User talk:Andrewa/Archive 21

Separate section
If it is ok with you, I will make this into separate section. The proposal of a new article isn't the same thing as a move request. Lets have some compassion for the closer and reduce the amount of stuff they have to read through in order to close that discussion. Thanks VR talk 04:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not see the point in that. I do not see that it makes it any easier for the closer... it is clearly not part of the poll. But when this discussion is eventually archived, it would be good for this section, which is part of that discussion, to be archived with it. Andrewa (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently there are 22 comments, of which 13 are about a content dispute that took place on wikipedia article Concubinage a few weeks ago (in which Grufo was blocked). Like the discussion isn't even talking about the concept of concubinage, the discussion is talking about editing patterns on another article. I don't think that's relevant to the RM.VR talk 13:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this comment of yours, but maybe I misinterpreted it. Are you supporting the RM when you say "it may be better to move and rescope an existing article rather than to start a new one"? VR talk 13:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I oppose the RM, as per my !vote. The move I suggested would be to the title Concubinage (Islam) or similar. And probably not of the article that is the subject of the current RM. But that topic deserves an article, and there is ample material for it. But the search for an NPOV natural disambiguator for it appears to have been a complete failure. Andrewa (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you disagree that the article currently the subject of the RM should be moved to Concubinage (Islam)? I've looked at the sources used in the article myself and found that they are talking about "concubinage", not "sexual slavery". I compiled some of these results into this table. Please take a look at the table.VR talk 01:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have indeed looked at it, and it makes a good point. But It does not show that sexual slavery and concubinage are synonyms, and they do not appear to be. They deserve separate articles, in my opinion. Sexual slavery is likely to have far more traffic than concubinage owing to the interest in the allegations that it is continuing. But few people would even know, or probably care, that some or all of those who practice it call it concubinage. The articles should link one to the other, of course. Andrewa (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see from your user page that you're a logician, so let me try my hand at making an argument :-)
 * Premise 1: Sexual slavery and concubinage are not the same thing.
 * Premise 2: the sources used at article sexual slavery in Islam are about concubinage (evidence).
 * Conclusion: sexual slavery in Islam is about concubinage, not sexual slavery.
 * Hope I didn't bomb that.VR talk 12:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I think you did bomb that, but it's a very good contribution because it draws attention to exactly what the fallacy is. In premise 1 the term concubinage refers to a wide range of practices. In premise 2 it refers to a specific practice. Thus there is no middle term, and the syllogism has no valid conclusion.
 * This error in a less explicit form permeates much of the discussion. Andrewa (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right about my error (sorry about that), but it doesn't change the conclusion. The term concubinage in premise 2 is still not the same thing as sexual slavery. Hence we can rewrite premise 1 with the same concubinage used in premise 2 and premise 1 would still remain true. Do you agree? VR talk 18:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Separate section of a discussion about a separate section
If I may… Conclusion: Specialized sources that deal only with Islam may use “concubinage” as a synonym of “sexual slavery” when they talk about Islam, as the context forces the specialized reader towards that. Non specialized sources (e.g. Wikipedia), where the two do not represent synonyms, cannot do the same. --Grufo (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC) This comment was an answer to this comment. However I moved it here as by Vice regent.
 * Premise 1: Sexual slavery and concubinage are not the same thing.
 * Premise 2: Concubinage may be practiced with a sex slave, although that constitutes a particular case.
 * Premise 3: Islam constitutes the only exception to Premise 2, in which concubinage can be practiced only with a slave
 * Firstly, thanks for the requested re-format. Now for the response: your conclusion is contradicted by premise 1. Either "sexual slavery" and "concubinage" are synonyms or they are not. Make up your mind. FWIW, I think they are not synonyms and not the same thing.VR talk 13:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, they can become synonyms in a particular context. We can make an abstract example if you wish. Imagine an imaginary society (let's call it Viceregentonia) where slavery is employed for various tasks and where the law mandates that cleaning the streets is allowed only to slaves. You can have specialized books that talk about “garbage collectors” in Viceregentonia; however non-specialized books will probably not call them garbage collectors, but slaves, street slaves, slave-sweepers, etc. --Grufo (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's add a critical assumption: while all garbage collectors in Viceregentonia are slaves, not all slaves are "garbage collectors". In Viceregentonia some slaves are cab drivers, chefs, and CEOs. With that in mind we can see that most sources, especially the non-specialist ones, will not consider "garbage collector" and "slave" as synonyms. If one wanted to write an article on "garbage-collectors" in Viceregentonia, one would call it Garbage collectors in Viceregentonia. VR talk 16:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Signature copied due to comment splitting. --Grufo (talk)
 * No, the non-specialized sources will not consider “garbage collector” and “slave” as synonyms, but will consider “garbage collector” and “street slaves” as synonyms (or whatever other modifier of “slave” you want to choose), and will prefer to use “street slaves”, because with Viceregentonia we are not talking about just any garbage collectors. Similarly, we don't consider in Islam “concubine” and “slave” as synonyms, but we consider “concubine” and “sex slave” / “slave for sex” / etc. as synonyms. --Grufo (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is one of the two issues we have. The definition of sexual slavery is broad and includes child marriage, forced marriage, sex trafficking, child abuse, bacha bazi, forced prostitution, child pornography etc. VR talk 16:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That applies to every type of slavery: the broad definition is always broader than the specific society you apply the definition to. For example, after Nero Roman slaves had the right to complain against their masters in a court – and more broadly, slavery in ancient Rome acquired more and more rights during the evolution of the Empire. Should we stop calling them slaves because of that? Similarly, Islamic sexual slavery had its own specificities. --Grufo (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One of your above comments is incorrect. To show you how, let me ask you a simple question. In the Islamic context, would you agree with the following statement: "all concubines were sex slaves, but not all sex slaves were concubines?" If you disagree, please explain. If you agree, we'll move further.VR talk 18:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to jump in here. I agree with that statement, but I also think it is POV. Some regard concubinage in this context as no more abusive than other marriage or marriage-like customs, while most would regard any form of slavery as abhorrent. So while in a sense the semantic content is OK, there is also an emotive appeal that needs to be considered. And I think this is a key issue here. We all have agendas and need to avoid expressing them in Wikipedia's voice. Andrewa (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that saying "all concubines were sex slaves" is POV and, AFAIK, unsupported by RS. My point is that even if we agree with Grufo that all concubines in the Islamic context are sex slaves, there's no way he can show that "all sex slaves were concubines". Hence, in all contexts (including the Islamic one) sexual slavery and concubinage are not the same thing.VR talk 21:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Concerning your question would you agree with the following statement: "all concubines were sex slaves, but not all sex slaves were concubines?", the answer is not as easy, and there cannot be a clear answer. While we have a clear definition of sexual slavery, we do not have a clear definition of concubinage. Forgetting Islam for one second, concubinage might simply mean any kind of sexual intercourse outside marriage that occur more than once between two persons, or even just once. And going back to Islam, it really depends on the epoch and the region. Any female slave could be employed as concubine. And while some contexts might have had a more formal category of slaves used only for sex (the Ottoman concubines for example), in other contexts the border is less clear. So I cannot agree with “all concubines were sex slaves, but not all sex slaves were concubines”: depending on how you look at it, it might well be that all sex slaves were concubines. Or not. --Grufo (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "all sex slaves were concubines" is a false statement. For example, child marriage is an example of sexual slavery. Yet concubinage, by all definitions, excludes marriage. Is there any logical reason you have for disagreeing? VR talk 20:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am so glad we are in the talk page of a logician… Will you explain the fallacy or shall I? (That aside, I did not find anything in support of the sentence “child marriage is an example of sexual slavery”). --Grufo (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Source that child marriage is a type of sexual slavery:.
