Talk:Adultery/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Adultery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140226171503/http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/CaseLaw/hof.nsf/d0cd2c2c444d8d94c12567c2002de990/db5e85a236de283dc1257803004974b7?OpenDocument to http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/CaseLaw/hof.nsf/d0cd2c2c444d8d94c12567c2002de990/db5e85a236de283dc1257803004974b7?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140201225023/http://www.iwraw-ap.org/resources/pdf/BRAZIL_SHADOWREPORT_CEDAW_June,18%5B1%5D.pdf to http://www.iwraw-ap.org/resources/pdf/BRAZIL_SHADOWREPORT_CEDAW_June,18%5B1%5D.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

December 2017

Before I plunge into 3RR, I'd like to open a discussion of User:Al-Andalus's changes. I'm seeing a number of problems-- non-encyclopedic tome, lack of referencing, and quite a bit of POV. PepperBeast (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

you keep deleting sources/references. The article is about adultery. You even deleted the etymology. I don’t see how it’s controversial that the article on adultery be used to detail what adultery is. Adultery is a very specific concept. You are reverting the page to discuss some other concept that sounds more like sexual infidelity or cheating. Al-Andalus (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

Al-Andalus, you have been reverted by Pepperbeast and later me, as seen here, here, and here, because you are stuffing the lead with parenthetical information and making the lead very long. Typically, a lead should not be no longer than four paragraphs. This is per WP:Lead. You are also changing some sourced material and adding unsourced material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

if that alone is the issue, help fix it. Don’t remove sources and content that is not only relevant to the article, but actually makes the article’s content coincide with the article’s title. Al-Andalus (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I am reverting the page because you are making a very large change with little referencing, plus other problems already mentioned. You seem to be trying to insert a persuasive essay tying adultery to a single historical definition into the middle of the lede. Comments like "Its manifold effects included surreptitiously extinguishing the lineal descent of a victimized husband with children falsely attributed to him (see paternity fraud), altering the inheritance rights of true heirs to his deceased estate" are hardly encyclopedic, and frankly, it's not up to other editors to find sources for your unsourced insertions. PepperBeast (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

you can by all means dislike what adultery was all about, and indeed, it’s an unpleasant history and concept. How inhumane to kill someone for having sex! It’s barbaric. But that view of the punishment of adultery as being barbaric that we have in our modern conditions, doesn’t change why it was that way originally, and it doesn’t change who adultery only ever applied to (a married woman who willingly has sex with a man other than her husband, and a man who has sex with the wife of another man), it did not apply to married men who are sexually unfaithful to their wives with unmarried females. Our societal circumstances have changed (for the better), and with it, adultery is no longer a big thing. Hurray for gender equality! Now both can play the same game. But the genders were unequal back then because the game itself was being played on a different field by each gender. One’s own dislike of how things were in the past versus how they are now doesn’t change the fact that adultery was only ever a criminal offence precisely because of those “manifold” effects you dislike mentioned in the lead. Yet if it had never been for those manifold effects, it would never have been a serious crime in the past, and therefore it wouldn’t even exist as the less serious crime that it is viewed of as today (if it’s even views as a crime at all). Today, many see adultery as no longer being anyone’s business other than the intimate personal business of those who engage in it, and rightly so should it be that way today. However, that privilege we have today of being able to view adultery as a mere inconvenience of the unfaithfulness of one’s partner, and nothing more than that, is a privilege that we only have thanks to modern technological innovations that help accurately identify paternity through DNA. Without those technological innovations, we would still have the historical understanding of adultery. We are lucky we can now treat adultery as a small thing. But it wasn’t a small thing historically, and for good reason (back then, under those historical circumstances), and the article should relect why it was ever even considered a crime: because adultery did precisely that, it adulterated a man’s lineage. Go figure! Adultery in regards to marriage is tampering with a man’s lineage and robbing him of biological children and killing off his bloodline with him, robbing his assets and any title, because they will all go to someone else’s kids. Adultery when it comes to fuel is tampering with gasoline and financially defrauding the consumer by passing one thing off as another thing. Al-Andalus (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

While you have a point about the mentality behind the criminalization of adultery, are any of these definitions covered in the body of the article? The Lede is only supposed to summarize key points of the body of the article, not material not covered elsewhere. Dimadick (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, per what Pepperbeast, Dimadick and I stated, you will be reverted on the lead. There are issues with it because of your edits, and it is not up to us to fix the material for you. All of that does not belong in the lead, and you should be sourcing material with WP:Reliable sources. If you continue to WP:Edit war on this, you will be blocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You can't get around the problems mentioned by restating the same material or by deflecting attention to my supposed dislikes. The problems are still that your comments are largely unsourced, you're trying to insert an essay into the lede (which is meant to be a summary of the article) rather that work on the relevant parts of the article, your tone is sometimes inappropriate, and you're refusing to discuss any of these issues. Your options are to discus your changes on the talk page and work within Wikipedia's guidelines or be blocked. There is no "keep reverting 'til you get your way" option. PepperBeast (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

After having read a few previous threads in this talk page, and especially after the current talk thread resulted in the decision to completely revert the page to remove anything I added that described what adultery actually is, I cannot but express my disappointment in seeing that the discomfort of some contributors of coming to terms with what adultery actually is has allowed others to placate them and revert what were otherwise good faith additions.

Can I accept that my contribution wasn’t as best written as it could have been? Yes, of course. I could have written it better, and I could have condensed it to conform with required brevity for entry leads of articles. My bad.

Having said that, however, the fact remains that the true origins from whence adultery sprung, as a major sin in religion and a capital crime in law, has been successfully swept under the carpet and hidden from view in this Wikipedia article. That’s regrettable. My question is: why?

Even the etymology was deleted to obscure the origins of adultery as a societal concept so repugnant (at least historically) that it merited being made unlawful and a capital crime, and in the case of a king, treasonous. Anything that even remotely indicated the origins of adultery was suppressed.

I won’t go into why this white washing might have happened through such a concerted effort, other than to say that it appears that there seems to be a segment of contributors to this article (going years back, almost a decade or more) that would rather not be reminded of why adultery was ever even a crime. It might perhaps be relevant, to this silencing of the genesis of adultery, that having a frank and honest account of the concept comes across as being anti-woman or misogynist. This was not my intent.

nevertheless, the fact remains that the factual description of history and concept of adultery was removed. Yet Wikipedia is all about bringing knowledge, not covering it up. It matters not that in this particular case the concept being described, adultery, happens to be a concept which rationalised why such a thing should have been a crime in human civilisations of past. Do I agree with adultery being a crime? Personally, no. But that personal opinion of mine is formed thanks to the privilege of my birth in the current era, where I enjoy our modern DNA tests, and I consider the conditions sufficiently changed to no longer merit such a crime to be a crime anymore. But alas, the powers that Be would rather not even mention the history of adultery in the article. So be it.

I only have the following Washington Post article to add to my argument in the hope that it may change the mind of some of those who have over the last decade on this talk page done everything to remove anything that describes what adultery actually is and it’s history. I will leave the article to make my argument. Al-Andalus (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Adultery, adulteration, and the historical ‘married woman’ limitation

By Eugene Volokh

May 24, 2015

A Twitter message noted — apparently referring to the law in India —

“Strangely, it is illegal for men to commit adultery with married women, but legal with unmarried ones.”

I can’t speak with confidence about India, but if the law is based on English law, then part of the reason is tied to why “adultery” is called “adultery.”

