Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 April 10

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 10

"Purple prose"

What is it that distinguishes purple prose from good descriptive writing? I was reading Gatsby (awesome btw) and it seems to me that Fitzgerald employs a lot of the wonderfully florid descriptions that are often denounced as "purple prose"; where is the line drawn, exactly? 24.92.85.35 (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If you like it, it isn't purple prose. There is no other line to be drawn. This is one of those "eye of the beholder" things. --Jayron32 05:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What invention will North Koreans need to start their own regime change?

Social Media was invented a little before the Arab Spring came along. That was the invention the Arabs needed in order to enact pro-democracy rebellions.

However, North Koreans do not have access to the worldwide Internet. They just have the Kwangmyong intranet. What new inventions would the North Koreans need in order to start Arab Spring-style rebellions to get their moribund, brutal regime to finally dissolve?

(I have a feeling that it might be worldwide wi-fi, or at least South Korean Wi-fi signals that can permeate hundreds of miles inland from just a few emitters. but wouldn't feel too sure because they probably don't even have wi-fi receptors.)

Of the inventions you imagine could start a North Korean spring, and bring down the last Stalinist bastion on Earth, why haven't they been invented yet? What would it take for the inventions to come to fruition, and how much could they cost to be made practical enough for these purposes? --Tergigress (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your description of revolutions as technologically determined would be disputed by most scholars who seriously interrogate revolutions. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, one of the criticisms of calling the Arab Spring the "Facebook Revolution" is that it undermines the root causes of the revolts. At best, social networking on the internet has had an ancillary effect on the ability of the revolutionaries to organize, but the cause of the revolutions has very little to do with technology. There have been successful revolutions in the past which clearly had little to do with technology, and much more to do with the society in which they occured. --Jayron32 05:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a communications technology solution. When you have a brutal dictatorship with that kind of military, and the willingness to use it, probably right up to nuking their own people, you can't overcome that with protests, no matter how well organized.

Perhaps some form a defensive technology which would make NK no longer a threat to their neighbors might work, though, as the rest of the world could then ignore NK until starvation started to affect the military. If "Star Wars" actually worked, that would make all the difference. StuRat (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Only if the North Koreans were using ICBMs as their delivery mechanism. "Star Wars" doesn't work against nuclear smuggling. It wouldn't even have worked against intermediate range missiles. I also think you underestimate how little the world is interested in even another conventional war on the Korean peninsula — it would be a very bloody affair. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe NK would attack SK if they didn't have a nuclear threat behind it. After all, that would put them at risk of nuclear attack (and I don't see China coming to their defense again, in such a case). StuRat (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have long thought that what regime change in North Korea most needs is an extremely skilled group of Exit counsellors who would be able to take on a nation-state-slash-cult. Has anyone done any work in debunking the "cult of Kim"? Perhaps via Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty type-broadcasting?

Yes, it has been tried but see Radio jamming in Korea. Rmhermen (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That said, if the experience in Myanmar is any guide, smashing the cult is not enough. You need the cult-destruction to reach the levels of those who wield the guns on behalf of the regime (or at least some of them), or such regimes will simply use brute force to crush any inserrection by the no-longer-deluded masses. The 2011–2012 Syrian uprising might be an interesting case-study in such long-standing regimes coming under threat. 58.111.224.202 (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, you either need the leadership to decide to change, or the military supporting it must revolt. The latter is possible, if conditions get so bad in NK that the military starts to suffer. Of course, if the military did revolt, there's no reason to think they would establish democracy. More likely they would just install another dictator, but hopefully one which was less confrontational, perhaps more like the leadership of China. StuRat (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This was a very interesting discussion. Thelastmedic (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Pornography, which is to say, efforts to ban it. A War on Drugs of any variety will destroy the government of any nation, given enough time. (Though as we see in the U.S., it can take quite a while) Wnt (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

UK History - the high notes

Hello chaps, I am designing a frieze depicting a timeline of what I might best describe as UK-centric world events, for displaying on the walls of schoolrooms and children's bedrooms. Space will be limited so I was wondering what would you consider the most notable events in the UK and the world that would merit inclusion?

