Talk:History of concubinage in the Muslim world/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Wholescale reverts

This revert undoes nearly 2 weeks of work by several contributors without any sort of discussion. This is really disruptive.VR _talk 00:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree? Buy then what about this[1] wholesale revert earlier today? No one seemed to have taken an issue with my edits today or raised any objection on the talkpage yet you called them "disruptive," demanded that I seek consensus and did a wholesale revert despite me leaving clear edit summaries for each of my edits.

You then proceeded to threaten[2] me from any further editing on my talkpage, by making out my edits look like a 3RR violation (which they were not). In an obvious case of WP:GAMING you are trying to keep me off the article so that you, Nishidani and Iskandar323 can bulldoze through your own changes unchecked without obtaining the consensus of other active editors such as Grufo and myself. Mcphurphy (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The edits you made today were problematic.

This addition states as fact something that is blatantly contradicted by Concubinage#Antiquity. You're misinterpreting Robinson. He specifically cites the cases of concubinage in Persia and Rome.
This edit makes no sense given that the only women being referred to in that section are Muslim women.
Why did you remove Suleiman being monogamous with his concubine? If the article mentions "Men were permitted to have as many concubines as they could afford" then we can also mention cases of monogamy.
this edit adds something for which no reliable, secondary sources can be found (see this discussion).
this edit removes something that we seemed to have consensus for.
Why did you remove "in some historical periods"? I showed you here that there is debate over this issue.
Here you added something partially false. You added "if a free man acknowledged paternity of his children from his female slave, they were considered free", yet this was only one opinion and other opinions considered concubines free even if the man didn't acknowledge the paternity (see Brockopp,2000,p=195–196).VR _talk 02:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I only didn't respond to more of the edits because it was too much of a headache and I didn't have the energy and rigour to do what Vice regent has done here: to list them all out. Your attitude that multiple editors are "bulldozing", not sensibly editing, is the principle problem here. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that Vice regent reported Mcphurphy at A3N. --Grufo (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

POV pushing

A lot of POV pushing has been going on in my absence. There are multiple issues in this new version. Let us first resolve the trouble around the opening of the article before we move on to the rest of this mess.

Lead sentence

According to MOS:LEADSENTENCE "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is." The subject is clearly sex slaves in Islam. So why does it begin with Mediterranean and who knows what culture? No need to write up nonsense by including the whole world in it. Focus on Islam. Certain editors are incompetent to understand that their feeling that they need to "defend" Islam is against WP:NPOV. Its tendentious editing.

Umm Walad

Nishidani's Barker source reads: "'Female slaves around the Mediterranean were subject to sexual and reproductive demands as well as demands on their physical labour. Focusing on the sexual and reproductive aspects of the shared culture of Mediterranean slavery reveals three things. First, though historians have paid more attention to the sexual exploitation of slave women in Islamic contexts, sexual exploitation was also common and well documented in Christian contexts. Second, the most important difference between Islamic and Christian practices of slavery had to do with the status of children. Under Christian and Roman law, children inherited the status of their mothers, so the child of a free man and a slave woman would be a slave. In contrast, under Islamic law, if a free man acknowledged paternity of a child by his slave woman, that child was born free and legitimate.' (Barker 2019, p. 61)"

Now how is this little quote from Barker used to justify this? Niishi's edit reads: "This is decidedly different from the case of enslaved women who bore children to their masters in Mediterranean Christian cultures: there the child retained the same slave status as his mother."

Verification failed. Barker clearly does not anywhere say "decidedly different." Further, Barker also notes that the child not inheriting the mother's slave status is conditional on the father accepting paternity.

Nishi's edit falls under source misrepresentation.

I will open up sub-sections below on the ever increasing problems with the zealous new editing. Dr Silverstein (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

23:52, November 12, 2021, you were pinged to this article.

00:09, November 13, 2021, you show up to the article (after more than a year hiatus) and make this revert.

This link shows you reverted to a version 132 edits ago. You went through 132 edits in just 17 minutes? Or is it that you're reverting others' edits without even reading them? VR _talk 03:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The phrasing "decidedly different" is a reasonable commonsense summation of the void between freedom and slavery. If that is the first and worst problem you have spotted then the issue is minor. Re: "zealous editing", as Vice regent notes: attempting to revert 132 edits in just 17 minutes = Pot. Kettle. Black. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This is idle nitpicking, justifying an erasure on the grounds of one adverb in the paraphrase, 'decidedly' for 'one imporant difference'. One could use 'marked difference' or any of a dozen alternatives, but what is an important difference is 'decidedly' different in any reasonable view. And, drop the hammer about 'zealous' (a word with profound religious overtones) Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Global ping

I am pinging literally every user that has edited Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam and Sexual slavery in Islam (using template {{hidden ping}} – lists generated automatically here and here, from which I removed the IP addresses).