“Adultery” apparently comes from the same root as “adulterate.” A married woman who has sex with someone other than her husband risks getting pregnant and giving birth to a child who is not her husband’s but might be raised as her husband’s — thus adulterating the husband’s blood line. In the words of Bacon’s Abridgment (1736),

“Fornication and all other Lusts are unlawful, because Children are begotten without any Care or Preparation for their Education; and the Crime of Adultery receives this further Aggravation, that it not only intails a spurious Race [here, meaning offspring and their descendants -EV] on the Party, for whom he is under no Obligation to provide, but likewise destroys that Peace and mutual Endearment which ought always to subsist in the Marriage State.”

Likewise, State v. Lash (N.J. 1838) cited Bacon’s Abridgment, and elaborated on it thus (paragraph breaks added):

“This is the circumstance on which adultery depends at the common law; its tendency to adulterate the issue of an innocent husband, and to turn the inheritance away from his own blood, to that of a stranger. If the woman be single, her incontinence produces none of this evil; her issue takes away no man’s inheritance; it can be heir to nobody, and the burthen of its support, is cast by law upon herself and the partner of her guilt. Even if her paramour be a married man, it is not adultery, for the same reason; the bastard cannot succeed to his inheritance, neither does it adulterate the issue of his wife; it can never succeed to her inheritance in case she leaves any to descend. She may adulterate her husband’s issue; the law cannot defend him against her; his only reliance is on her virtue; but he can never adulterate hers.”

This is the reason why a married woman, if her husband become unfaithful, cannot maintain an action of adultery against him or his paramour, in any of the common law Courts; such infidelity does not adulterate her issue, nor his own; it brings no ones inheritance into jeopardy, nor can it possibly produce a spurious heir to disturb the descent of real estates. If she wishes it to be treated as adultery in her husband, she must sue him by a short petition to the Court of Chancery, which, governed by the Ecclesiastical law, allows adultery to consist in the breach of marriage vows; and there she may have a decree of divorce and allowance of alimony.

Now of course the careful reader will have noticed that Bacon’s Abridgment is not limited to the “adulteration of the blood line” argument, but also notes the destruction of marital peace stemming from the breach of the marriage compact — a destruction that can stem from the husband’s affair with an unmarried woman as much as from a wife’s affair. One can certainly imagine the law focusing on this, and treating a married man’s affair the same as a married woman’s; and indeed canon law and later English ecclesiastical law did seem to treat the two the same. And of course it’s possible that the real motivation for the married-women-only rule is that judges were generally more concerned about protecting husbands than protecting wives, even setting aside the special risk to the husband of having his property go to a child who turns out not to be his biological offspring. But whatever was going on behind the scenes, the rationale given for the “married woman” limitation on adultery law was a concern about adulteration of the blood line.

This may also explain, I think, why some state laws have treated oral sex as not being adultery.

UPDATE: I should have made explicit that this is the historical definition of adultery, but not the current definition in the U.S. Under modern Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence, any adultery laws (or their civil analogs, the torts of criminal conversation and alienation of affections, in the few states that recognize them) have to be gender-neutral.[1]

If you don't quote your WP:SOURCES there is no way to know if you're right or wrong, so your edits will be knee-jerk reverted. Please read WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Also, do carefully read WP:LEDE: the lead section is not the place for your edits. But, yes, God and Sex confirms your view: in the Bible adultery was when a man slept with another man's wife, it wasn't when a married man slept with an unmarried woman. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A view that is already explained in the sections on Judaism and Christanity. PepperBeast (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources were provided with the content, in etymology, in the definition of adultery, etc. When it was reverted, the bath water was thrown out with baby and all. If you read the talk page, it’s clear that there are contributors that don’t want any of it included. If they are placated in that way, then this article may as well not exist.

As to your affirmation of the veracity of my contributions to this article, thank you. That means you can see the problem with this article as it currently stands.

In its current state, this article is all about marital infidelity or spousal cheating generally. As a small side note it mentions the limitations of whom adultery was applicable to historically (just read the post above this one: “a view that is already explained in the sections on Judaism and Christanity”! they say, relegating the actual definition of adultery as a side note, and dedicating the entire article instead to describe what should have been the side note), but then no explanation is given as to why those limitations were ever that way in the first place (being that a man cannot adulterate his wife’s issue by his own felandering with single woman). As mentioned many times, even the basics of allowing an etymology has been purged (adultery comes from “adulteration [of a man’s blood line]”, lest it lead the reader to realise why “adultery” is called “adultery”.

This article should instead be about adultery, it must include the etymology, and explain what adultery actually is (“adulteration of the blood line”), explain who adultery does and doesn’t apply to, and explain the reasons why it excludes men’s extramarital sex with non-married women (because a man cannot physically adulterate his wife’s issue), and as a side note the article can include an explanation of the modern alternate layman’s [mis]understanding of what “adultery” is (i.e. marital cheating or extramarital sex generally irrespective of gender or marital status of the other partner a spouse is cheating with), and then the article can direct the reader to the article on infidelity or cheating if they want more information on cheating or infidelity generally, rather than adultery specifically.

By historical and etymological definition, adultery is a specific concept, and it is just one subset of extramarital sex. They are not synonymous and the article must reflect that rather than not only perpetuate it, but actively conceal it.

One can describe adultery as a type of extramarital sex, but one cannot describe extramarital sex as adultery. Al-Andalus (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Different definitions of what constitutes adultery exist. That is a matter of fact. Some twentieth-century divorce laws and criminal codes define sexual "cheating" by either spouse as adultery. Shariah law considers most non-marital sex to be adultery. Trying to force the article to discount every other usage in favour of your preferred "historical and etymological definition" is simply not appropriate. PepperBeast (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

True, we abide by WP:NPOV, not by WP:THETRUTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

PepperBeast, you’ve just made my point. Every man and his dog (every culture) has its own definition of adultery. While they each have different additional meanings, they still share a common denominator, which is that adultery at the very basic level includes at least the meaning of when a man (married or single) has sex with a married woman who is not his own wife. The basic definition of the concept is that it stems from the fear of adulteration of a man’s bloodline. Hence the origin of the term “adultery” itself, from “adulteration of blood line”. Every other understanding is additional and specific to it own culture.

Should we cater this page to detail in depth every single definition of adultery under the sun, or should we stick to the common denominator among all definitions, and as side notes, add what other things are also defined as included as adultery in different cultures, but are not properly such (i.e. that they don’t result in the adulteration of blood lines).

if we are truly honest about it, “adultery” is one and the same thing as what today has been coined paternity fraud. The fact that newly minted term “paternity fraud” exists is because “adultery” has been bastardised to include different things in its understanding from one culture to another. Yet the common denominator remains static.

Perhaps if we had not borrowed “adultery” via the latin language, we could still see the root word adulterate through it, and maintained it in that context of Adulteration. Then, we wouldn’t be putting additional nonsense definitions to it which change from one culture to the next.

Suppose “paternity fraud” were not a new term invented precisely because adultery has be so bastardised (that people don’t realise “adultery” is synonymous to “paternity fraud”), and instead “paternity fraud” had also been borrowed via latin and maybe hypothetically evolved into “frauspatery”, being the silly humans we are, we would probably also eventually lose the true definition of frauspatery and start using it to mean one and all types of extramarital sex. Al-Andalus (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

(Outdented) You are working very hard if you think that's the point of what I said. The historic definition you are referring to is *not* the trump card. You don't get to override the other definitions with the one you think is most important. Here at Wikipedia, we use a neutral point of view. And frankly, "paternity fraud" is totally irrelevant. You can't WP:Synthesis yourself out of WP:NPOV. PepperBeast (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The “historic” definition, as you call it, is the common denominator, whether you like that or not. I didn’t say it’s the trump card. I’m just pointing out a fact. You’re still going to disagree, and want to define adultery by every definition under the sun which includes stuff in one culture and not in others. All while ignoring the common denominator among them all. So be it. Al-Andalus (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The fact that I disagree aside, it's still WP:OR. It's still not WP:NPOV. It still doesn't belong in the lede. Your tone still isn't encyclopedic. You still have no sources. If you're not willing to work on any of those issues, then I don't think we have much to discuss. PepperBeast (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you not able to see the sources that are clearly there? What are you talking about she you claim there are no sources included? I’ve even cut and paste an entire article into this chat. It is all sourced.

