Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 April 26

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 26

Adultery, Polygamy and Bigamy

What is the difference between adultery and polygamy? What is the difference between adultery and bigamy?

Tepint (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Check out Adultery, Polygamy and Bigamy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

But the simple answer is, "marriage". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"Bigamy is the state of having one spouse too many. Monogamy is the same." Often misattributed to Oscar Wilde but apparently it's an old saw that was in circulation before he was born. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Adultery is generally thought of as sexual relations between a person who is married and someone that person is not married to (e.g., “the other woman”). Polygamy is a marriage among more than two people, such as a husband and two wives. Parts of the Muslim world recognize polygamy, as did the Mormon Church at one point. Bigamy is the same as polygamy, except that it is illegal.DOR (HK) (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, more to the point, in English, "adultery" universally denotes a romantic relationship that is somehow illicit, such as "cheating" while in a monogamous marriage. "Polygamy" often connotes a relationship with more than two partners in a culture where that is accepted, though sometimes it's applied to circumstances where a subculture practices it even though it's illegal or disfavored by the broader society, such as with various Fundamentalist Mormon groups. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Purpose of an old, carved symbol

Hello. I've been puzzling over the origins of this carving in an old sandstone wall (in the UK, if it matters). Does anybody know what the significance of such a mark would be? It's been there ever since I can remember, so I'd estimate it to be at least 50 years old, but possibly quite a bit older. It's a fairly regular, deliberate shape - it must've meant something once. Thanks :) — sparklism ^hey! 17:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sparklism: it's an Ordnance Survey benchmark. DuncanHill (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: so it is! Many thanks for the swift response :) — sparklism ^hey! 18:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

See also Broad arrow. Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Monarchy

The following is supported by facts, correct?

"Monarchy is a form of government in which the head of state is a monarch. A monarch is the physical symbol and embodiment, a personification, of a state/nation. The monarchy, sometimes referred to as the Crown, is also a cultural (at times political) institution with the purpose of serving that function. The family of the monarch is the royal family and the members are known as royalty. Nobility is a social class of people whose families have received any form of special recognition and privileges from the monarchy though some republics today still legally recognize noble titles. Almost all cultures worldwide currently have or had their own indigenous monarchies in one form or another across human history since the dawn of civilization. Any state that does not have a monarch as the head of state is, by definition, a republic. Monarchy cannot be a dictatorship and dictatorship can only exist in a republic. Monarchy is a social construct just like other socio-cultural institutions and just like those, it along with the associated statuses of royalty and nobility only exist because people accept and agree that they exist."

There are two main reasons I am asking this:

First, here on Wikipedia, we have the wonderful Royalty & Nobility work group of the WikiProject Biography where a group of users actively improve and create articles of concepts relating to and individuals past and present belonging to the specific group of humans (for now anyway) known as royals and nobles. Though my account is only a day old, I have actually been using Wikipedia for more than a decade and this particular topic is one of those topics that I am quite heavily invested in personally. So, I myself have become part of the task force and will henceforth work towards the goal. The entire concepts of royalty and nobility rely on the concept and institution of monarchy and this begs the questions of "what exactly is a monarchy?" and "who is a monarch?". The information on the monarchy article itself is either unsourced or original research galore. In the talk page, there have been several discussions on the definition as expected. Before I could improve it and thus put the debate to rest for eternity both on and off Wikipedia, I want to make sure that the definition I have come up with above is not only supported by facts but also backed by by a reliable source so that it is not considered original research. Doing so will go a long way in strengthening not only the foundation of the WikiProject but also its current consensus on how to arbitrate who is royal/noble and who is not.