I was thinking of beginning at 55BC and running to 2000AD. By UK-centric I mean that the birth of Christ and Muhammad would likely be included, the French and US revolutions perhaps, but Shakespeare and Dickens would get a place rather than Voltaire and Twain.

So what are the absolute must-haves for a British child's historical education?

FreeMorpheme (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

My high school English teacher used to say, the most important date in British history is 1066 AD, the conquest of William the Conqueror. I'd say the discovery of America is quite important, the invention of the printing press, the Roman conquest of Britain (but you figured that already, considering the 55 BC starting date) and the the formation of the United Kingdom through the Acts of Union 1707. Obviously, WW2 is a highly significant event, possibly the crusades, and there are of course many more but I don't know how selective the timeline should be. - Lindert (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Stonehenge, Norman conquests, Gaelic origins, with rOme perhaps add Hadrian's wall, William Wallace, crusaders, Dark Ages, Middle Ages, Rennaissance and shakespeare et al, english civil war, cromwell, guy fawkes (perhaps as in the bonfire to kill 2 birds with 1 stone), the british empire and her jewel as in india but also africa, the world wars with churchil et al, possibly thatcher but thats recentism, Empress victoria of india (longest monarch), to include australia perhaps add Gallipoli) of course cricket is the prime sport. Weve now got politics, culture, military...would need some economy. The british bank, in general or the stock exchange. OOhh! Oxford and Cambridge (the rowing races perhaps to get both in). Perhaps get the classic british humour with Sir Humphrey Appleby and/or Jim Hacker btw- discovery of america is not british.Lihaas (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If we are looking at world-impact events rather than, say, the English Civil War: Magna Carta, the agrarian and industrial revolutions, voyage of the Beagle/Darwin, abolition of slavery, longitude, Waterloo, NHS & Welfare State, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_inventions_and_discoveries , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_inventions_and_discoveries , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_inventions_and_discoveries , and depending on poltical considerations which/if to include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_inventions_and_discoveries

Why reinvent the wheel? British History Timeline --TammyMoet (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'd include the fall of the Roman Empire (the famous communication that basically said to the Roman colonies "you're on your own"), the reign of Alfred the Great (first king to produce a set of laws in English), Norman Conquest, Magna Carta, Black Death, end of the Wars of the Roses: then in the middle of the 17th century you've got quite a lot to put in - regicide, Commonwealth, Restoration, Plague, Great Fire of London, Glorious Revolution. I'll leave it to others to bring it more up to date. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're designing something to represent 2000 years of history, try not to fall into the recentist trap of devoting 10% of the space to 90% of the period covered. You may find it tricky to cover some of the early post-Roman centuries, but there's a heck of a lot of fascinating material you could use for the rest. Just remember, time passed since 1900 is about one twentieth of the period you're looking at. And if you're interested in this being educational for kids, the stuff that's not in living memory arguably has more value. --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe that no one has mentioned the Spanish Armada incident. Deor (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The history of science is extremely important to the development of British society, and there is a lot of it. You could choose from, William of Ockham, Isaac Newton, Edmond Halley, Robert Hooke, the ancient universities, the Royal Society, Charles Darwin, James Clerk Maxwell, Joseph Lister, the Industrial Revolution, and many others. Depending on the intended audience, it might be a good idea to try and include some local history - I was a little annoyed to learn as an adult that the area I grew up in (like most places, probably) was the setting for various important historical events that I had never even heard of. It would be a good idea to mention as wide a variety of historical figures as possible - you don't want to give the impression that all important people are white, male, Christian, heterosexual, able-bodied, middle-aged and upper-class (in the context of science, you could mention Srinivasa Ramanujan, Caroline Herschel, Alan Turing, and Mary Seacole, who are all very interesting and important people with strong connections to the UK). 130.88.99.231 (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that in the history of the UK, nearly all important people were indeed white, male, Christian and upper-class. To pretend otherwise is simply a distortion of history. - Lindert (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a very strong statement - there are a huge number of important British historical figures who were female or working- or middle-class. I doubt the goal here is to be representative of history (if that is even meaningful), but instead to be engaging and educational, and I suspect that showing a parade of respectable middle-aged white men who had important political roles, but otherwise had unremarkable lives, is a good way of turning off your audience. I also fail to see how discussing some women or members of ethnic minorities would be more a 'distortion of history' than concentrating on military history, or politics, or science and technology, or local history, or indeed British history, which have all been suggested in this thread. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the English Reformation and the Scottish Reformation. The Reformation was the proximate cause of the Spanish Armada, the English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution and the 1745 Rebellion. Without it, it is unlikely that there would have been any Pilgrim Fathers. It's sometimes cited as a pre-condition for the Industrial Revolution too.[1] Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to offer a break from ruling-class faces and some insight into social history, you might include figures such as Wat Tyler, Emmeline Pankhurst, and Ramsay MacDonald, the first Labour prime minister, or Aneurin Bevan, founder of the National Health Service. Marco polo (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Alansplodge that the English Reformation was the catalyst for many world-changing events which followed including the founding of the English colony at Jamestown. The influence of Anne Boleyn cannot be underestimated.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