If you’re going to discredit all those sources, academic etymologies, judicial judgments, etc, then fine, that’s your perogative. You will do so because you disagree with their conclusions, but don’t pretend sources aren’t provided. You simply don’t accept the sources. And that is a different issue altogether. Al-Andalus (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Your view is rendered in the article, it just ain't rendered as the only view out there. If you have a problem with that, don't whine: Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The criminal laws sanctioning adultery were focused not simply on prohibiting immoral sexuality. Rather, these laws were explicitly justified in terms of ensuring that the children of a marriage were actually the biological children of the father... Criminal adultery was long defined as sexual intercourse with a married woman”

Al-Andalus (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, I consider it poor form to revert valid sourced content under the guise of “go to the talk page” only to have an attack of “don’t whine” levelled at me to shut down discourse. Why bother telling contributors to go to talk page then? Just be honest then, and tell contributors that their contributions are gonna be reverted simply because, and that they are requested to go to the talk page merely to go thru the motions. Because they’re just whining after all. Discourse is not actually welcome. 14:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

First, such view is already there, e.g. under Adultery#Judaism. Second, the history of the concept may be rendered in the article, just that the WP:LEDE is not the proper place for doing that: the lead section summarizes the body of the article. So, if you obey WP:PAGs you may render that view, just not as the only view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with that 100%, but when a contribution as simple and uncontraversially factual as

• “Adultery (Latin: adulterium, meaning "adulteration of a husband’s blood line")”

is a sore point for some, then obviously there is an alternate motivation behind trying so hard to remove and hide that.

Further, what’s the point of having, as it currently stands,

• “Adultery (anglicised from Latin adulterium)”

if it is not going to define the Latin term ”adulterium” itself? Also, saying “anglicised” from Latin is redundant, since of course it has been “anglicised” if it’s in English “from Latin”.

The way it keeps being reverted to is not the standard as seen in every other page across Wikipedia, for example,

• “Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία dēmokratía, literally "rule of the people")”.

It is a factual and non controversial edit. Al-Andalus (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Sources

Pepperbeast Why you are making blanket reverts? Can you provide multiple sources for the misrepresented commentary you are restoring? Also why you are isolating scholarly opinion to a single author? Your removal of sources is also problematic. Lorstaking (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Also read the actual reliable sources [2] which completely contradicts the irrelevant commentary you are restoring. Lorstaking (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I am making blanket reverts because well-sourced content is being deleted. I have no problem with content being added-- additional sourcing is good, but I can see no rationale for deleting what's already there, and I suspect this is just POV-pushing. PepperBeast (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Already informed you that the sources were misrepresented by some random editor adding his own WP:OR there (You can show me consensus to add it though) and we can't use the content that contradicts actual reliable sources per policies on fringe content. Lorstaking (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Really? Those sources look to be pretty solid-- quotes from Richard W. Lariviere and Wendy Donager, both well-known academics with long careers in Indian languages and literature. I'm not sure why you think they should be ditched in favour of a comment in "Sex and Ethics in Spanish Cinema". I suspect your real motivation is that you just hate any suggestion that Hinduism isn't as monolithic in its condemnation as you'd like, so you're trying to scrub the article of any suggestion to the contrary. I'm just trying to keep the well-referenced content in place. PepperBeast (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Talking about "well referenced", not even "Ancient texts of Hinduism offer different views on adultery" is sourced. I didn't removed Wendy Doniger, I added more sources to the statement of Doniger, that's why we don't need attribute it to Doniger to make it look isolated. Lariviere provides explanation that those Bhavasvamin (a 16th century author)'s opinions are "broader in scope" than the adultery we are talking here. Attributing Bhavasvamin's opinions to Lariviere is also misrepresentation of source. Now in place of trying to find out meaning of a 16th century author, read a modern reliable source, which said Naradsmriti prescribes punishment for adultery.Lorstaking (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pepperbeast and Lorstaking: I was reviewing some Lorstaking and Bladesmulti edit history, ran into the edit warring here. Doniger states on page 7, "Pāpa in the Rig Veda often has a moral sense: people are evil-minded, adultery is evil, incest is evil." So it is okay to keep "Rigveda states adultery is evil" or equivalent. Lorstaking claim that the "modern reliable source" by Upinder Singh states something different is not true. Singh states, "The Kamasutra deals in a pragmatic, matter-of-fact way with sexual relations between men and married women. However, Dharmashastra texts considered adultery by women as an upapataka (lesser sin), for which penances were prescribed. Some texts held penance to be unnecessary and asserted that an adulterous woman regained her purity after her menstrual period. The Narada Smriti states that if a woman was found to have committed adultery, her head should be shaved, she should lie on a low bed, be given poor food and clothes, and should devote herself to removing the sweepings from her husband's house." The three different views of Kamasutra, minor sin in some Dharmashastra texts, prescriptions of Narada Smriti, along with "however" in this quote actually better support the Pepperbeast version and the "Ancient texts of Hinduism offer different views on adultery" sentence, rather than Lorstaking version. To argue otherwise comes across as another instance of dubious content and source misrepresentation by Lorstaking (we have seen similar WP:TE in Vastu Shastra article by Lorstaking). The Spanish Cinema book's passing remark about adultery in religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc is not an appropriate source here (@Vanamonde93: is it?), and we need a better source. Lariviere is a scholarly WP:RS, and should be included for NPOV on what is in Narada Smriti. We can quote him exact if there is a dispute on wording. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No comment on the rest of the debate, but a book on Spanish cinema is far from the best source to use here. Vanamonde (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pepperbeast and Vanamonde93: Would you have some time to look at those sources again and restore whatever you find is supported in peer-reviewed scholarly sources and would be appropriate to include per NPOV guidelines? While we are at it, let us also look into the Buddhism section and its sources (@Joshua Jonathan and Farang Rak Tham: any sources or suggestions to improve these sections?). If you are too busy, that is okay. I will try to review them later. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Like I said before, content about Naradasmriti is not relevant here, source itself describe them as 16th century commentaries that are "broader in scope", thus it is not really fitting on this article. Position of Veda, Manusmriti have been already made clear with multiple reliable sources.

MSW, I'm a bit hesitant to get involved here because this isn't my area of expertise, and I don't have the knowhow to evaluate each of 233 references. There are definitely some sources in that revision that do not appear to be reliable. "Gangothri.org", for instance, is very questionable. There's also some primary sources, such as this document. I would be happy to review specific sources. Vanamonde (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lorstaking: I reread your comments above. Why is Naradasmriti not relevant here? Could you also explain if you are questioning Prof Richard Lariviere's competence and relevance of his work on Hindu legal traditions, or your objection is that his work was not properly summarized? FWIW, Lariviere is one of the most respected scholars in this field, has authored reviews and forewords to important scholarly publications in the subject of Hindu law and dharmasastras, was the president of University of Oregon. Lariviere's publications are WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I didn't mean the entire article, just the section and sources relating to Hinduism and Buddhism, particularly those that Capitals00 and Lorstaking had edit warred with Pepperbeast in January 2018 (please see the article's edit history). Pepperbeast made cogent arguments. Thank you for pointing out those questionable sources, I will look into them later. There have been several peer-reviewed scholarly publications in the last few years that mention adultery in early Hindu texts. These I need to read, context and all, before I attempt a comprehensive update. I will take care of this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Buddhism

