Talk:Droit du seigneur

Prima nocta

This article must explain the form "prima nocta". Is it correct? Where does it come from? Etc.

For instance, dictionary.com says "The phrase prima nocta, based on the Latin “first night,” is a shortened and corrupted [form of] jus primae noctis..."

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

These expressions have an unclear origin. Visibly, it was popularized by the film Braveheart, itself apparently inspired on the legend of the Mugnaia. According to what I understood, the most known variant of this right, until the the release of that film, was a very different and eviler variant, from a nineteenth century belief. (in that variant, any lord had the right to spent any night with the wife of any of his serfs and vassals, and, obviously, have sexual relation with).

About the term prima nocta, I think it worth to be mentioned in the Terminology section.

Nicolas.le-guen (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

George, if you want to add a mention of "prima nocta" go ahead. The dictionary definition you give clearly states that it is an incorrect variant. No other explanation is needed. Nicolas, there is abundant evidence given in the article of belief in this "right" long beyond Braveheart and long beyond the nineteenth century.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus?

Should we say there is a "consensus" that it is a myth, or that "others" say it is a myth? I don't think that the Snopes article is a good source to say "consensus".--Jack Upland (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I have adjusted this.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"Rape"

The view that a law is illegal – and a right granted by that law is a crime –, is a post hoc judgment of an alien culture from the background of our contemporary morality. As such, the term "rape" is not appropriate in a neutral account of a historical situation and I would vote to replace it with a less judgmental term, at least in the definition section in the beginning of the article. If necessary, a section in the body of the article could cite sources viewing the droit du seigneur as rape. In no case should the authors of the article express their own views of the subject. 2003:DF:972C:2971:F4DD:52D:44F5:274B (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have restored to what it was before it was recently changed. I think the problem is that if the law existed it would mean that the sexual intercourse wasn't rape.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

I do not think that Encyclopedia Britannica should be cited. 71.34.90.127 (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Why not?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Article description of Droit du seignor contains incorrect information that needs to be removed. Attempts to correct this were reverted, despite the banality of the error.

Article reads: "A majority of historians have concluded that the idea is a myth, and that all references to it are from later periods. Over the centuries, it became commonly portrayed in European literature as a practice that had occurred in earlier times or other places. In practice, it may have been the feudal lords using their power and influence over serfs to sexually exploit the women free of consequences, as opposed to a legitimate legal right."

There is no citation for this bizarre opinion and no reason to include it. This "majority of historians" is an invented number, the 'conclusion' and 'myth' are descriptions of a theory, not based in fact. This entire paragraph is harmful and misleading and has nothing to do with the rest of the subject and theme of the article. Jusprimaenoctis (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The expansion on this, along with the sourcing, appears further in the article body under the section Debate in the 19th and 20th centuries. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

For extra clarity, I made "A majority of historians have concluded that the idea is a myth" an internal link to that section. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

No accurate sources listed in the body of the article state that there is a consensus among historians. The paragraph is self contradicting because it states that "European Literature" is the source, which is where the "majority of historians" get their information from; as there is no other source for medieval history that could legitimize the hypothesis that Droit du seigneur is a myth.

Jusprimaenoctis (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Jusprimaenoctis, you have repeatedly marked your removal of this content as a "minor edit", which is defined as "one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Removing a whole paragraph is never a minor edit unless it's obvious vandalism. Marking it as minor twice after being reverted by others is blatantly wrong, since it is clearly under dispute. This does not reflect well on you, and may lead to sanctions.

This procedural violation is independent of whether your substantive claims are correct. --Macrakis (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Macrakis, thank you for pointing out the procedural violation. Rest assured I'll make no further attempts to remove incorrect information, as it just gets reverted back to the established misinformation. Jusprimaenoctis (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

If your goal is to improve Wikipedia, welcome! This article certainly could be improved (as can many articles). If you believe that there is no consensus among historians, then find some reasonably recent article in a respectable journal that says so. Start by improving the "Debate in the 19th and 20th centuries" section, which is currently a mess. Is there in fact an ongoing debate? Or is the matter more or less settled one way or the other? Of course historians work from older sources, but they also have methods for comparing and cross-checking and validating claims. Wikipedia starts from the modern scholarly literature, and doesn't try to work directly from primary sources. --Macrakis (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Jusprimaenoctis: We don't go by your personal opinion of which sources are "accurate" since we go by the views of professional historians. The body text gives an overview of scholarly opinion on the subject (both pro and con) and points out that after 19th century historians debunked the idea, subsequent support was usually based on anthropological studies of tribal societies with no possible relevance to medieval European practice, hence the idea has no evidence to back it up. The current text may not be written or organized very well but nonetheless it gives the gist of the subject. GBRV (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Smirking image of Voltaire

