Talk:Fornication/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Adultery versus Fornication

Bladesmulti - I have reverted your edit. Why should off topic adultery or re-marriage after divorce be mentioned in this article on fornication? WeyburnFarm (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Adultery and fornication have been described and written in equation. We did same with the section of Islam, Southern Baptist convention, Roman Catholicism, and more. It is necessary to add that there's a strong belief among Hindu people that one cannot have any sexual relation with more than 1 men or women in their whole life. It is relevant.

On other sections, you can read the situations of religious societies, that how did they changed, what was the time when they reformed. There's a lot of content if you are going to clean up with a mop. But it is all related with fornication. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: Divorce and re-marriage is way off topic to fornication, please see WP:Coatrack. Just because something has lingered for a year is no reason to keep it. I have removed your addition to Buddhism section as it reads like an opinion; include it if you have a reliable scholarly source. WeyburnFarm (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand why you keep removing the following: "However, in Hinduism, sexual matters are not part of religious or moral law, but left to the judgment of the those involved. Sexual behavior of Hindus are also governed by the prevalent practices of the society"? Is Cynthia Graham source of concern to you? WeyburnFarm (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Coatrack is not a guideline but just an essay. I am doubtful how it is unrelated with fornication, because we are talking about sex without marriage, here the topic is wider, it is about sex and "marriage-s". You cannot remove constructive paragraphs just because you don't see any source. It was copyright violation? It was violating biography of a living person? It was an attack paragraph? If not, then your removal of paragraph cannot be justified. [1] pretty much confirms. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: This is an article on Fornication, not the wider topic of "sex and marriage-s" as you allege. Divorce and the ability to remarry is not relevant to this article. Additionally, texts of Hinduism suggest its position on re-marriage is far more complex than what is summarized in this article.

Read WP:V, WP:OR and WP:Synthesis, one can remove text that is not properly sourced, original research or synthesis - which is what you had done in the Buddhism section.

Policy in WP:V: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

Since you have not expressed any concerns with the Cynthia Graham source, as I asked above, I am re-adding a part from her book for neutral point of view. I am also adding tags. Please do not edit war while we are discussing on this talk page. WeyburnFarm (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis don't apply here because no source was provided, if source has been misrepresented for making unwanted point, then it will apply. Same we can say about original research and you need heavier content than just 2 lines. Verify is not applying here because you have not presented anything contrary.

What happens among Hindus that they "generally governed" by society is relevant to you? But their own view about Saat Phere and marriage rules isn't? Sexual conduct of Hindus is not observed by the society according to source, but the type of sexuality whether they should be allowed or they don't in the society. If some community don't want Hijras to be a part of their society, they have to leave. This is what the source says.

You are misrepresenting the line "Not part of religious of moral law", it was more about the "Sexual matters" that are related with the sexual dysfunctional and anxieties, nothing to do about fornication which is clearly condemned religious texts. You have probably never heard of Rigveda or Manusmriti. If it is not the part of moral law or religious law then why it condemns?

My content about Buddhism was actually related to the modern one, but for real, you would be surprised to hear that Buddhism considers fornication as the "sexual misconduct" and "unpardonable offense".[2] And again, buddhism considers fornication as one of the worst crime along with false statements, thieving, murdering.[3] Bladesmulti (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:V applies to all wiki articles and any content. You allege, "Verify is not applying here because you have not presented anything contrary"; which wiki policy states that and where? I have no interest in a forum like discussion with you, see WP:TPNO.

The original research issue applied to your older addition to Buddhism section. You had added, without any source, "Doctrine of Buddhism has no ruling that is against or favorable to fornication." The new source you mention above, by William Theodore De Bary, states something different on page 236, item 3. Similarly, the Marra and Marra reference, in Chinese Heian period context, states fornication as one of four major offenses. In other words, your original addition without source misrepresented the views of Buddhism.