As for Buddhism, I will look into into. Lorstaking (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I know close to nothing about Buddhism and adultery, but it seems naturally that buddhism won't favor it. Though some western Zen-Buddhist teachers did it - and were reprimanded for it publicly... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan and Farang Rak Tham: Thanks for taking the look. If I recall, Gamani Vagga / Gamini Samyutta is one of the Nikaya texts that mention Buddha discussing adultery and punishment for it, in right view / wrong view context. Sigalaka Sutta and Parabhava Sutta too discuss adultery amongst other things. The ideas there parallel those found in various Hindu dharmasutras / dharmasastras. The earliest surviving Theravada corpus has more information about it. May be, FRT, you can dig into these if you have access and any interest? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm currently doing two reviews, but I'll see what i can do. I've already posted some sources on the topic once at Five Precepts.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 05:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Thank you for the further improvements to the article. I saw your interesting edit comment about "creatures" versus "sentient beings". The latter is generally the norm and was in my first draft. Then I went back to the "creatures" wording to be more faithful to the source, because the theory comes from Buddhist myth of the origin of evil (shared with the Hindus and Jains), and not from the theory of the realms. The source reads on page 33, 3rd para,

Quote: The original creatures were made of mind, eating only joy; they lived in the air, without sexual distinctions. Then the earth became fragrant and sweet as honey. At first no one touched it, but then a certain being, born greedy [the commentator remarks, "Greedy from former birth"], said,..... "

To me, that is a fine difference. Please reflect on it. If your studies in this subject, or reflection, convince you that sentient beings is okay, I am fine with it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the story of origins, which in Buddhism is depicted in the "Agañña Sutta", doesn't change that Buddhism doesn't see beings as created. Were made of mind means that they were fine-material—it doesn't mean they were created by a higher intelligence. The words used for beings are satta or sattva, pāṇa or bhūta, neither of which indicate a creation. Though I admire your attempts to stay close to the source, mainstream scholarship tends to favor 'living being' or 'sentient being'.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: The term "creature" does not mean or imply "created", it means here "anything living or existing". And the "origin of evil" in Indian religions is not same as "origin of life". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The origins of words are in etymological dictionaries, not common dictionaries. But if you want to revert to creature, I won't loose my sleep over it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

FRT: Etymological dictionaries are interesting, some words do have unusual origins and their roots meant something else. Yet, what matters in their current usage is what they mean at present, and we should not fall into etymological fallacies. There is another source I want to check before deciding between "creature" versus "sentient beings". I have a trace on it, and the process may take a few days or weeks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

The debate is hot and may never resolve. Regardless of your feelings about the criminality or morality, the real problem with the article is one of definition. Until that is resolved you're arguing apples and oranges. Adultery in English is defined as extramarital sex WHERE ONE OR MORE _WILLING_ PARTICIPANT IS MARRIED. Unwilling participants are rape victims. If no participants are married the activity is fornication, with the same caveat.

Religious and social definitions from societies other than the British Empire, during the period where the English language was being formed are irrelevant to the main entry. They fit and are even essential in later discussion of the 20th and 21st centuries where internationalism begins to really shape the dialogue and produces this discussion page.

1st rule for essayists: *Correctly* define your terms with an eye to the historical usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.157.184.98 (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You were reverted here, here and here because of excess and because it's not needed. I wouldn't care if it's sourced. It shouldn't be there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22, It is needed as the definition is otherwise very nearly quoted from a single source without the changes. Further it is vague enough that it biases the definition away from the historical Family and Common Law definitions in favor a Sharia Law perspective which while needed in later discussion is alien to the English Language and Law definition of the term. The historical usage of this term must be preserved in order to have a clear and honest discussion later in the article. These articles need to have simple clear and comprehensive definitions up front--without vagary or bias.

Conflating Fornication and Adultery does not serve the cause of deeper understanding of the sensitive cultural and religious issues being dealt with. Nor does erroneously conflating consensual and non-consensual sex which are distinct historically in the context of the language in use for this article.

This addition is necessary here because the term Extramarital sex is too vague to accurately convey the meaning of Adultery in it's literary, legal and cultural setting and most readers of the article will scan past the cites to Extramarital Sex and the Britannica cite without drilling down and be ill equipped to objectively consider the later article. An article which may well be unread as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.157.184.98 (talk • contribs)

There is absolutely no rule or intention that Wikipedia must prioritise some kind of British-historical definition over other definitions. PepperBeast (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Dharmasastra sources and summary

Onkuchia: While quotes are okay and useful in some articles, per our content guidelines, a summary or the paraphrased version is generally preferable over quote(s). A quote can also be undue, unencyclopedic and create NPOV issues because it tends to visually emphasize one side to the reader. If you add one quote, others can add a lot of quotes, which would convert this article into an inappropriate quote-farm. For these reasons, I am reverting you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, only two quotes are mentioned in the section. Paraphrasing might be useful in many cases but can be misleading when it comes to quoting the primary sources (in this case scriptures). Direct quotations from the scriptures carry more weightage here and it's better if we put them in the quoteblock. Quotes are used in Abrahamic section too. As for your NPOV issues, I don't think there are such issues in the article. There's an unanimous view among scholars that Dharmashastras and Dharmasutra prescribe punishments for adultery. I don't think there's any need to create any non-existing NPOV issues. Moreover we've already given undue space for minority views of Wendy, which is against the Wikipedia guidelines. NPOV doesn't mean you should give equal space for minority views. Kindly don't revert constructive edits. Onkuchia (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Onkuchia: Please stop your naive lecturing/allegations about "scriptures", "unanimous view among scholars" and what you believe are "minority views". You have doing so in other articles, in your content disputes with Joshua Jonathan/Kautilya3, and it is getting tiresome. You can identify scholarly source which states what you allege to be the case, and then we can proceed. Please focus on the content guideline I have mentioned above and respond. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Welch -- Kindly comply with the civility policy of Wikipedia and stick to the discussion on the relevant content. I am not here interested in discussing the past interactions with your friends.

You can identify scholarly source which states what you allege to be the case, and then we can proceed.
— User:Sarah Welch

This seems like an ironical statement in this case. I think I should demand the same from you. Come up with any sources (reliable and relevant) that say Hindu Dharmashastras(sutras) "do not prescribe any punishment for adultery", and then we can proceed. And I have already cited multiple sources that say Dharmashastras and Sutras (treatises on Hindu laws) prescribe various punishments for adultery. Onus on you to prove otherwise and then you can argue against the inclusion of "direct quotes from these scriptures that deal with adultery punishments". Otherwise it is just disruptive behavior. I am restoring some content with direct quotes as you have failed to give any satisfactory reasons.

• Here[3] you misinterpreted and generalized the context.
• Here [4] you did wp:synthesis of two different texts and came to a new conclusion that consensual sex by a woman is not adultery.
• Here[5] you completely omitted this part -- ""Dharmashastras (treatises on Dharma), states José Cabezón, consider adultery to be unlawful and prescribe "punishments ranging from the shaving of the head to the death penalty". In the Budhhist section too, you did some generalization about the context[6] and omitted the other relevant statements of the author.[7]

And I have yet to verify your recently added content.