Second, I want to debunk the following misconceptions once and for all. Whenever a discussion about North Korea comes up such as the ongoing one regarding current events, someone is going to parrot the common argument that NOrTh kOReA iS a HeRediTary AbSoLute mOnArcHy and even though it is actually a totalitarian dictatorship in a communist republic that has never based its legitimacy on any family. Apparently, some people also think that monarchs are just dictators in fancy costumes or that if a monarchy is ceremonial, it is just a bizarre freak show with actors for life even though that kind of logic could be applied to other social conventions and procedures. Napoleon was a dictator only up until the moment he declared himself emperor. Julius Caesar was a dictator since Rome was still a republic while Augustus and all other Roman emperors during the Principate were instead royal monarchs because they were the princeps of Rome. Also, If anyone has the impudence to tag the talk pages of the articles of Kim Jong Un or any of his family members with "royalty-work-group", then I guarantee it would get reverted in an hour at most. On the other hand, Marie-Chantal, Crown Princess of Greece will always be part of the work group because she is widely recognized as a royal in sources. StellarHalo (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I quite understand your question about royalty, but your description of North Korea is incorrect. First off, Juche supplanted Communism decades ago (the current version of North Korea's constitution doesn't even mention Communism), and nowadays Songun seems to be rivaling Juche. Second, North Korea most definitely has based its legitimacy on the Kim family, beginning with the Ten Principles for the Establishment of a Monolithic Ideological System and lying about the birthplace of Kim Jong-Il, and proceeding with ever more baroque hyper-elaborations. If you want an example of a hereditary succession in a republic, the Assads of Syria might be an example. North Korea isn't a good example at all... AnonMoos (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I am just asking if you agree that my definition of monarchy as written above is based on facts or if there are any reliable source (preferably academic) that agrees with it since I wrote it specifically to exclude the possibility of including North Korea and other republics in the same club as Saudi Arabia or Russian Empire's Tsarist autocracy. StellarHalo (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A king by any other name is still a king. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"Monarchy cannot be a dictatorship" DO WHAT? How do you come to that conclusion? Being a dictator is about behavior. Being a monarch is about status. Someone with the status of a monarch can easily act in a dictatorial manner. --Khajidha (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The OP has been here for all of one day, and has managed to get himself on some sort of Royalty project. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

One day with an account, after editing as an IP for four years, as linked on his User page. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.161.127 (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

And acquiring membership of such projects generally just requires the editor to add their name to a list on the project page. --Khajidha (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hence, no knowledge of the subject is required. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I only join the project merely to reinforce an existing consensus the editors there have had for more than a decade and expand it to cover all articles since some editors outside the project seem to not be aware or deny that a consensus already exist. It is fortunate that reliable sources do not refer to any dictators as monarchs. Some monarchs in the past might have been mass murdering tyrants but they sure as hell are not dictators. StellarHalo (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Who says monarchs can't be dictators? Where are you getting that from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Deductive reasoning based on my observations that the term "dictator" has very rarely been used to refer to or characterize monarchs, past and present, who wielded any significant political power (meaning almost all of them) and that after the Roman Republic, the term "dictator" only started to appear again when monarchies started to get abolished and replaced with republics. Then there is also the fact that monarchs always base his/her position and prerogative on his right to rule and ownership of the state while dictators lack such legitimacy by being part of republics. My statement regarding this was purely semantics based on how the term is used (as opposed to autocrats) since that has implications on the controversial topic of historical memory. StellarHalo (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The Kim family is a dynasty ruling North Korea. Deductive reason tells me that's a monarchy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A dynasty, yes, so far. A monarchy, no. I haven't checked, but I'd be very surprised if NK's constitution, laws, or whatever passes for those things there, specify that the leader must be a member of the Kim family and descended from Kim Il-Sung. Those sorts of rules make a monarchy, not the simple fact that the first few leaders have come from the same genealogical line. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

According to List of leaders of North Korea, it's not even "officially" a dynasty, although it has worked out that way. And the way NK operates, it's hard to know if that dynasty will go on forever. The current British monarchy also started with just one guy. (Or maybe I should say one William.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

We are not in the business of debunking misconceptions. Wikipedia reports an aggregate of what experts in whatever field report. Even when the received wisdom in some field is obviously one huge misconception, we faithfully report it – but if there are enough counter voices, we report these as well. If you want to improve our definition, start by examining how political research scientists have defined the concept.  --Lambiam 05:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Those misconceptions are not from experts but from ordinary people talking about foreign countries and equating "political dynasty" with "monarchy". Hence why I said above that I want to make sure my definition of the concept is supported by reliable sources. StellarHalo (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think those claims are accurate, at least not in more than a general sense. The term monarchy originally meant a state with a single absolute ruler (as distinct from aristocracy/oligarchy: a state ruled by a small elite, and democracy/republic: a state ruled by the the people in general). The term has evolved since then, but in doing so has just become broader and less specific, so I don't think you can be as absolute as you are trying to be. Ditto for "dictator". Julius Caesar was a dictator because "dictator" was then a specific title and job in the Roman Republic which he held, but now has come to mean any ruler with excessive and abusive power. A more interesting subject would probably be to look at how perception of all these terms have changed over time, and how this has affected their use. E.g. after they overthrew their kings, the Romans came to despise the concept of monarchy in general, and the title Rex (king) in particular - so after Rome became a de-facto monarchy again under Augustus, the new monarchy used titles such as Imperator ("Commander") to imply they were just a soldier taking command in the public good under the rules of the Republic and definitely not setting themselves up as king of a new monarchy. The interesting thing (personal opinion) is that "king" (and equivalents) generally seem to be seen more positively (in stories, "kings" can be good or evil, but "dictators" are always evil), but actual dictators presumably think otherwise, and continue the Roman policy of not calling themselves kings or officially establishing a monarchy, but instead either using titles that suggest a continuation of the republican constitution ("President", etc), or in the case of fascists, an entirely new regime ("Führer", "Duce", "Caudillo", etc). Iapetus (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Minor correction; Il Duce was actually the prime minister within a constitutional monarchy and was finally removed from office by King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy (better late than never I suppose).