 * There are other ways of showing your statement is false too. For example, in medieval Islamic law, a concubine was always a female, never male. In fact, in most cultures concubines are always only women, as can be seen at concubinage. Yet 'sexual slave' can be either male or female. Hence in this context it is false to say "all sex slaves are concubines".VR talk 00:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a key issue. The solution as I see it is that we need an article on sexual slavery in Islam by whatever name. The scope of this article would include all of the practices you mention but they would be mentioned if and only if we have sources that discuss them. Some use of primary sources is OK here, but secondary sources are preferred. It would certainly include concubinage, but in the interests of undue weight would have a main link to an article on concubinage in Islam, again by whatever name. It would also include the sexual abuse (that's my disclosed POV) and trafficking of girls and women by ISIL and other Islamic organisations, again if and only if we have suitable sources. Andrewa (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Before I respond to your suggestion of having an article on "sexual slavery in Islam", I want to clarify what that would look like. Would it include all of the following practices which fall under the generic definition of sexual slavery: sex with female slaves, sex with male slaves, child marriage, forced marriage, sex trafficking, child abuse, bacha bazi, forced prostitution, child pornography? There is evidence that each of these practices has occurred, at one point or another, in a Muslim-majority country. VR talk 18:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We rarely plan in advance everything that an article can possibly include, especially when no editor proposes to write it. If and when someone will add a specific content to the page we will be able to decide whether it is out of scope or not. --Grufo (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that scope indicated by the title is very different from the scope indicated by the content. And in those cases we normally change the title to meet the content (as opposed to changing the content to meet the title).VR talk 20:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When an article's title doesn't match its content, we can change either or both. I don't think we have a policy or practice that one is better than the other. Andrewa (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, but there has not been, to date, any concrete proposal or attempt to change the scope of the article to "sexual slavery in Islam". Nor have there ever been any sources presented to substantiate such a topic. I asked for sources to be presented on broader topic of "sexual slavery in Islam", but none were presented. As mentioned many times before all the sources thus far presented have been on "concubinage", which is at best a subtopic of sexual slavery. If an article is about a subtopic, it should be named accordingly.VR talk 21:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that scope indicated by the title is very different from the scope indicated by the content: Not everyone agrees with this sentence, which is why I asked everyone: If you think “Sexual slavery in Islam” does not match the current content, what would your scope for a “Sexual slavery in Islam” article be? (see ). You are still in time to explain how you would write an article on “Sexual slavery in Islam” (I do not know your opinions about this). At the moment I can only duly note that your ideal “Sexual slavery in Islam” article would have a different scope, but I do not know what that scope is. --Grufo (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll play along: scope of “Sexual slavery in Islam” would include all the evil Muslims who rape men, women, children and slaves, who partake in child pornography, partake in sex trafficking, force adults and children into marriage, etc. Now what? Can you find sources that suggest such a topic exists in RS? Probably not.VR talk 00:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that you don't want to explain what the scope of Sexual slavery in Islam should be according to you. I believe nobody can help you then. --Grufo (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought I just did, but why don't you explain what the scope of Sexual slavery in Islam should be according to you? You're the one who wants such an article, not me.VR talk 01:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you ask me to I will take your answer about “evil Muslims” seriously. You want the article too, you even created a WP:POVFORK of it; you only don't like its name. --Grufo (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask Andrewa below about scope of such an article. If you have any further stuff to add, pls add it here instead.VR talk 02:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel you're making the same logical error I did earlier - you're defining "sexual slavery in Islam" in two different ways. The source describes it as "sexual slavery in which young women were made concubines." Under that definition "sexual slavery in Islam" is nothing more than "concubinage in Islam" and would not merit an independent article. But the general definition of sexual slavery is significantly different from concubinage. It is different because it includes sexual enslavement of men, child porn, forced marriage etc.
 * Andrewa: should there be an article on "sexual slavery in Islam" separate from "concubinage in the Muslim world"? If so, what should its scope be? Are there even sources that treat this as a coherent topic? Because I have only found sources on concubinage in the Muslim world, but none on "sexual slavery" in the Muslim world.VR talk 02:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have found many, and it was not difficult. So I suspect that the difference is in the criteria we are using. For example, this page deals with both sexual slavery and concubinage. Does it count as a source that documents sexual slavery in Islam? If not, why not? Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The source only documents a particular very particular type of sexual slavery (making female slaves into concubines) but not other types of sexual slavery. The general definition of sexual slavery is gender agnostic so would also include the sexual exploitation of male slaves - but the source doesn't cover that. Sexual slavery also includes forced marriage, child marriage, child pornography etc (which need not even involve formal slavery), again the source doesn't cover that. And all of these things have happened in all countries, including Muslim ones.
 * So basically this reinforces what I've been saying all along. In the Islamic context, one might consider concubinage to be a subset of sexual slavery (although sometimes concubines were 'free' women, not slaves). All the sources I've come across only focus on this narrow phenomenon. This is why Sexual slavery in Islam also remains focused on the narrow phenomenon of making female slaves into concubines - nothing at all in that article about sex with male slaves, child marriage, bacha bazi etc. And all of these practices do happen in the Muslim world.
 * If A is a set that includes [B,C,D] and an article is about "B", then we should name the article "B", not "A" (per WP:Precision).VR talk 02:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You claimed above that you had only found sources on concubinage in the Muslim world, but none on "sexual slavery" in the Muslim world. But they are easy to find. I have given one.
 * You now seem to be saying that because this article does not deal with all practices that might be called sexual slavery, we should ignore what it does say.
 * Or perhaps because it deals with concubinage, it can't be a reference on sexual slavery. Is that perhaps the logic here?
 * You say one might consider concubinage to be a subset of sexual slavery (although sometimes concubines were 'free' women, not slaves)... In other words, one would be wrong to consider concubinage to be a subset of sexual slavery, is that what you are saying? If so, what is the point of what one might consider? It seems to just muddy the waters.
 * I'm afraid that I think that the source I gave is relevant, and it was easy to find. And nothing you have said seems to contradict this. Yet you wish to reject it. It seems pointless to give others unless you can present a coherent reason for rejecting this one. Instead you wish to rehash your opinions as to what this lack of sources indicates. But there is no lack of sources.
 * So perhaps the reason that you are not finding sources is simply that you do not wish to do so? I'm sorry if that is harsh. Andrewa (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