Can someone replace the image of Voltaire here with one where he's not smirking while appearing to look over at the neighboring text? It's jarring in an article on such a heinous topic. --Dan Harkless (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Done by User:Dan Harkless. --Macrakis (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Like I said in my last edit comment, there was no discussion, and all the stuff I noted above, I said in my edit comment when I made the actual change. My removing the section was equivalent to if I'd just made the edit in the first place, rather than suggesting it, then no one responding, then me doing it myself. Of course, I tend to edit pages on a lot of niche topics where no one has set up automatic archiving of the Talk page, and so leaving dead topics (especially those with no replies) in place is purely a waste of Talk page readers' time. This case is slightly better in that eventually, the pointless non-discussion will only waste the time of Talk page archive readers. --Dan Harkless (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Just realized I should correct myself – there was one comment, a purely unconstructive ad hominem attack against me by an IP user, which I deleted at the time. Presumably you're not going to demand I restore that for the official archive? It's in the page history, if anyone feels like they must read it. --Dan Harkless (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

He wasn't "smirking", and your reason for changing the image was one of the more bizarre reasons I have heard. Now the image you replaced it with is "smirking" directly at you—which is kind of an aggressive eye-contact kind of thing, wouldn't you say? And what's with the rouge on his cheeks?—(jk)... But as the image you replaced it with is no worse, I can't see any reason to undo it, either. I guess all I can say about all this, is please make sure each edit of yours improves the article in some way, and base your changes on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I don't see how this edit did either of those things, but as it didn't make the article any worse either, I see no reason to oppose it.

Oh, and contrary to your claim, the IP made no attack on you. However, it's not worth restoring it, either, as there was no intent in their edit to improve the article in any way, which could justify its removal, although I think most editors would simply have ignored it and moved on. Happy editing. Mathglot (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Although obviously it's a subjective subject, reading facial expressions doesn't seem to be your forte. Yes, comparing the two, the original was more of a smirk, and this one more of a mild grin. Finding it jarring to have a man's portrait appear to be making an appreciative smirk in a dark topic about misogyny is highly bizarre? Do you find empathy highly bizarre? No, I wouldn't say "eye contact" in a portrait is aggressive; it's the norm (see, e.g., the portrait of Hector Boece below it, also looking forward while mildly grinning). And you demand that I explain the painter's color choices? We have no color photos of Voltaire to reference, but I perceive no "rouge" on his cheeks in either painting (though, if anything, the original has more the appearance of that, along with face-powder, not that it's remotely relevant).

It appears I've been editing Wikipedia longer than you have, and I don't need you to preach at me about ensuring my edits improve articles; I assure you that that is always my aim. Your claim that the IP user didn't make a sarcastic ad hominem attack against me is plainly ludicrous. Perhaps you should stick to speaking math? And as for "most editors would simply have ignored it and moved on", I'd direct that to you regarding this already settled topic. What did you add, besides contrarian "Nuh-uh!"s and "Well, I could change it, but I have no reason to, so I won't"s? And as for your edit comment baiting about the Franz Hals article, no, I don't know who that is, and based on your comments, I have no interest. --Dan Harkless (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of two debate tags

Removed two questioning tags of a debating nature. The first was marked in wikispace as "clarify" which was understandable, but in the text appears as "Citation needed" next to a clear, scholarly citation. It can be debated here. The second was on "some historians" appearing as "[Who?}" in a sentence with two citations, both of which presumably answer the "Who?" tag.

Hope to return to the article to add the important reference in Mozart's "Marriage of Figaro" which informs the whole first half of the plot. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The first said clarification needed, not citation. See the version before you removed it. I think a good deal is unclear enough to deserve that tag.

As for the second, my hope was that someone with enough access to these or other sources to go beyond "presumably" would name some of these other historians, which I think is needed for balance. Going to restore and clarify what I'm hoping for. (Ooops. Was going to link here in the change message, but accidentally hit Enter.) The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)