How about the invention of the Light bulb in 1878? Oh wait-- you said British history. Edison (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being dense, but was that supposed to be a joke? According to the article you linked to, the first incandescent light bulb was created in 1802 by Humphrey Davy, a Brit. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

But you'll never get anyone named Edison to accept that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Its a joke because there have long been disputes over the "true inventor" of the practical carbon filament incandescent lightbulb. Davy in 1802, and predecessors Volta circa 1800 or Priestley in the 1770's (with a Leyden jar) made wire or carbon glow with electricity but it burned out quickly. This was replicated all through the 19th century. Swan came up with a quick-to-fail low vacuum light bulb in the 1860's, then he and Edison independently invented practical high vacuum bulbs about the same time circa 1878. They pooled patents and started Ediswan in the UK, while Edison's US company became GE. Edison (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ALso weve forgotten Henry's schism with rome and the foundation of the church of england...at the same time lets not forget that britains' history didnt just pop out suddenly with the christian era. there is an oft-neglected pre-christian history. No europe si not borne of the christian eta as idiotic politicians liek to rant.Lihaas (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"Henry's schism" is generally called the English Reformation, which Alansplodge has already brought into the discussion above. I agree that the pre-Christianised era and the (protracted and complex) transition from Paganism(s) is important: however, the key events or processes largely took place during the era we call "The Dark Ages" precisely because, unfortunately, we have very few historical records of events in the British Isles (and some other places) from those times. One which was arguably important to, or at least best symbolises, the determination of the nature of the Christianity we wound up with was the Synod of Whitby, which (unfortunately from my less-than-impartial Neopagan viewpoint) resulted in the Roman rather than the Celtic church becoming dominant.

More generally, the migrations and of various Germanic peoples (among them the Angelcynn) and/or cultures to the the hitherto predominently Celtic British Isles over the 5th to llth centuries CE are fundamentally important, but perhaps difficult to represent in the sort of "timeline" the OP envisages: history is a complex multi-dimensional network of interacting factors (I might say the World's Wyrd is intricately woven), and isolating out that of a particular region as a one-dimensional succession is bound to introduce distortions, but "lies to children" are often a regrettable but necessary expedient. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.16 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oh look 50KB of Kings and Other Bad Things. I'd suggest economic history (Economy of England in the Middle Ages) to Wat Tyler, and after Wat Tyler economic, social and radical history. British Histories, like most histories, is a continuous process at the attempt to subjugate the labouring class, with a slight frosting of dead rich white men. Of course, you could try our sequence of Bishops—a kind of dead rich white man whose form of male white Catholic oppression differs significantly from the blood on the Corporate Special Constable's truncheon or the charcoal guilt on the hands of Elizabeth for the women she burnt alive. Sources suitable for children include the series by Tony Robinson, Wikipedia's Bishop's series, and the folk culture of England series of featured articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I believe you are confusing Elizabeth with her half-sister Mary.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I assure you that I verified that the Virgin Queen burnt women before stating it. Isabel Cockie for one. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You could apply a neat thematic to this that works across the period: successful and failed invasions that have massive significance in the country's history: Romans, Vikings, Normans, Armada, Nazi. They're each separated by c.500 years. --Dweller (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, the last Viking invasion of England was in 1066, three days before the Norman one. You missed Napoleon, who blew all the cash from the Louisiana Purchase on an invasion fleet and a nice dock for it at Bolougne. Alansplodge (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Viking raids on Britain began in the eighth century. I discounted Napoleon's effort because it had less impact on British life and history and because it's so close in time to the Nazi invasion (see my point above about recentism). All POV, but then deciding what to include/exclude in this project will be inherently POV. --Dweller (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Battle of Trafalgar was essentially an anti-invasion measure, "which established British naval supremacy for more than 100 years"[2]. Alansplodge (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're planning a UK-centric project, why not stick to the UK only? If you want to show the impact of Christianity or Islam (or other religions) on the UK, there are British, rather than middle-eastern, aspects you could show. --Dweller (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Looks like I may need a bigger house to fit this frieze on the wall FreeMorpheme (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Value of company internal titles