So if you want to demonstrate "sexual slavery in Islam" is notable as an independent topic you'd need to find a source that defines it in such a way that would merit an independent article. It would also need to provide depth of coverage consistent with WP:GNG (which the source you gave does not). Finally, no worries about harshness, my main objective here is to clear logical errors. Though we might have different views, but logic is something we can both agree upon.VR talk 04:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, logically perhaps we should stick to a question rather than repeatedly leaving one hanging and shifting to a different one? This is a source that discusses sexual slavery. You want to exclude it, fair enough. But your claim that such sources do not exist is just plain false. How is that for logic? Can we agree on that, and move on to the other questions that you raise?
 * I am not defining anything. But you and others are attempting to do so in terms that express a POV that diminishes the responsibility of Islam for sexual slavery by calling it concubinage, a term that has a significantly different meaning in English rather than its more restricted meaning as a translation of an Arabic term. This may not be your motive, we all have agendas and they can be tricky.
 * This Arabic term describes something which is worthy of an article. I have suggested Concubinage (Islam) as the title for such an article. Have you a better one, or reasons for not wanting us to have such an article? Your set theory above does not provide one. If it did, we would have no need for a main template.
 * It does not appear to cover all of sexual slavery in Islam. (It certainly does not cover all of sexual slavery, I think we have agreed on that.) It may cover all of the current practice, or not. But both of these questions are a matter of sources, not our personal opinions or definitions. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Viceregentonia
Below is a response to this comment by Vice regent. VR talk 05:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am becoming addicted to your fallacies. Please, keep going. I will quote part of your comment verbatim but applying the following substitutions:
 * Islam → Viceregentonia
 * Sexual slavery → Sweepery slavery
 * Concubines → Garbage collectors
 * Young women → Young humans
 * If logic is what you invoke, your comment should still make sense with these substitutions, and I will have to ask you now whether you will open a year-long move request to rename the existing “Sweepery slavery in Viceregentonia” Wikipedia article to “Garbage collectors in Viceregentonia”. Here comes your comment, updated:
 * "The source describes it as “Another category of slavery was sweepery slavery in which young humans were made garbage collectors”. Under that definition "Sweepery slavery in Viceregentonia" is nothing more than "Garbage collectors in Viceregentonia" and would not merit an independent article."

