the practice being "odd." And some lines are repeated.

The Defense section is lacking as well, in my opinion. The opening about the defense of the practice being "rich and varied" is definitely out of place.

If no one expresses interest in fixing these parts, I will try. It would be better to have someone more knowledgeable do it though.--GenkiDama (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] undo explained

I am undoing this:

"Also, monogamy is against sharia because the Koran states that a man can have up to four wives provided that he has the money to feed them."

I know little about Islam, but it doesn't seem that monogamy would be against sharia just because sharia permits polygamy. Sharia allows up to four wives, which means it allows one wife, which means it allows monogamy. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fschmidt2 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)