Does it really matter for future employment which internal title (vice-president of, junior or senior, you name it) you had at previous companies? MangoNr1 (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what you're doing with respect to the title.

There is an article in this weeks Economist about "panflation" and this subject is included in there, a pperceived promotion through title change can be cheaper than actually increasing financial reward.

ALR (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe/depends. Companies generally want to know your duties and responsibilities, not the job title. Job titles vary a lot, particularly in fields like high-tech and new media; however in other areas (academia, teaching, military, civil service, medicine, etc) job naming is more consistent and hence of more interest. However, people judge on all kinds of things, and being a director or vice-president may make you stand out more than an assistant manager, and having a ridiculous title might count against you. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, a job title that clearly relates to the job title you're applying for, is often an advantage in the first round of shortlisting when there are a lot of candidates to wade through. This is clearly not ideal, but many non HR people loathe recruitment, especially so when they receive dozens or hundreds of applications they need to sift, and they have a demanding job to get back to. --Dweller (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Bill clinton scandal ussr issue

I don't want to sound stupid but did the right-wing media ever say that Monica Lewinsky did this scandal as a revenge for USSR dissolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.51 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it, but I could be surprised. I doubt it because if she had, it wouldn't have made much sense for her to lie in the Paula Jones case and try to persuade another to do the same. She'd have grabbed the opportunity. It's also not very clear why making the American president look ridiculous would in any way avenge the dissolution of the USSR. Nor is it clear why anyone would think Clinton was responsible for that more than internal Soviet forces. Although I get the tenuous connection between Lewinsky and the USSR. There's enough understandable conspiracy here without the need for an additional nonsensical conspiracy theory. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If there was a conspiracy, it was probably that Linda Tripp sold out her "friend" in order to be able to sell her story to the tabloids and/or become the latest right-wing cause celèbre / flavor of the month. By the way, Lee Harvey Oswald had far more connections to the Soviet Union than Monica Lewinsky, yet the Soviets always seem to be relegated to the third or fourth tier in JFK assassination conspiracy theories... AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is ironic, because the immediate assumption by most Americans was that "the Commies" were behind it - either USSR or Cuba, or both. LBJ, to his dying day, was not convinced that Oswald was acting alone and without direct foreign influence. But if the USSR was behind it, that would have been an international incident of epic proportions. So it was in the Warren Commission's best interest to focus on Oswald himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And by so doing they made themselves a laughing stock. LBJ was right to doubt the commission's report. Not that it was necessarily the USSR behind it, but for Oswald to have acted alone, without any other human beings being involved, was always unbelievable. Lots of people who had crucial evidence supporting the involvement of other parties were never called to give their evidence. If you decide the outcome in advance, it's easy to then choose the evidence that supports that outcome, and you just ignore or discredit the rest. Sir Humphrey would have been proud. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Jack, you should post this over on Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald where my voice echoing your beliefs is but a tiny cry in the wilderness of "Oswald acted alone". I have visited the TSBD and nobody can or ever will convince me that he acted alone although I do believe he was involved.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"We are not alone", Jeanne. Thanks for your support, but I won't go there because I know that canvassing of editors' personal views, however sane they may be, is not what talk pages are for. Or even here, for that matteer. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not canvassing which is why I used small print.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I was, but I've stopped now. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Oswald knew how to use a rifle, and he had 6 to 8 seconds to fire the second and third shots. Digital enhancement of the films indicates there was no gunman on the grassy knoll. It's possible for him to have done it himself. The conspiracists' core claim is that he couldn't have. But he indeed could have. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A bunch of people on the Internet will solve this once and for all, no doubt. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's always worked before. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The evidence shows that it was indeed possible for Oswald to have done the whole thing himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been looking in vain in the Monica Lewinsky article for a tenous connection between Lewinsky and the USSR, but have yet to find anything. What am I missing? --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You're not missing anything. There was no conspiracy with Lewinsky and the Russians to bring down Clinton. RudolfRed (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the person who brought up the "tenuous connection" didn't think there was a conspiracy either, so that remark hardly seems responsive. I'm curious too; what was this alleged connection? The name "Lewinsky" sounds like it could be Russian (or Polish), though the article says her father came from German Jewish stock (but that she has Russian ancestry on her mom's side). So that's the only thing I can think of. I don't think I'd describe that as a connection with the USSR, even adding the word "tenuous". Is there anything else? --Trovatore (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The mother's side connection. Tenuous is what I called it and tenuous is what it is. --Dweller (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If the right-wingers were trying to tie Monica to the Russkies, they didn't get much publicity for it. As a practical matter, the USSR dissolved under Reagan and Bush. Trying to get "revenge" against the president who succeeded those guys would be a bizarre idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sindhi and Gujarati language similarities