- Pseudo Vice Regent


 * Ready to replace our “Pseudo Vice Regent” with the real Vice regent?
 * This other part of your comment is also fantastic: But the general definition of sexual slavery is significantly different from concubinage. It is different because it includes sexual enslavement of men, child porn, forced marriage etc.. According to your logic I could easily argue that “contubernium” was not sexual slavery because it did not include “child porn”. Even ISIS' sexual slavery would not be sexual slavery because of the same reason. --Grufo (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I never implied contubernium wasn't sexual slavery, I implied contubernium and sexual slavery aren't the exact same thing because sexual slavery is much broader. Do you disagree? VR talk 05:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course a concrete form of sexual slavery is not the same thing as the definition of sexual slavery, more or less like a pine is a tree, but tree and pine are not the same thing. And you should stop defining sexual slavery on the basis of what it can include, because the definition is really much broader. This one given by Mark Klamberg is a good one:
 * "Sexual slavery is a particular form of enslavement which includes limitations on one's autonomy, freedom of movement and power to decide matters relating to one's sexual activity."


 * It means that sexual slavery includes a lot of things.
 * Now, your argument between the lines of intentional fallacies that you throw and then abandon is more or less like the following (correct me if I am wrong): if what we are talking about is both a particular form of sexual slavery and a particular form of concubinage, why should we prefer the name “sexual slavery”? The reasons are many:
 * The meanings carried by “concubinage” and “sexual slavery” for an average reader go in favor of “sexual slavery”
 * Sexual slavery can include other non-concubinage phenomena that are still justified within religion (e.g. bacha bazi), while the other non-slavery forms of concubinage are forbidden in our context
 * The exception qualifier wins. For example, imagine to have two particular groups of trees in Minnesota. The first group are normal green pine trees while the second group are weird purple pine trees. You can use “Pines in Minnesota” for the first group, but you ought to use “Purple trees in Minnesota” for the second group, as it is very unusual for trees (pines or not) to be purple. Being the only case in history in which all concubines were slaves makes Islam the purple group.
 * “Sexual slavery” does not require context as per Natural disambiguation (WP:NCDAB)
 * Many other arguments outlined during the discussion at Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam
 * Any other fallacy to throw? --Grufo (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Grufo you've said many times that "Being the only case in history in which all concubines were slaves", but never bothered to provide a source for this. In fact, I even pointed out that concubinage in the Muslim world was sometimes practiced with free women (source).VR talk 15:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You pointing out is not a source, and you should read the sources that according to you would pave the way to free women enslaved only as a formality for having a fifth wife. In the review that Kecia Ali made of Concubines and Courtesans the only mention of a “kinda” non-slave concubinage is emphasized as an exception unique to the Timurid dynasty, and formally they were still slaves:
 * "Usman Hamid’s account of the freeborn Muslim women incorporated into Timurid royal households as concubines—contrary to standard interpretations of Islamic law— was a way of circumventing the restriction on the number of legal wives a man could take while accruing the benefits of marriage alliances (“Slaves Only in Name: Free Women as Royal Concubines in Late Timurid Iran and Central Asia”). As Hain concludes, “Reproductive politics favored slave concubines”."


 * Even Circassians, who were Muslim, were enslaved to be used as concubines, despite this broke the rule that Muslims could never be enslaved. It means that the necessity of being a slave for being a “concubine” (i.e., a “slave-girl” in Arabic) was felt stronger than the necessity of being a non-Muslim for being enslaved. --Grufo (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Both the source I provided and the one you provided points to the existence of "free" concubines in the Muslim world:
 * "Timurid sources from the later period list numerous women as royal concubines who were not slaves." (Gordon, page 190)
 * "The inclusion of free women among the ranks of royal concubines, despite the ready availability of female slaves, suggests that Timurid practices of concubinage..." (Gordon, page 192)
 * "Babur’s memoirs perhaps suggest that Timurid use of free Muslim women as concubines had cast the entire institution in disrepute in the eyes of some contemporaries." (Gordon, page 193)
 * "Usman Hamid’s account of the freeborn Muslim women incorporated into Timurid royal households as concubines" (Ali)
 * On the other hand, this source says that most concubines in slave-owning societies were slaves (the source is about societies in general, not specific to Muslims). And such a practice was common in Korea, America, Vikings, ancient Greece, etc (see concubinage). (For example, regarding China: "Concubines differed little from slaves and were bought, sold, traded and given away." Source: "Women in Early Medieval China", page 18)
 * If you're going to claim that Muslims were the "only" group in world history to have exclusively slave concubines you need to provide some sources. VR talk 17:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Point by point:
 * There were no free concubines, there were free women who were formally enslaved to circumvent the law and keep their freedom only de facto. We are very far from the free concubinage of Madame de Pompadour and Louis XV (just to throw any other royal example).
 * The source that says that most concubines in slave-owning societies were slaves relies on a fallacy and I already contested it when you inserted it in the Concubinage article. It relies on the assumption that English automatically calls “concubinage” any form of sex outside marriage, and on the basis of this assumption it concludes that most concubines were slaves (as slaves were often the most numerous groups). However,
 * Although “concubinage” can be used for any form of sex outside marriage, English does not prefer to use concubinage over sex slavery when concubinage is practiced with slaves. English actually uses concubinage most of the times for meaning “inconvenient/impossible marriages”, and in civil law for “civil unions”, and indeed these appear as the first definitions in dictionaries.
 * Because of the fallacy your source rely on, contubernales (both men and women) should be counted as concubines, although we count them as slaves, or as contubernales, which is more specific.
 * Even if your source were without fallacies (but it is not), saying that most concubines were slaves is very different than saying “all concubines needed to be slaves”, as it is the case in Islam.
 * I don't know any other case where concubinage requires one party to be enslaved. Do you?
 * --Grufo (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Grufo Really curious - why is it so hard for you to accept that the English term concubinage is not the same thing as the Roman term it originated from? Words drift in terms of meaning all the time. You keep insisting that the word "concubinage" doesn't have a broad scope even after I have repeatedly rattled off all of the different cultures where practices involving slaves (of either gender) that are used for sex (among other activities) are referred to as concubines. There is substantial historic academic usage of the word in this broad manner. And the main source you keep referring to aligning concubinage with "civil unions" is a French lawyer (chap named Duhaime), writing about French law, where it does have a longer history of legal use as a French word. Within English usage, however, that sort of legal application has been historically far more limited. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the English term concubinage is not the same thing as the Roman term it originated from. If it had been it would not be used at all for slave-concubinage. Indeed it did shift, and can be used for slavery. However it does not carry any reference to slavery, more or less like the label “garbage collectors in Viceregentonia” does not carry any reference to slavery. Thus, we are not really disagreeing on the meaning of concubinage, on which we agree more than you want to make it appear; we are disagreeing on the opportunity to hide from a title that the only persons Islam gives permission to have sex with (outside marriage) are slaves. I would rather ask you the reverse question: Why do you want to hide from a title that the institution we are talking about constitutes “sexual slavery”, although you agree that it does? And why do you want to present it as a neutral extramarital affair? Beware, I said neutral, not between free persons – a neutral concubinage may also include slaves. --Grufo (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Surriyya
Much of the above hinges on what we mean by concubinage.