Be realistic, stick to the sources and know which side of the party has the burden of proof. Regards. Onkuchia (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Quoting Dharmashastras, or any religious primary sources, on our own, is WP:OR. We have no idea of their significance, accuracy (the extent to which they represented the actual practice) or their acceptance among the practitioners. We can only quote them if a scholar has quoted them and if we can achieve WP:CONSENSUS here about their appropriateness. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

References

You are right, we cannot quote Dharmashastra verses on our own. But there's no such issues here. Quotations are cited by reliable authors in two of the recent most authoritative sources (The Oxford History of Hinduism: Hindu Law[8] or Studies in Hindu law and Dharmashastra[9])

accuracy (the extent to which they represented the actual practice) or their acceptance among the practitioners
— User:Kautilya3

That's a trivial objection. We are not here asserting that it was prevalent (or it was not). We are not highlighting their acceptance. And also, neither the context within the Wiki section nor the context of the cited content deals with this. The degree of prevalence does not change the fact that Dharmashastras prescribe punishments. Their inclusion as quotes is in line with their significance in matters of Hinduism or Hindu laws. We are more concerned with how Hindu laws or Hinduism viewed adultery. Onkuchia (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Onkuchia: Your personal wisdom/prejudice/view is "Hindu Dharmashastras(sutras) always prescribe punishment for adultery by anyone". This view is wrong. Even Manusmriti has exemptions. I have already provided two sources. As admin Abecedare already mentioned elsewhere in a content dispute you are involved, there is no need for WP:OVERCITE. On quotes.... we should not emphasize with quotes what "Onkuchia finds exciting" or what reflects this-or-that editor's wisdom/prejudice/views. As I wrote above, quotes are useful in some articles and certain situations, but not here because it creates WP:Due and WP:NPOV issues. I do not support a quote farm here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch: Dharmashastras prescribe "punishments ranging from mild punishments including penances to harsh punishments". That's what almost all sources suggest. Even Manusmriti has exemptions in case of "adultery"? Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidences. Find an explicit evidence for this from any reliable sources. Obviously, I am not interested in your WP.OR and WP:SYNTHESIS (this has been discussed in the second part of my comment)

"We should not emphasize with quotes what Onkuchia finds exciting"? Not really, these quotes are the ones that the authors find important while discussing the general treatment of adultery. You can quote any verse from the Shastras that deal with the treatment for adultery, provided that the author highlights it. And I think I had quoted both mild and harsh punishments in the blockquote. I think if we exclude the content formed by [synthesis or OR], then there appears no WP:Due or NPOV. I do accept that the degree of punishment varies according to the type of act or circumstances. But this does not change the general fact that something is always prescribed in case adultery happens. How does this become minority view or what source claims so?

Now let's verify the content you added about Manusmriti in Hinduism section:

• You start off with "declaring adultery to be a heinous offense.The Manusmriti does not include adultery as a "grievous sin" -- you are here confusing Wikipedia readers. Attribution would have been better.

• The Manusmriti does not include adultery as a "grievous sin", but includes it as a "secondary sin" that leads to a loss of caste. The verse 8.359 of Manusmriti declares that everyone other than a Brahmin "merits the death penalty" in cases of adultery. The text states that the tradition is that the woman should perform an "arduous penance" plus "lunar penance" if she commits "adultery again" with a man of the same caste.
  — User:Ms Sarah Welch

This is WP:OR You cannot interpret primary sources (translations) on your own. Things are more complex than you think. For instance, the context of penance (on p.44) put forth some conditions (such as if the sin is not deliberate or if it is through folly) when a person is subject to penance. It is misleading if you cherrypick (Refer WP:CHERRYPICK) the desired content. Let the author discuss or state that.

• The verse 8.362 of Manusmriti exempts the rules on adultery for women who earn their own livelihood or are wives of traveling performers, where the woman enters into sexual liaisons on her own volition or with the encouragement of the husband
  — User:Ms Sarah Welch

This is a blatant misinterpretation (WP:OR and WP:CHERRYPICK)

On p.186, the verse 8.362 appears as an exception to the previous verse 361 which puts restrictions on men to converse with women. It is not even about sexual intercourse. It is about "conversation with women". The verse 361 mentions "converse" word. The verses 354-56 suggest that conversation with another man's wife is also adultery. This is the reason why you should not interpret translations on your own. Moreover the author (on p.322) thinks that "prostitutes" is the right interpretation of "women who earn their own livelihood". Significant information is missing and that results in the content that is not in comply with the intention of the author.

You have been repeatedly warned about all these issues. Yeah, prejudice/wisdom is indeed problematic. If someone is struggling with the interpretation of the source, the best solution is to consult other editors. Regards. Onkuchia (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Onkuchia: I already cited the sources. If you lack the competence or resources to check them, in every content dispute, then you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. You allege I am doing OR/cherrypick/misrepresentation, when it is you who repeatedly fails to check the multiple sources and then does OR/cherrypick (see the talk page discussion on the Yoni article where you did this recently). Let me take one example to illustrate this problem with your contributions and comments such as above. You state I am misrepresenting verse 8.362 of Manusmriti, but then you offer your personal interpretation that it relates to 8.361. You are wrong because of several reasons, the most relevant reason being that is not what the sources are stating. If you stopped the script in your head and your compulsions to (mis)interpret on your own to fit your POV/prejudice/wisdom, and instead focus on reading the two cited sources, you will see why you are wrong. Consider the second source which I had cited before you had composed and posted the above response. It is the source by Ariel Glucklich, a professor whose scholarship relates to Hinduism and Anthropology of Religion. He writes in a publication that discusses adultery in Hindu texts at several places (e.g. pp. 179-184). He writes on p. 171, "[...] Manu says that sex with the wife of an actor is not a sin^{6 [...]}". The note 6 of Glucklich refers to Manusmriti 8.362 (p. 187). As Kautilya3 explained to you above, we rely on scholars, and not our own personal interpretation, to summarize what scholars are stating in publications that are verifiable. On your "repeatedly warned" note, I agree that "you have repeatedly warned me". I do not need more and more warnings. I welcome you to take your concerns to WP:AN or WP:ANI or an appropriate noticeboard. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
(ps)To the talk page watchers: Another exemption for sex outside marriage is in Manusmriti verses related to niyoga or leviratic union (9.52 onwards), where a childless woman – typically a widow without a son – who wants a child, gets an officially appointed man (married or unmarried, typically the brother of the deceased husband if he had a brother), has sex with this married/unmarried man to get pregnant. Manu then discusses the rights of such a child from the leviratic union in cases of dead husband or impotent husband etc. May be worth a mention, if someone has the time and interest to go through the sources. Crawford, Doniger (pp. 177-180), Olivelle and others have publications on the niyoga tradition, Manusmriti's mixed views on it and its treatment in other Hindu texts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

---

@Ms Sarah Welch:See, I am not interested in your slander. You cannot act like a dictator and tell other editors to stop editing Wikipedia just because they point out improper editorial style that harms Wikipedia. And it is better if you don't encourage me to mention your past misinterpretations in other articles. Stick to the topic.

You claim I offered my personal interpretation that the verse 362 relates to 361. This itself proves you don't really read the source in the context except the part you cherry pick. The verse 362 literally, explicitly starts with: "The above rule does not apply..." (taken from the same source [primary material] you have interpreted on your own) Care to read the sources you cite. That's the least we can expect.

Your conclusion (imagination): "The verse 8.362 of Manusmriti exempts the rules on adultery for women who earn their own livelihood or are wives of traveling performers, where the woman enters into sexual liaisons on her own volition or with the encouragement of the husband."

Firstly, there is absolutely nothing in this content that can directly be attributed to "The Sense of Adharma" text. Secondly, the author of your content is not Ariel Glucklich, it is Wendy Doniger (Title; playing the field: Adultery as claim jumping I did not question the credibility of any author. My concern is the way you collect, interpret and synthesize different sources.

Now let's analyze the relevant content of the "Sense of Adharma." The words "Manu says that..." appear on p.171. The context is established on p.170 which is about Kamasutra, not Manusmriti. Wendy Doniger cites a long passage from Kamasutra text before these words. Wendy Doniger then states, "It is no indologist come from the grave to gloss this (Kamasutra) passage [...] might help to know that Manu says that sex with wife of an actor is not a sin and that jewelers in the ancient world used chemicals [...]"