I am adding quotes in the cite, to address your concern about Cynthia Graham source. The sections on Hinduism and Buddhism do need more content summarized from scholarly sources, but no WP:Soap, nor personal opinions. WeyburnFarm (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Verify says "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." My view about Buddhism wasn't actually misrepresentation if you ever looked around about it.[4] It is common thought about Buddhism. Rather writing as condemned or favorable, just blanked that part. Sources such as [5][6] , [7] can be used, and this book can be helpful for whole article. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: You deleted my latest contribution aimed at presenting a neutral point of view summary about Hindu texts on fornication and adultery. Your edit summary was "not accurate and not particular" (here). Your edit summary is unclear and your deletion of sourced content feels like WP:TE. Please explain your revert of the Richard W. Lariviere summary about Nāradasmṛti (cited source was ISBN 978-812-0818-040, page=391). The reworded summary looks accurate and relevant. Lariviere is also a respected scholar and former president of a university in United States. WeyburnFarm (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"According to xxx translation", is just not the right way to attribute on a subsection. Rather not to have if you are not going to agree with the translation. But so far, there is not even a single line in Hindu scriptures that would favor any kind of fornication or adultery, according to any writer. Richard Wilfred Lariviere seems to be telling about just man and woman, if woman has intercourse by her own will it wouldn't be considered as adultery, although the experts would. Below he writes that this sort of "adultery" includes wider meaning than the usual meaning of adultery. Seemed inaccurate, the way you had presented. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Your claim of "any writer and even a single line..." is absurd - please do not pretend you have read everything ever written in or about Hinduism. Once again, I have no interest in a forum like discussion with you on this talk page, see WP:TPNO. I welcome you to reword summaries, or better still you are welcome to inline tag for clarification needed or verification failed or one of many tags wikipedia provides. But do not remove text that has a scholarly source provided, or pick a side you like, or remove a scholarly translation you personally disagree with - because, you should not do original research here. Wikipedia should summarize sources and all significant sides, without taking sides, see WP:NPOV.

Policy: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.

You have misunderstood Lariviere. Read his whole chapter 12, starting from page 379 - also read the commentary below each translation of Nāradasmṛti verse. The chapter is discussing the few exceptions when consensual sex outside marriage (adultery) is proper. Manusmriti too discusses consensual sex outside marriage in certain rare cases (Niyoga), calling it allowable in certain verses, and discouraged/forbidden in others. I was planning to add all this, citing scholarly secondary and tertiary sources. But your disruptive and WP:TE behavior is making that difficult. WeyburnFarm (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

So there will be neutrality if we anyhow put up that Hinduism 'may', 'can' allow fornication. But that will be completely misrepresentation. What I tell you to do is, that you can leave how it was/is, and only stick to something that can be backed with many sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing I have added so far that is a 'may' or 'can'. It is you who argued for your "unsourced" content above, and you have been deleting sourced content. Now that you and I agree to "stick to something that can be backed with many sources", I will proceed to edit. I request that you stop your WP:TE and disruptive behavior. WeyburnFarm (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is never helpful, as long as you have to change same statement 100 times. I still don't see how fornication or adultery are allowed by anyone in Hinduism, because you have to write "some scholars", but where is the scholar who seemed to have rejected the whole? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Read:- [8], [9], [10] Now what is left? If you want to add quotes, you have to attribute the way they are. The last quote should be attributed as "In verses 13.71-72, Nāradasmṛti states that a man should marry with the woman, with whom he had intercourse:". But that would mean, that Hinduism still don't allow fornication but just a way for getting over the fornication, what a person should do after he or she has committed fornication. Something you are not doing. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The quote is an exact copy of Julius Jolly translation of verse 13.72. "But that would mean...." is original research. Summarize, don't start deductions and creating new conclusions such as "Hinduism still don't allow..." using your original research. See WP:OR or feel free to take this to appropriate dispute/administrative noticeboard for second opinion.

There is a diversity of significant views, and a depth of discussion on fornication/adultery in various ancient texts of India - these need to be summarized as best as possible in a neutral and balanced manner, with scholarly sources cited.

Kamasutra's discussion on morality/immorality of sex between unmarried people should also be included here, as it is significant, published and distinct. If you want to take the lead in summarizing it with sources, please go ahead. WeyburnFarm (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Crime is only punishable, I don't see that Niyoga is punishable among Hindus. So none of the Niyoga can be considered as crime. It is not original research to use original opinion on talk pages. "Some scholars" is just nonsensical because none of the scholars says that Hinduism allows it, if they do, then only you can claim "some scholars". Read [11]. You are trying to treat Niyog as scapegoat for fornication, but it is not. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

NaradaSmriti has punishments for adultery.[12] Bladesmulti (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Kamasutra is about 'sex', not any rulings about fornication or adultery. Are we going to add about Indian cinemas depicting sexual behavior? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: This article is about fornication, not "rulings about fornication". Fornication by definition is sex between unmarried people - and a mention of scholarly source derived discussion of fornication in kamasutra is relevant and notable for this article. Please do not WP:TE and remove content supported by multiple reliable sources.