This article has never had an easy life. There are currently several issues opened. The most important are:

Title controversy: a new proposal to remove “sexual slavery” from the title has been opened (see Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam § Requested move 10 November 2021)
Content controversy: all edits that follow this Revision as of 15:42, 17 October 2021 from Vice regent, in which they add “The Arabic term surriyya has been widely translated in Western scholarship as "concubine"” are subject to controversy (I do not consider this particular edit controversial, although it reflects the editor's POV)

If you have time and you feel you can contribute constructively to Wikipedia, please consider participating in this discussion. --Grufo (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed new article

It seems to me there is room for an article concubinage (Islam) to address that specific issue, with a main link from an appropriate section of this article. It seems to be an important and well-sourced topic in its own right, and a significantly different topic to sexual slavery and to concubinage as the term is more generally understood in English. There is a problematic and long section at concubinage#Middle East which might be improved if most of its content were to be moved to an article specifically on Islam, and an article at Islamic views on concubinage which would be more helpfully titled concubinage (Islam) as it is about the concept within Islam, rather than including Islamic views on for example priestly concubinage... a topic on which we should also have an article even if it is just a Christian phenomenon... see https://academic.oup.com/past/article-abstract/1/suppl_1/72/2948734 and https://vincentians.com/en/the-poor-country-people-of-seventeenth-century-france/ for two references to it. Comments? Andrewa (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Andrewa, the sources used in this article overwhelmingly use the term "concubinage" (please look at this table). As I pointed out above, there really isn't a single RS that tries to cover all forms of sexual slavery across all of the Muslim world. Individual instances of sexual slavery in the Muslim world are notable (like bacha bazi), but sources don't attempt to connect all of them. This is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution by Muslims. While individual instances of persecution by Muslims are notable (eg. Armenian genocide, Persecution of Bahai), trying to lump all of them in the same article was an WP:ATTACK page that was deleted due to WP:Coatrack, WP:Synth and pov-pushing. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia was deleted for similar reasons.VR _talk 04:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: You really need to use decent arguments. You cannot state that the very same historical/scriptural institution is OK if you call it “Concubinage in Islam”, but becomes WP:ATTACK if you call it “Sexual slavery in Islam”. Please, think before commenting. --Grufo (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Except that "concubinage" is a term for an actual institution that was applied in slightly varying but broadly consistent forms based on theology across a wide geographical area and which can appropriately be discussed as such in an article, while "sexual slavery" is a modern term that is being applied retroactively to re-interpret (and arguably sexualise, sensationalise and revise) history. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, come on, you know that many sources call it sexual slavery / slavery / slavery for pleasure / slave concubinage / etc. This continuous moving the goalposts is what I find exhausting. Also it is the other way around: “concubine” was used retroactively to describe something for which the English vocabulary did not have a name, i.e. the Arabic surriyya, “slave for concubitus, sex”. --Grufo (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewa: What would the scope of Concubinage (Islam) be? Sex between free persons and cohabitation outside marriage? In that case we have already Zina § Adultery and fornication (although a very small section). Sexual slavery? In that case we have already this page and a WP:POVFORK of this page created by Vice regent at Islamic views on concubinage. --Grufo (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The scope would be concubinage as the term is currently understood in Islam. This seems to me to be a clear and encyclopedic topic, and would be very helpful to readers. There may be several views on this, or there may be a consensus within Islam. That is one thing that the article should make clear. The relationship between the modern Islamic use of the term concubine and what is described in Genesis referring to Reumah, Bilhah, Zilpah and others should also be made clear.

It may well be better to move and rescope an existing article rather than to start a new one. It may even be that concubinage as currently understood in Islam is a form of sexual slavery as the term is currently used generally... this is one issue with which we are struggling here. Developing an article on concubinage (Islam) would help that process, as well as being worthwhile in itself. Andrewa (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Biblical concubines are figures that are frozen in the past (see Pilegesh); here we are talking about a productive institution that survived full-blown until the 19th century, with several reappearings still today. “Concubine” is an English word. When applied to Islam it is often used to translate the Arabic surriyya, which has nothing to do with concubinage as we usually mean it, but means “slave for sex” (things start to get a bit more complicated if we include also Turkish and the Ottoman empire, however also there we never leave the territory of sexual slavery and the Islamic scriptures are not written in Turkish). The English sources use “concubine” or “slave for sex” or “slave girl”” or “sex slave” interchangeably in this context. From a raw research on Google Scholar the term “concubinage” in Islam seems to be used a bit more often than “sexual slavery” in Islam (6,020 hits against 3,200 hits), but we are talking about the same order of magnitude and these numbers must be taken cum grano salis. And, most importantly, we should not be influenced by popularity in front of ambiguity. Look at the way one of the sources uses the term “concubine” in Islam:

“The status of concubine was informal; however, law and custom allowed a master to have sex with any of his (unmarried) female slaves. It was also insecure: a concubine could be freed and married by her owners, or she could be sold off, so long as he had not impregnated her.”
— Kecia Ali, pr. Reda, Nevin; Amin, Yasmin (2020). Islamic Interpretive Tradition and Gender Justice: Processes of Canonization Subversion and Change. McGill-Queen’s University Press. p. 229. doi:10.2307/j.ctv1bhg2d1. ISBN 9780228001621.