The note 6 refers to "both 361 and 362" in the footnote. So? How exactly does it directly and entirely support your conclusion. But that is not the issue here. As a general rule, the content should rely on clear, consistent passages. The interpreted content should not rely on passing mentions. In this case, "Manu says that sex,,," is a passing mention. This is WP:OR This becomes even more complex when you synthesize this with another author's content that does not directly support what Wendy says nor your superficial conclusion. So basically it now becomes WP:SYNTHESIS of two different sources. It is a synthesis of some passing mention and cherry picked content of "Manu's code of law" (Patrick Olivelle; p.186) based on your own opinions. That's your own original research, which is not stated by either sources.

It is astonishing to see that you are accusing me of "personal interpretation" while you are forming statements from the primary material of the text (Manu's code of law - English translation of Manusmriti). We often rely on secondary material where we have the commentary and analysis of the author. We need author's own thinking that would interpret, evaluate, synthesize the ideas, concepts of the primary material. Editors should "not pretend to be an academic author" to interpret or synthesize the primary material. Onkuchia (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

_______________

As for the nigoya, you've already added Niyoga source, but I think the interpreted content doesn't truly reflect what the author Wendy states. Your edit which you believe is based on the cited source (refer P.163 to know what the source states; Niyoya context): The Manusmriti, states Doniger offers two views on adultery. It recommends a new married couple to remain sexually faithful to each other for life. It also accepts that adulterous relationships [...] pregnant woman, and not to the biological father. Onkuchia (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Onkuchia: You now allege "The note 6 refers to "both 361 and 362" in the footnote". Assuming in good faith that you did check, you are now lying or are not careful enough during content disputes and have WP:CIR issues. Check again. The Glucklich source reads 8.362-63. Both 362 and 363 relate to exemptions (363 is about paying a small fine in some cases, rather than more severe punishment such as the death penalty). Yes, 362 does state "the above rule". But the "above rule" in 362 is not referring to 361 which is about "a man should never converse with...", but it is referring to rule in the sense of "the rule section on sexual crimes against married women" covered in verses 352-361. Not because I say so, but because the Ariel Glucklich scholarly source interprets 8.362, on p. 171, as "[...] Manu says that sex with the wife of an actor is not a sin⁶". That is not in verse 8.361. Verse 361 discusses rules about conversations, while it is the other verses in the rule section that discuss a man and a woman (who is married to someone else) sitting together on a bed, touching each other in an "inappropriate place", etc. We must ignore your personal comments and interpretations. We will rely on the interpretation in the scholarly source, and not yours. (To talk page watchers: FWIW, the Glucklich source article is a chapter written by Doniger, who has also published her own translations of Manusmriti verses, Kamasutra verses, and has published a lot of peer-reviewed articles on adultery and sex-related aspects/issues in Hindu texts). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: That's strange. Is that all you want to say in response to my comment? The note 6 refers to 361-62 or 362-63? How exactly does it affect my objections? They are all intact and unchallenged. Did you even read what I said after "The note 6 refers to ...." statement. Please do not argue with me on such trivial issues that could happen because of typos. That's not even my argument. Do you even realize "Manu says that sex..." is not what you are stating or indicating in your conclusion reflected on Wikipedia?

Is there any specific reason why you are not considering your other cited material (Manu's code of law by Patrick Olivelle)? Why do you even think that Patrick agrees with Wendy's passing mention or your own conclusion? It is better if you reread your conclusion (cited in my previous comment). Then compare it with the cited material (p.186 and the passing mention on p.171 Your conclusion is the improper synthesis of these sources. You have basically adopted the idea that "the verse 361 is about sex" from p.171 of Glucklich's source and heavily imposed it on the content (p.186) of Patrick's source. Is that hard to notice or understand? Better attribute that "Manu says that..." passing mention to Wendy Doniger with a proper synthesis with her own Manusmriti. There are no issues, then. But I still think it is not good to use such passing mentions. Readers, refer p.171 (unfortunately not available on Gbooks)

Okay, I am done with you. Don't want to argue with you anymore. It is exhausting to me, tbh. There's no any fruitful results either. So I urge all other neutral editors to look into this.

To the readers: The page no. 186 of the cited material is available on Goggle books. Read it here. [10]. Everything's as evident as the sun in the sky. Also refer the note (8.362) on the top.[11]. Important to note here that the author Patrick agrees that "wives who earn a living on their own" should refer to "Prostitutes". What's the correlation between this source and Wendy's? Absolutely nothing, in fact it is contradictory. Regards! Onkuchia (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

---

@Ms Sarah Welch: And let me comment on your "radical interpretation". Ms Srah Welch writes: [...]but it is referring to rule in the sense of "the rule section on sexual crimes against married women" covered in verses 352-361. Not because I say so, but because the Ariel Glucklich [...]

I guess there are two authors involved -- Patrick and Wendy. "But because Wendy thinks so?...." Seriously? I can't see that on p.171 (or any other page) or did she (or Glucklich) personally tell you that Patrick's 362 verse is referred to 352-361? Maybe just maybe you are engaged in original research here.

Well, there are many rules explained in 352-361. Then why does the verse 362 mention "The above rule" in the singular, and not as the "The above rules"? It is no rocket science to understand "the above rule" refers "naturally" to the preceding rule of 361 which restricts a man to converse with a woman (or other people's wives considering the author's note on p.321). Any rational mind would get that. Nevertheless whether it's you or me, we can't interpret primary material on our own which is open to several interpretations. We don't have Patrick's analysis and synthesis to reach any conclusion. There is no need to impose your personal assumption and Wendy's implication on the content of Patrick Olivelle. Uncite his (patrick's) source from your conclusion and attribute it to Wendy Doniger taking into account the source's content (cite her manusmriti translation if you want to). Otherwise I would have to do that. Regards. Onkuchia (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

And here's the analysis of the verse 362 by Medhatithi, translated and commented by Gangadhar Jha — "The above rule regarding conversation with women...."[12]

Onkuchia (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Onkuchia: Please see my comments above on content guidelines. You latest contributions (e.g. [13], [14], etc) suffer from the same old issues. You are free to believe in whatever you want and I do not wish to disabuse you of your beliefs, but in this and other wikipedia articles, you must follow the community agreed content guidelines. Please feel free to approach the OR/NPOV/etc noticeboards. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch: That's exactly what I am trying to say. No personal views or intuition. Stick to the source and make sure only the content directly and explicitly supported by the author is reflected on Wikipedia. We here do not rely on anyone's high imagination.

As usual your reverts (such as [15]) are problematic. Wikipedia is a collaborative work of all editors, and not the privileged work of specific editors.

• We don't censor any reliable author's content based on personal disagreements as you did with Ludo Rocher's comment

• We don't cherry pick the views of the author. No need to censor the alternative content when the author says "Kamasutra forbids adultery out of love or lust" (along with the view that Kamasutra mentions hundreds of adultery techniques.)

• If I am not wrong, your edits dedicates half of the content to a single author, Wendy Doniger.[16] That is the aggressive POV pushing is.

• I already explained what is wrong with Patrick's source. You can't interpret the primary material based on personal biases. Is it the failure or refusal to get the point? Your personal bias - "The verse 8.362 of Manusmriti exempts its rule on adultery [...] sexual liaisons on her own volition or with the encouragement of the husband" is nowhere to be found in the Patrick's source. See WP:OR for more info.

• We always prefer more detailed and clear passages as it helps editors properly interpret the content.