Is there similarities between Sindhi and Gujarati languages like vocabulary or are they completely different because Mohd. Ali Jinnah of Pakistan spoke Gujarati with Gandhi and yet he was Sindhi? I am confused about these two languages. Please help me understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.51 (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's probably better to ask this question at the Language desk. - Lindert (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

They are closely related. According to Gujarati language, they split at the third of the four successive splits listed there. I am not familiar enough with either to discuss the similarities and differences though. That article also says (though only in the caption of a picture, and not referenced as far as I can see) that Jinnah was Gujarati and had Gujarati as a mother tongue, though he was not born or raised in Gujarat. --ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Jinnah was not SIndhi he was Gujarati. And you cant be "born and raised Gujurati" as it is conventionally known because that implies (wrongfully) Hindu Gujurati. There are not single Gujurati traditions to follow as the multitude of religions have their own traditions. To bebred Gujurati is quite simply speaking the language, etc...eating the foot...Lihaas (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody but you has used the phrase "born and raised Gujarati", Lihaas. --ColinFine (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah sorry, theres no "i" at the end of your sentence...nevertheless it is a common misconception (in India anyways)Lihaas (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Freedom in the World 2012

As you may know, Freedom House published the "Freedom in the World" report every year. The ratings of the countries are based on the aggregate scores data. Last year, Freedom House changed his website. In the old website, there was an excel spreadsheet in which there was the aggragate scores data for each country for the years 2003-2011. However, in the new website, I can't find the aggregate scores data of Freedom in the World 2012. I tried to search in the Freedom in the World 2012, but I didn't find anything. Can someone find that data? Here is the website of Freedom House: http://www.freedomhouse.org/ Here is the Freedom in the World 2012 page: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2012 87.68.29.73 (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Indicies of this nature frequently change, as new data or weightings are used. That generally will render year-by-year comparisons less accurate. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Polygamy two types

Doesn't polygamy come into two categories like having all 4 wives at the same time and having 4 wives at different times like 1st wife in 2 years and 2 years with 2nd wife and etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.51 (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've heard the later called serial monogamy. Also note that polygyny is a man having multiple wives at once, and polyandry is a woman having multiple husbands at once. StuRat (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is covered a bit in the article Polygamy in North America which notes a practice sometimes known as "serial bigamy", which is a bit of legal fiction whereby a man legally divorces his previous wife before marrying the next. Socially, the family still lives together as a polygamous family: one man, his several wives, and their children, for legal reasons he is only officially married to the last one, but functionally this works exactly as though he were married to all of his wives at the same time.--Jayron32 02:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a legal fiction - divorce is divorce, with the ordinary legal implications. There seems to be a double standard that it's illegal "polygamy" to do this if a man is a Mormon who has a legal wife and sleeps around on the side, but routine and permissible adultery if he's just the ordinary breed of dog. I think there are rather unrelated side-issues that feed into this - for example, the "single mothers" obtaining public assistance while living as part of a household, which annoys some people. Wnt (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be just benefits fraud?Anonymous.translator (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)