It seems to me that, in Islam, concubine is the normal English translation of an Arabic term surriyya, is that correct?

and, I hope you might both confirm or deny that simple claim of mine. Andrewa (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Most English authors translate surriyya as "concubine", yes. But that is not the only Arabic word translated as concubine. Other words translated as "concubine" are jariya, ama, mamluka, qayna, umm walad etc.VR talk 18:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The dispute is about how we should name a Wikipedia article that talks about religious laws/views involving mainly the Arabic term surriyya (but ma malakat aymanukum in the Quran, i.e. plain and simple slavery), but also minority practices, like bacha bazi. The Arabic–English Lexicon by E.W. Lane translated surriyya as “concubine-slave”, “slave for concubitus”. RS tend to use “concubine”, “slave for sex”, “sex slave”, “slave-concubine”, “slaves for pleasure”, and probably other less spread translations. So, going back to your question: if it is clear that the context is Islam, “concubine” is one of the possible English translations of the Arabic term surriyya. If the context is not so obvious or known and a source is not a specialized source, like it happens in the BBC page you mentioned, the sources tend to mention “sexual slavery” explicitly. But, as I said before, the dispute is not about the correct translation of a term, it is about the name that a Wikipedia article should have. --Grufo (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, more progress I think. Now, I think that we should have an article dealing with surriyya. It is a notable and clearly defined topic. Do you agree? If not, why not? If so, what should that article be called?
 * For the moment, a redirect from  might suffice. But what should its destination be? Andrewa (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The content at the Wikipedia article "Sexual slavery in Islam" is actually about historical practices of surriyya (and related synonyms like jariya, ama, etc). Creating another article on it might constitute a WP:Content fork. VR talk 01:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, for once I agree with Vice regent. I mean, I have nothing against an article about surriyya, and if someone creates it I will be more than fine with it, but we already have a page and Vice regent's WP:POVFORK. These two articles are, strictly speaking, not about the term surriyya, but about sexual slavery plus religion (while surriyya is just an Arabic term that does not necessarily involve religion), however surriyya is hardly encyclopedic unless contextualized, and contextualizing will mean talking again about Islam, which will mean a second WP:POVFORK. --Grufo (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would creating an article on Surriyya be in any way POV? Andrewa (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed WP:POVFORK would probably not be the right label. But It would be the third article on the same topic. --Grufo (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think POVFORK has anything to do with it. So, you are now saying that the topic of both Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage is Surriyya? I'm sorry, but I think that is a complete nonsense. Neither the content nor the title are focussed on Surriyya. Just because an article (or a source) mentions a topic, that doesn't make the topic of that article the same as the topic it mentions. Another nonsense.
 * It may be that one or both of those articles are best merged or moved. But first things first. I think we need an article that is on the topic of Surriyya (by whatever name). You seem unwilling to consider such a thing, and also unwilling to say why. Exactly how it is best to get such an article is moot until we decide to have one. Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, read my comment better, I gave you reason, I said that WP:POVFORK would probably not be the right label. However I do think that such an article will be at very high risk of becoming WP:Content forking of the two articles mentioned above (#1, #2), because an article on surriyya will need to present a context, and that context will inevitably be either Islam or Islamic states; so the topic in the end will be “Surriyya in the Islamic context”, which will lead to presenting the same framework of sexual slavery in Islam (there is no special law for a surriyya different than the law that covered any other female slave). As I said, I am not against an article on surriyya, and as you correctly said, an article about surriyya will simply be an article that has surriyya as its main topic, and nothing is bad about it; but we should make an important thing clear first: What will this article be about that Sexual slavery in Islam does not already mention extensively? How do we avoid that it becomes Content forking? This is why I asked you to be more precise in defining the topic of a Surriyya article. What structure will this article have? What sub-topics will it touch? --Grufo (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * in order to make progress it is necessary for you to define what the terms "concubinage" and "sexual slavery" mean, and give examples of each. I'm sure as a logician you understand the importance of concrete definitions. I'll invite Grufo to do that, and I'm happy to do so myself too.VR talk 03:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As for sexual slavery, I will stick to the definition of it given by Mark Klamberg in this comment of mine. As for concubinage, I have said it in hundreds of comments what concubinage is. Concubinage means one of the following definitions or similar ones: quasi-marriage / illicit marriage / civil union / sex between stable partners outside marriage / impossible marriage / etc. In short: any stable relationship that does not involve marriage but is somehow similar to it. Although it could be used also for slavery, the origin of the term and its millenary usage is reflected in the fact that it is not the preferred term for referring to sex with slaves. In the case of Islam, to emphasize the distance from marriage, I will remind that a slave-owner had always the possibility to free a slave if he really wanted anything better than sexual slavery for a female slave. --Grufo (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sexual slavery is to be "kept in a situation in which one is repeatedly forced to engage in sexual activity against one’s will."; Grufo's definition is also good. Because these definitions are gender agnostic, examples include men sexually enslaving women, men sexually enslaving men, men sexually enslaving children etc. Enslavement need not be commercial, and thus includes forced marriage (source). Finally, "sexual" means any act of a sexual nature; child pornography is a form of sexual slavery(source).