We prefer this Wendy's source[17] over her other source for the former source gives more information about the verse 362 while in the latter source, we don't have anything other than "Manu says sexual intercourse with the wife of an actor is not sin". We need more context and evaluation which is provided in the former source. The former source explains why it is not a sin or crime and who exactly is the wife of an actor. Well, frankly speaking, I don't want to mislead Wiki readers by juxtaposing passing mentions with personal views. You don't need to repeatedly accuse me of editing with personal views. Instead introspect about your behavior. Onkuchia (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Onkuchia: Just repeating your accusations is unhelpful. You have not read or misunderstood Ludo Rocher's passing remarks in his paper on Kamasutra. A more detailed, nuanced and dedicated discussion by Rocher on adultery is already in the article. Please do not WP:TE and edit war. Why are you deleting peer-reviewed sources? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Onkuchia: You added,

Quote: "Adultery is strongly censured by Dharmashastras", states Indologist Ludo Rocher. (cite: Rocher, Ludo (1985). "The Kāmasūtra: Vātsyāyana's Attitude toward Dharma and Dharmaśāstra". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 105 (3): 521. doi:10.2307/601526. ISSN 0003-0279.)

Here is the page of this source, you allege supports what you added: p. 521. Where do you see that claim? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch My accusations? Read the above comments, and I have explained the issues with your edits in detail. However I haven't seen anything from you in defense. Now you claim that I haven't read the source and I don't understand it. Go on enlighten us! And Ludo's source is about Kamasutra, Dharmashastra and Dharma. It looks like you are clueless about it. He compares these two texts (shastra and Kamasutra) in regard with Dharma. Like I said before, we don't censor reliable and prominent author's comment based on personal disagreements. It's not an excess comment. It's his collective and conclusive thought about Dharmashastras and adultery.

What are you trying to do here? Trying to win the argument by pointing out the inexact page number? (It's 527 anyway) No, that doesn't work! And what NPOV issues you are talking about? In fact, your reverting[18] itself goes against NPOV (such as censoring Wendy's comment that states Kamasutra out of love is forbidden by the author)

How many times I have to tell you that you can't interpret primary material (In this case Patrick's "The law code of Manu") on your own? Please see WP:OR and spare me. And is there any specific reason why you prefer the source that mentions only part of the verse over the source that mentions the full verse and also gives some descriptive info about the term? Is it because it is open to interpretation and you can easily use it to get what you are comfortable with? Answer this.

No edit war/disruptive behavior please Onkuchia (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Ockuchia: You didn't answer my first question as to why you are deleting scholarly sources. You did accept that p. 521 is wrong, and you give me a new page number. So, I will explain my concerns, one more time as an illustration, with this new Rocher paper:

Concern #1: Rocher's focus in this paper is on "The Kāmasūtra" and "Vātsyāyana's Attitude toward Dharma and Dharmaśāstra". Rocher has published more focused articles on dharmasastras with more substantial discussion on adultery. This article already cites some of these Rocher publications before your started edit warring. Per our content guidelines, why not stick with these better, substantial Rocher sources to summarize his scholarly views on adultery in dharmasastras?

Concern #2: The paper, on the page number you corrected, states in the second para in column 1, "Adultery is, of course, strongly censured by the dharmasastras³¹, where footnote 31 gives Manu as the example. This is a passing comment, which you have cherrypicked out of context to edit war. Rocher is predominantly discussing Kama, nayaka (m) and nayika (f) in this section which starts on page 525, and that is his context. Rocher starts this section by stating "Vatsyayana's treatment of women, which looked upon against the background of dharma and dharmasastra, is far more complex than his treatment of men" (col. 2, p. 525). Then Rocher presents different types of nayikas (unmarried virgins, married and abandoned by husband, widow seeking remarriage, courtesan, etc) and discusses their kama/sexual education, rights and mores. So, if anything, we should be using Rocher's substantial discussion in this Kamasutra-related paper to summarize what he has to say about various nayikas in context of "sex outside marriage" (adultery), rather than a passing comment (see Concern #1 on which Rocher dharmasastra-related sources we should use). Why not summarize these views per our content guidelines?

Concern #3: The article already mentions adultery is "heinous offense" and "sin" and etc in early Hindu texts from various scholarly sources. Why emphasize a cherrypicked sentence on p. 527 1st column, out of context and create POV issues?

Concern #4: If you read Rocher further, past the sex for "offspring or pleasure" comments in Hindu texts, he writes on p. 527 2nd column, "In other words, even in the kamasastra adultery is placed at a different level than kama with the other three kinds of nayikas. Vatsyayana devotes not less than fifteen sutras (1.5.6-20) to enumerating the reasons (karana) for which a man is allowed to seduce a married woman." This is notable and a part of Rocher's analysis and interpretation, but that is not what you are adding. Why not?

How should we address these concerns? @Pepperbeast, Kautilya3, and Vanamonde93: would one of you take a look please, if and when you get time, suggest a compromise version if appropriate, and the steps forward. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I have already objected to an UNDUE emphasis on the Dharmashastras. Onkuchia wants to write a section on "adultery in Dharmashastras". But nobody wants that. The section is on "adultery in Hinduism". And, Hinduism is the religion practised by its adherents, not what its self-appointed guardians declare. In my view, the Dharmashastras were practically dead until the British came and unearthed them in the 18th century. This gave a new lease of life to all the Dharma fundamentalists. So I would say, reduce the Dharmashastras to one paragraph. Use the rest of the space for ethnographers and historians etc., who work hard to figure out what it is that the people actually practised. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the analysis of the sources here, so just a couple of comments: I would advise not relying on a translation, which if I understand correctly is what the Patrick source is. I would also suggest that the most detailed sources be used preferentially over passing mentions, particularly when the author is the same in each case; so if a single author has published multiple works on a single topic, the most detailed is the one that should be used (within reason). Finally: I don't have access to many of the sources, but I did spot-check this source. It is fairly clear that Doniger is describing adultery as a fact of life, particularly the case where a man is being unfaithful. So I don't know what that part of Onkuchia's dissatisfaction is about (oh, and please don't refer to her as "Wendy", Onkuchia: it's patronizing. Using the last name is standard, except when such doesn't exist). Vanamonde (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Ms Sarah Welch: Yeah, it is "The Kāmasūtra: Vātsyāyana's Attitude toward Dharma and Dharmaśāstra". Note that both Kamasutra and Dharmashastras are the two most relevant texts in this paper. You cannot analyze Kamasutra's attitude towards Dharma without comparing it with Dharmashastras.

Ms Sarah Welch: Why are you deleting scholarly sources? --- This is because the reliability of the source is not the only factor we consider on Wikipedia.

Your concern #1: this paper is part of L. Rocher's detailed analysis on Hinduism laws and Dharmashastras Studies in Hindu Law and Dharmasastra It's conclusive statement on the relationship between Dharmashastra and adultery is the same throughout this well-researched book.

Your concern #2: The footnote 31 is there to provide examples of censure of adultery in Dharmashastras. It literally says "Eg., Manu " on p.527. I don't know what you are trying to prove here. The author's comment is "Dharmashastras strongly censures adultery". "Only Manusmriti censures adultery" -- this is your own personal opinion and we are not interested in it. You need to read more about footnote and its usage.

Kamasutra is different from Dharmashastra. Your comments on Kamasutra related content prove little to nothing considering the fact that Rocher's paper deals with the analysis of both Kamasutra and Dharma texts. Every page of this paper has one or more references to Dharmashastra content. For instance, on the preceding p.526 (p.527 where the contested content appears), the author first discusses nayikas in Dharmashastras like Manu Smriti and Narada Smriti. Almost everything on p.526 is about Dharmashastras. The author describes different kinds of nayikas in Dharma texts. (The term kanya...by Dharma texts...Manu's eight definitions...more complex in Dharmashastras...the independent wanton woman Naradasmriti...Punarbhu principles of dharmashastras and so on). On p.527, the author suggests that in Kamasutra these three nayikas are at the same level unlike in Dharma texts where they are at different levels. These women in Kamasutra are not attached to any men. He further adds, "Kama with married women raises, even for Vatsyayana, a different set of problems. Adultery is, of course strongly censured by the Dharmashastras." - Ludo Rocher Then he discusses the opinion of Vatsyayana's predecessor that there is a fourth category of nayikas. He then adds that "Vatsyayana devotes not less than..to seduce a married women." This quote is concluded by Kamasutra verse 1.5.21 which states that married women can be resorted to only in some special conditions without carnal desire. Here ends his juxtaposition of Kamasutra with Dharmashastra. It is quite clear from the context (526,527) that the author has analyzed both Kamasutra and Dharmashastra texts. Dharmashastras are as relevant as Kamasutra in this paper. In such conditions, the definite quote from Dharma texts cannot be considered as a passing mention.