On the OP's original point, please read What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a battleground; "Wikipedia is not a place to... carry on ideological battles". Alansplodge (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I am well aware of those rules. However, a lot of veteran users here seem to not really care either as some politics-related articles such as Identity politics and Austerity are obviously biased against their respective subjects and then there is also the fact that most obviously ideological non-mainstream news sources are still acceptable as citations. In any case, we already have a consensus regarding who is considered royals using reliable news sources and I intend to enforce it as a universal standard. One or more administrator, most likely from India, might be triggered by what I am about to do and even run to Jimbo to whine but surely they cannot stop me once I show them that a consensus already exists. StellarHalo (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

What Wikiproject considers within its scope is largely up to the Wikiproject. If an active members feels a subject is within scope and is planning to work on it and adds it to the Wikiproject, this is generally allowed to stand. If there really is dispute, this can be resolved via discussion among active members of the Wikiproject but often these disputes tend to be a bit lame. If an active participant feels that the article is within scope and plans to work on it partly for that reason, WTF does it concern other members, especially a single other member who only joined a day ago (however long they've been IP editing)? Likewise, in any discussion about scope, any editor who just screams about existing consensus or definitions but doesn't discuss whether the article is sufficiently relevant to the Wikiproject isn't likely to get very far. An article may be sufficiently relevant to be within scope, even if it isn't generally considered a whatever.

Our articles like Kim dynasty (North Korea) already discuss the view that the Kim dynasty is a monarchy apparently supported by reliable secondary sources. (Rather than just "ordinary people".) As this view does not seem to be the predominant view, it isn't mention in monarchy to give an example. I see no evidence that anyone is really trying to change the status quo, unless you are.

Any attempts to point to an existing consensus would likely entail pointing to a discussion on a talk page or noticeboard. Pointing to the RD to establish consensus doesn't generally work well.

BTW, if you're going to start singling out editors based on where they come from, you're likely to be blocked.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not singling out editors. I am just guessing where the most amount of resistance to my efforts would come from based on past events relating to multiple articles on non-reigning royals and pretenders of the Indian/Pakistani princely states. I will make sure that any editors and/or admins opposed to our works become aware of the consensus regardless of where they may come from. StellarHalo (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, socialism doesn't hold kings in a high regard. If Kim decided to call himself king, how would that square with the liberation of the proletariat? As for right-wing, Hitler & co. either also saw themselves as socialists, or wished to preserve at least the thinnest veneer of representative democracy like the Duvaliers. I'd also challenge how much of that royalty positivity is just grass being greener on the other side. Sure we all find the Queen of England nice and quaint, but imagining one of my country's political figures proclaiming himself our monarch (or worse, some lispy foreigner with probable far-right leanings) makes my stomach turn. 93.136.46.218 (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• The big problem with this is that the terminology is not applied consistently. A monarchy is usually taken to mean "A country where someone who becomes the head of state via inheritance laws from a family member" and a republic is usually taken to mean "A country where someone who becomes the head of state through some other means, like an election system of some sort". But then you get things like monarchies that are elective, like the Vatican City or the historic Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or republics that are clearly hereditary, such as North Korea or the historic Dutch Republic, where the stadtholder was basically the heritable office of the House of Orange; the Congress of Vienna just renamed the office to King of the Netherlands which is what it really was for most of its history. So yes, there are examples where Kings are elected and republican heads-of-state inherit their office. Language and politics are both messy, and sometimes defy all attempts to easily categorize them. --Jayron32 16:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)