 * Concubinage is a "long-term" sexual relationship between a man and woman who are unmarried. The overwhelming majority of definitions of concubinage refer to male-female relationships with the concubine being female. Most sources also say that the woman was perceived of lower social status than the man . Examples of concubinage can be seen here. Concubine could be free or a slave (and taking slaves as concubines was practiced in Assyria, ancient Greece, China, Korea, Vikings, Rajasthan, Muslim world, Judaism, colonial America, Brazil etc).
 * I'll wait for Andrewa's definitions.VR talk 05:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am happy to go with any of these definitions or all of them, for the moment at least, as our own definitions are irrelevant anyway.
 * The above does however make more progress in my opinion. The sources cited are relevant.
 * Is the meaning of Surriyya in any doubt? I do not think so.
 * That being so, is there any doubt that it is a topic worthy of an article (by whatever name)? Again, I do not think so.
 * I await your responses to those two questions, or failing that, your reasons for not wishing to answer them. (You have my answers.) Andrewa (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed on 1st question. And agree that the concept of surriyya (as denoted by the word itself and related words) is worthy of an article or two.VR talk 14:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Question 1: Both Vice regent and I do not speak Arabic, so we cannot have much authority. However I believe we have gained enough competence about surriyya – or at least enough competence to know what sources and dictionaries we should consult for it. We have no disagreement about the meaning of surriyya.
 * Question 2 requires a clarification from you: What topic are you asking if it is worthy of an article (by whatever name)?
 * An article specifically on the word surriyya? Consider that the Quran never uses surriyya (sex slaves were referred to simply as slaves), and some regions of Islam did not speak Arabic (e.g. Turkish in the Ottoman empire).
 * An article on Islamic views on sex outside marriage?
 * An article on Islamic views on sexual slavery?
 * --Grufo (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If people never wrote articles on terms that they did not understand entirely from the perspective of native language proficiency, Wikipedia wouldn't get anywhere fast. Thankfully, secondary sources tend to explain these things. But if you get really stuck I know more than enough Arabic to resolve the sort of rudimentary language queries that tend to pop up on English Wikipedia. "Surriya" is something like a polite euphemism for a concubine in Arabic language with roots in the word for secret. (Sirr = "a secret", Sirri = "secretive or clandestine", Surriya = "a secretive or clandestine thing", i.e.: in this case a liaison with a slave that would probably not amuse one's wife (don't ask me why the first vowel shifts from "i" to "u" - that's a whole other conversation about Arabic)). I'm sure there will be a source out there somewhere stating as much, unless most Arabists considered it a bit too obvious to mention and forgot. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The etymology is debated, and as the Arabic–English Lexicon points out, some link it to “concealing”, others link it to “sex”, “concubitus”. But the etymology of surriya is not the point, the current question is what topic for a new article is talking about – it might not be at all about the word surriya itself (since this covers only part of the Arabic texts), or at least it is not clear to me. --Grufo (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the starting point should be to create more separate pages specifically for terms like surriya so that they can be fleshed out in terms of etymology and historic definitions separate from the sweeping articles that call upon them. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I cannot see any possible reason to avoid having an article on surriya or surriyya, anywhere here. It seems a notable topic, there are many sources... what more do we need? Andrewa (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I cannot see any possible reason to avoid having an article on surriya or surriyya, anywhere here. It seems a notable topic, there are many sources... what more do we need? Andrewa (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to refocus
Just a few points to hopefully end up some of the repetitive posts above.

Firstly the scope of an article titled Surriyya is surriyya, as that term is used in reliable secondary sources in English. Just as the article at Sodium is about sodium, and the article at Greece is about Greece. My definition doesn't come into it. So can we drop the demands for one?

Exactly what the scope is, we work out as we edit the article, again basing that on sources.

Secondly, I did read the posts above, and the fact that others sometimes don't read mine (evidently) doesn't mean I don't read theirs... however tempted. So can we drop that particular line of insult? Read this essay of mine for more on why.