Do not re-insert already challenged and unsourced text on saat-pheere etc you prefer, per discussion above. Please provide a reliable source if you insist on including it. Please respect wikipedia policies. WeyburnFarm (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't agreed about removing Saat phere's reference. Other source says that Hindus believe in spending life with one partner. You want to rephrase then? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You never provided any published source for 'saat phere' as required by WP:V. Don't add it, or rephrase it, without a WP:RS cite. Follow what you agreed above, when you wrote: (let us) stick to something that can be backed with many sources. WeyburnFarm (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not wise. You have to summarize the quotes. What was wrong with the detailing of the 2nd quote? If a person has committed fornication, he should marry with the women. What's so difficult? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Quotes are a good way to avoid copyright violation issue, and when the quote is a good summary by itself. In your "detailing", you skipped "unmarried" part. That is key to balance and present an NPOV summary of the diversity of views in Hinduism on premarital sex. WeyburnFarm (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

but does not consider it an offense should be something else. Because the quote below is not promoting fornication, it is more about the repentance.

Quotes are to be summarized, unless they have been directly drawn from scriptures and you don't really have any option. You have to add the most basic attribution.

Kamasutra is irrelevant here. Talking about the importance of sex has nothing to do with the fornication. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The quote reads, it is no offense. How can you miss that? Why infer "promoting" or "repentance" or other original research for WP:Advocacy? Why not just limit to what the source actually says? On use of quotes, read and respect WP:QUOTE. Kamasutra is relevant, because numerous scholarly sources discuss it in the context of sex between unmarried people (fornication, adultery) in ancient India. WeyburnFarm (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It will require higher amount of verification. One source wouldn't be enough. Can you? Bladesmulti (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There are already multiple sources in kama sutra summary. I will add a few more, but there is no need for WP:Overcite. WeyburnFarm (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Where we have established that Hinduism does not consider fornication as offense. I am calling Dharmadhyaksha for now. You are still confusing Niyog with adultery or fornication.[13] NaradaSmriti has punishments for adultery. [14] Also the whole Kamasutra is not to be added, because it is not about adultery or fornication,[15] seemed more relevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: - Read WP:V.

Policy: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

See my comment above from October 4 2014 on the "saat phere" sentence you keep adding to this article without source. It was cite pending and I have contested it on this talk page. I have deleted it again. Do not add it or other contested statements without reliable source. Please respect community agreed policies and guidelines. Stop your tendentious editing. WeyburnFarm (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There is some serious WP:Sockpuppeting and/or WP:Meatpuppeting going on at this article

This article was relatively stable, with edits made to it every other week or month, or even more sparingly than that. Then, beginning on September 26, 2014‎ onward, a flood of "new editors" have been editing this article, whether IP editors or registered accounts. Floods like that don't happen unless it's a WP:Class assignment matter, a matter that received attention in the news, a matter that has been publicized on Wikipedia (such as at WP:ANI or at a WP:Featured article review), or a WP:Sockpuppet/WP:Meatpuppet matter. Having analyzed this situation regarding the Fornication article, and being good at spotting WP:Sockpuppets, I believe that this is a WP:Sockpuppet and/or WP:Meatpuppet matter. To what end? It seems to be to skew, and/or have one's way with, some religious aspects in the article. Anyway, I started this section just so that those who are clueless about this are aware of it. And, yes, signing out and editing as an IP can be a WP:Sockpuppet matter; see the Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts section for how that can apply. Flyer22 (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 What are the reasons behind? Look at the above discussion, can you believe it was made by a very new user who has not edited outside this article and talk(page)? No one will. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I have this article/talk page WP:Watchlisted, there is no need to ping me to this talk page via WP:Echo. And, yes, I've seen your discussion with that editor in the #Adultery versus Fornication section above. That editor, who is familiar with Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays, is not new to editing Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)