Well, if you are genuinely concerned about cherry picking or passing mention, you would not have derived your content from a passing mention that appears on p.171 of "The sense of Adharma" text. This passing mention is part of a long complex sentence -- "It is no indologist come from the grave to gloss this (Kamasutra) passage [...] might help to know that Manu says that sex with wife of an actor is not a sin and that jewelers in the ancient world used chemicals [...]" Moreover, the context (p.171,172) established by W. Doniger in this is exclusively about Kamasutra. The mention of Manu word is a mere accident. This edit I think is the best candidate for the passing mention.

Your concern #3: This is because the quote is an explicit, lucid, and conclusive statement of the author about the position of adultery in Dharma texts. This is not reflected in this article. What we have is his views on particular verses of some Dharmashastras, not the whole Dharmashastra corpus. The quote is not out of context. It deals with the attitude of Dharmashastras and Kamasutra toward adultery. The meaning of the quote is not going to change with respect to any part of the paper.

Your concern #4: The author's analysis of Kamasutra does not nullify his analysis of Dharmashastras. And Kamasutra's view on adultery is already covered by Wendy Doniger's multiple statements. Anyway, the notable thing in that particular part is that Kamasutra treats adultery differently from the Kama with unmarried women (which is associated with the desire of offspring or pleasure). It suggests that even the Kamasutra does not allow to have connection with married women in pursuit of carnal desire. It is allowed only in certain conditions where there is no carnal desire. All this does not contradict with his independent, lucid quote on Dharmashastras. There is no any particular conclusion in the relevant part (p.525,26,27) of the paper. It just discusses various similarities and differences between Kamasutra and Dharmashastra in regard with the nature, treatment of women, and their relation with men. Onkuchia (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Ms Sarah Welch edit[19]: "The Manusmriti does not include adultery as a "grievous sin", but includes it as a "secondary sin" that leads to a loss of caste. The verse 8.359 of Manusmriti declares that everyone other than a Brahmin "merits the death penalty" in cases of adultery. Other verses in the same text, states the Indologist and Sanskrit scholar Patrick Olivelle, prescribe "lunar penance" for the sin of adultery. The text states the tradition that the woman should perform an "arduous penance" plus "lunar penance" if she commits "adultery again" with a man of the same caste. The verse 8.362 of Manusmriti exempts its rule on adultery when the involved woman earns her own livelihood or is the wife of a traveling performer, where the woman enters into sexual liaisons on her own volition or with the encouragement of the husband."

Objection: All this is based on Patrick Olivelle's "The Law Code of Manu" which is the translation of Manusmriti. As Vanamonde93 suggested, we do not rely on translations of scriptures. Does Ms Sarah Welch accept the possibility that other editors can also interpret the same primary material in different ways with a wider context? Kindly refer [WP:OR] -- Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself.

Ms Sarah Welch edit: Manu in his verses 8.362-363 is stating that sexual relations with the wife of traveling performer is not a sin, and exempts such sexual liaisons.

Objection: This content is based on a passing mention (I have already explained this in my previous comments) Even this passing mention is not faithfully reproduced. "Manu in his verses 8.362-63 is stating that...." -- this is not something that is directly and explicitly supported by the author W. Doniger. The verse 363 is in fact talking about fine and conversation in the "The laws of Manu" (p.159) text authored by the same author. Onkuchia (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Onkuchia: Given the differences in your and my understanding of what wikipedia content policies are, including your repeated and strange allegations of OR, the reliability of sources, etc, please take this to an appropriate noticeboard of your choice. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, you have a choice to respond to my objections. We are all keen to understand how interpreting translations work for you?

@Vanamonde93: Could you please settle this debate?Onkuchia (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Too busy to wade into sources at the moment, sorry. Why don'y you try WP:3O, or WP:DRN, or an RFC? Vanamonde (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

changes to be made

Editors really ought to be able to parse words. This is yet another article that demonstrates difficulty distinguishing between rather simple concepts — in this instance, differentiating nonmarital sex and extramarital sex.

To call anything extramarital requires at very least that

1. a marriage is in effect, and
2. critical boundary agreements (whether statutory or agreed-upon) have been broken.

So, for instance, swinging is in one sense extramarital because it breaks the letter of the law (and any religious vows), yet not so in the sense that it's a mutually agreed transgression.

If there is no marriage in force among any of the involved individuals, then sex IS NOT "extramarital" in any rational sense of the term.

If none of the participants has ever been married, then sex could be labelled premarital, whether it's an expression of the courtship behavior often called dating or of the casual sex and promiscuity inherent to the hookup culture.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

One for Pepperbeast, though: I haven't opened a law book in a couple of decades, and I was indeed incorrect to assert that a tort is a type of crime. As an occasional grammar Nazi, I stand chagrined.

However, I will be correct in my next edit to assert that adultery was often tried as a felony, with penalties up to and including execution. This stands in contrast to its current status, where adultery is generally treated as a misdemeanor, and a rather minor one at that, somewhat less troubling than jaywalking and certainly nothing with the social import of shoplifting.

To simply say "adultery was a crime" is to risk forcing a thought into the reader's head that being caught out in marital infidelity was a mere misdemeanor when on reality it could often be used to murder the adulterers — most often, the females, as in honor killings. This extremism is central to the topic, and therefore the article, and should not be downplayed.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about felonies, not torts. Felonies are crimes. Torts aren't. I'm confident that Wikipedia readers know that a felony is a serious crime.

No European or English-speaking country bar the US (and only a handful of states) currently treats adultery as a crime, misdemeanour or otherwise. The article already points out where adultery can be prosecuted as a crime. I'm not sure what it is you think needs to be added.

While sex between two unmarried people isn't regarded as adultery in Western countries, it certainly is in the Islamic world. PepperBeast (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

And while I respect your opinion that Europe is much more enlightened than the hillbilly U.S. and various Oriental heathens, progress everywhere has continued to creep along. Adultery was illegal in Ireland until 1981, "progressive" France until 1975, and Austria until 1997, so hardly the Middle Ages. Even South Korea (which apparently does still prosecute it) appears to be dialing it back. In the U.S., adultery might be a point of contention in divorce, but even in the five states where it's still a felony (as opposed to a misdemeanor) I'm unaware of any jurisdiction prosecuting it proactively in the past half-century (though I'll read up if anyone can point me to such cases).

I remain unsatisfied that there is such glib equation of quaintly toothless U.S. laws and stonings (lynchings, really) of teenage girls by shrieking religion-addled mobs. The article does a poor job of organizing the overarching subtopic "adultery as crime," burying part of the body near the top as Adultery#Punishmentthen spreading the rest thinly across Adultery#Cultural and religious traditions where it can be randomly diced up between religion and jurisprudence. This article doesn't do enough to clarify that infidelity is the larger topic, and adultery only a subtype that can for some reason be prosecuted and persecuted, rationalizing violence in general and deep-seated misogyny in particular. Maybe it even deserves its own article, but the related info ought to be brought together so that it may be properly sorted out.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)