Thirdly, the restrictions on forking are all about having multiple articles on the same topic. Content forking starts out A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. (my emphasis) And the whole of that content guideline is well worth reading. But I very much doubt it is relevant to my proposal here, and that seems to be the conclusion above too. Nobody is suggesting having several articles on surriyya. The attempts at set-theory are irrelevant, we have many articles that contain a brief section on another relevant topic and link to a main article on it. No problem. No relevance.

Fourthly, if the Quran does not mention surriyya, that is irrelevant too. What we are after here is English sources that do mention it. The Bible does not mention the Trinity either, either in Greek or Latin or Hebrew or English. And some Christians even reject the concept, while most consider this rejection heretical. But none of that controversy prevents us from having an article on that topic.

Can we move on? Andrewa (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Andrewa, when you say an article about surriyya, do you mean an article about the term "surriyya" (WP:WORDISSUBJECT) or an article about the concept of "surriyya" (note Use–mention distinction)? VR talk 04:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that you are just letting the use-mention distinction confuse you. I thought I had been quite clear. And to throw in the term "concept" is still more confusing.
 * "Greece" is a word. Greece is a country. The article at Greece is about Greece, not about the word "Greece".
 * "Surriyya" is a word. Surriyya is a form of relationship practiced by some Muslims. The article at surriyya should be about surriyya.
 * I hope I never suggested that the article should be about the word. It is about surriyya. Whatever that means. Written English is not a very precise language on this point, and I do not think WP:WORDISSUBJECT, to which you refer, is as clear as it should be. But I cannot see how anything that I have written would possibly suggest that I want an article about the word. If it did then I have been careless and apologise for that.
 * Anyway, is that clear now? Andrewa (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is clear now (sorry for misunderstanding earlier). However, we won't call it surriyya. After all, the Wikipedia article on Greece is not called Ελλάδα, rather it is called by the English term Greece (Article titles). Similarly the article on surriyya could be called by its English translation concubine; because a WP:disambiguator would be necessary, it would be called concubine (Muslim world), concubinage in the Muslim world etc. And it would cover not just surriyya but terms that are related to surriyya; after all, we don't create separate articles for synonyms. For example, friend, close friend, buddy (friendship), bestest mate all redirect to friendship. One could argue that there's a HUGE difference between a "friend" and a "close friend" (and I'd agree), but for an encyclopedic purpose they are close enough.VR talk 09:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Surriyya" and "concubinage" are not synonyms. Another irrelevant sidetrack.
 * By all means propose an article on all or any the topics you propose. But you say it would cover not just surriyya (but again confusing the word and its referent, I hope I have corrected that acceptably, and confirming as I suspected that you have absolutely no understanding of the Use–mention distinction despite your name-dropping of it above). It is therefore a different topic. Another sidetrack.
 * We should have an article on surriyya. Please, either produce some valid reason for opposing this, or admit that there are none that you can think of. Andrewa (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought you had agreed that "concubine" was the English translation of surriyya? And there is a policy that says we should use English words for title. The policy does have an exemption: "If a word or phrase (originally taken from some other language) is commonly used by English-language sources, it can be considered to be an English-language word or phrase". But that doesn't apply in this case because surriyya is not commonly used in English sources. I quickly looked up 5 sources on the topic and all of them prefer using word "concubine" when discussing surriyya. VR talk 10:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am happy to use whatever name you choose for the moment, just so long as the scope is clear. But I am sceptical that these sources use concubine to mean exactly what is meant by surriyya. Is that what you are claiming? Or is it a different topic? Andrewa (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, these sources are using "concubine" in the common definition of surriyya. (This source says "surriyya primarily refers to a female slave who was also a concubine, meaning slaves who had sexual relationships with their owners"). So lets say we have an article on surriyya and call it Concubinage in the Muslim world. The burning question is how would the scope of that article differ from sexual slavery in Islam? VR talk 10:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem I see with that is that in the English-speaking world (despite the Judeo-Christian background) a concubine has often meant one in a consensual relationship... notably the mistress of a supposedly celebate priest, a practice known as priestly concubinage for which we should have an article. So I do not think the scope of Concubinage in the Muslim world is clear at all. To one with my background, to use the word concubine for any sort of sexual slave is a euphamism at best, and POV on those grounds. Andrewa (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I think its important that we build wikipedia based on sources and scholarship, not based on our personal biases. In your case, there is ample evidence to the contrary : in most (all?) cultures, including "Judeo-Christian" cultures, concubines were often slaves. The earliest concubine in Judaism, Hagar, was a slave. Also read Concubinage and Concubinage for examples of slaves as concubines (both Christian cultures). This source even says "not all concubines were slaves but most were." This source distinguishes between "voluntary concubinage" and "involuntary concubinage". This source says "concubines [in China] differed little from slaves and were bought, sold, traded and given away." Also note: marital rape was not criminalized in most of the world (including Christian countries) until the 20th century. This is because, quite unfortunately, the wife was considered her husband's "property".VR talk 20:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC) The content in added later as clarification.VR talk 04:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry that you think that I am pushing a POV. It is a serious charge, and my talk page is the correct place to make it. So please present your ample evidence here.
 * You make some good points. You might look at User talk:Andrewa/Surriyya where I am exploring such things, and note that this was already under way before you made your charge that I am pursuing personal biases. Andrewa (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to offend you with the "personal biases" remark. I will be the first to admit that I certainly have some personal biases too. We all do. I simply read this comment of yours as saying that because of what you describe as your "background", you view concubinage as strictly consensual. To which my response was/is: there is ample evidence to suggest that concubinage was practiced with slaves, even in the Judeo-Christian world. And I provided evidence of that above. Again, I apologize for the way my remarks came out, I wasn't saying you were a POV pusher.VR talk 00:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of being offended. After many years as an auditor I have a very thick skin. But your comment I think its important that we build wikipedia based on sources and scholarship, not based on our personal biases. In your case, there is ample evidence to the contrary: in most (all?) cultures, including "Judeo-Christian" cultures, concubines were often slaves. The earliest concubine in Judaism, Hagar, was a slave. Also read Concubinage and Concubinage (my emphasis) is I think quite appalling. It is somewhat unclear what you are alleging this ample evidence to the contrary, but it is in the context of your statement that we should build wikipedia based on sources and scholarship, not based on our personal biases, and it specifically refers to in your (my) case. I cannot interpret that as anything other than saying that in my case, there is ample evidence that I am allowing my personal biases to affect my judgement.
 * I am trying very hard, in disclosing my agendas, to allow for them and to encourage others to hold me accountable for them if I fail in this. To help me to overcome any personal bias.
 * If you have ample evidence that I am not succeeding, this is the place for it. Andrewa (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello dear Andrew. I have stuck out and modified my statement. I agree it was poorly worded and for that I apologize. Please forgive me for that. What I meant to say is that there ample evidence that your definition of concubinage is wrong.VR talk 04:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that in article titles, we do not go by any definition... neither mine nor anyone else's. We go by usage,
 * But you have made some good points there and below which I can incorporate into my topic research page. Or you are of course welcome to add them there, that would be a bit neater as I need to attribute any of your text I use verbatim (but not the information). All pages in Wikipedia belong to the project, including user pages. Signed comments of course go on the user talk page only, and unsigned ones on the user page only. And as a result I'm a lot freer to refactor the user page. Andrewa (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with that we go by usage. And I am seeing overwhelming usage in academic literature for concubinage to include slaves. Two more examples, both from Europe: "There is evidence to suggest that female slaves continued to be used as concubines and mistresses by clerical and secular masters throughout the medieval period." And also "A master having intercourse or concubinage with his own slave women was commonplace and did not threaten a possible wife's position..." Marriage and Concubinage in Scandinavia. VR talk 05:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Your questions
You asked:
 * So, is the term concubinage recognisable in English as including slave relationships?
 * I gave "ample evidence" above and can give a lot more. "Concubinage" is very frequently used in English-language sources to describe slave relationships in many different regions and time periods.VR talk 00:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Does concubinage suggest a consensual relationship, which surriyya is not and never has been?
 * The idea that surriyya has "never been" consensual is a controversial thesis. There are scholars who say consent for sex with surriyya was required, and there is also evidence that not all surriyya were slaves, many were free women.VR talk 00:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, so it seems to me that there are times in history when it was consensual, and times when it was not. Is that as you understand it too? Andrewa (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that is probably true.VR talk 13:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Arb break

 * For me one of the biggest problems is that it is not easy to find many RS that go beyond very short definitions. For example:
 * Arabic–English Lexicon:
 * “A concubine-slave”
 * “A female slave whom one takes as a possession and for concubitus”
 * “A female slave to whom one assigns a house, or chamber, in which he lodges her, and whom he takes as a possession and for concubitus”
 * The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women:
 * “Surriyya refers to the slave-woman (jāriya)—Muslim or non-Muslim—with whom the master engages in sexual intercourse.”
 * One reason for the scarcity of RS specifically about surriyya is probably that sex slaves were sometimes called “surriyya” (“female slave for sex”), other times “jāriya” (simply “female slave” – any kind of female slave could be called jāriya, also the ones not exploited for sex), and many other terms and periphrases existed too. But maybe someone who knows more specialized sources than me can find essays specifically on surriyya. --Grufo (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Suriya seems to be a name in Thai and possibly other languages, and is sometimes possibly misspelled. That is the main problem I have had searching for English pages that use the term. Andrewa (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe might be of interest for this discussion. --Grufo (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed that heading to a more neutral one: Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam.VR talk 18:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You should definitely discuss before applying changes to section headings that you know are going to be controversial. --Grufo (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Possible discussion move
I was wondering whether it is the case to move most of this discussion to Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam using templates Moved discussion from and Moved discussion to – I would move everything starting from this comment. --Grufo (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I really would not like if you moved this long and off-topic discussion to the RM. No one in the RM needs to know about "Viceregentonia", "purple pine trees" etc. RMs are supposed to solicit input from the rest of wikipedia. But if we paste WP:WALLSOFTEXT there it deters others from commenting. This is why I discussed this here, not there. You may post a link to this discussion there if you wish.VR talk 15:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I oppose moving this discussion there. Refer to it there by all means, but I think even that is probably premature. We are making progress IMO, and may soon make more, but nothing yet worthy of further cluttering the RM. So refer to this discussion in that RM discussion if that avoids the need to repeat points already made here, but not otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up
Hello Andrew,

I'm wondering if the evidence I provided above persuaded you that "concubinage" is used most often by English-language RS to describe the surriyya (and related synonyms). VR talk 01:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * That has never been the main issue IMO. I am still trying to work out what I consider the best approach. Hence the creation of topic research pages in my user space here. Andrewa (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)