Would you create a separate article about “Concubinage in Islam” for this scenario, or would you discuss about it in Sexual slavery in Islam? --Grufo (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Again with this straw man Grufo. Concubinage, as defined on its Wikipedia page, involved slavery in ancient Mesopotamia, ancient Assria, often in Greece, (in essence under the term contubernium in ancient Rome, even as the exact term concubina was used for something else), in China, under the Mongols, in Korea, in India, under the Vikings - the bulk of the geographically specific sub-sections on the concubinage page make some sort of reference to slavery - either identifying it as the main practice or at least a version of it. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course the Concubinage article talks massively about sexual slavery, after you, Vice regent and Toddy1 hammered it by POV-pushing sexual-slavery-related content despite my concerns. By the way, this is the second time you use the “straw man” term. Are you sure you know its meaning? I can help you with an example if you want:

A: We should have an article on Sexual slavery in Islam
B: No, “trying to lump all of them in the same article is an WP:ATTACK”

Fallacy: the same editor would be OK in lumping all of them in the same article under the condition that it is called “concubinage”. Even worse, the same editor would even include pre-Islamic stuff under the term “Concubinage in the Muslim world”. --Grufo (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I added the word slave anywhere - I mainly cleaned up citations. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hum… You literally POV-pushed the entire current lead of the Concubinage article and made it be about sexual slavery, transforming it from this version to this version. --Grufo (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I was talking about me, not other editors. Again, we're not a collective. But on the subject of that particular diff, you can see a lot of the citation expanding and conversion to sfn/harvnb format by me, i.e.: editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I was also talking about you, Iskandar323, not other editors. You asked me if you added anything about slavery, and I said that you twisted the entire lead in that direction. You also removed the gender neutral concubinage from the lead, forcing it into the current heterosexual meaning. --Grufo (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure I did make other editors. I'm not denying it. That's kinda how this shindig goes. What I asked was if I added the word "slave" anywhere, because I do not believe that in fact did. My point of course being that I am simply taking at face value any mentions of slavery in that article (which I did not push) as valid conceptual ties between slavery across the millenia and the academic use of the term concubinage as they are presented. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

What I asked was if I added the word "slave" anywhere: I will not go through all your edits. But only in that single edit and only in the lead:

“A concubine could be freeborn or of slave origin, and their experience could vary tremendously according to their masters' whim.”
“The practice of a barren wife giving her husband a slave as a concubine is recorded …”
“Throughout Africa, from Egypt to South Africa, slave concubinage resulted in racially-mixed populations.”
“The practice declined as a result of the abolition of slavery.”
“In European colonies and American slave plantations, single and married men entered into long-term sexual relationships with local women.

--Grufo (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

All that diff shows is @Toddy1 reverting an edit by you where you attempted to plagiarize content from Concubinage (law) internally without attribution WP:COPYWITHIN - all anyone can tell from that is that those mentions were in the article before the prior diff, and that you tried to delete them. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You asked me if you added slavery, and you did. What's with me forgetting to add a WP:COPYWITHIN? It sounds quite minor and unrelated, and I had explained it in the talk page that I was going to copy text from Concubinage (law). By the way, the lead that you rejected and I tried to restore was not even mine. This had been my lead, which Vice regent had transformed into this – and I for once was happy with an edit made by Vice regent. --Grufo (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

A single sentence was hardly sufficient explanation for that edit, and you didn't even get the sentence right, attributing the page to @Vice regent, when I created it. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I am really fine with you removing ~~my content~~ your own content from Concubinage. What I am not fine with is you POV-pushing sexual slavery into the lead of Concubinage and then coming here and using that particular article for presenting concubinage as a sort of new synonym of sexual slavery: pure WP:GAME. --Grufo (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, before you started changing the lead to the article on Concubinage, the lead looked like this. You changed the lead to look like this. There was no consensus for your change. But, instead of edit-warring, other editors discussed what should be in the lead and came up with what we have now.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I believe you are talking about a parallel universe in which that was my lead, but that was actually Vice regent's lead, which I was fine with. This was the old lead, which contained already many POV-pushings about slavery made by Vice regent one year ago and which I updated adding the gender neutral concubinage and transformed it into this (almost identical in size and content). Then Vice regent created an “Overview” section immediately after the lead, so I moved part of the lead there, making the lead appear like this. Then Vice regent finished the job and moved another paragraph from the lead into the “Overview” section, making the lead appear like this (the “lead of mine” you are talking about). It was a collegial work accompanied by a peaceful discussion and I was fine with it. Then you, Vice regent and Iskandar323 started to push sexual-slavery-related content and I was not fine with it anymore. There was no consensus for your change What change exactly of the ones that I have listed in this comment are you talking about? --Grufo (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

And now it's better and has an etymology section and everything. End of story. Good job everyone. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I have read, although not carefully, this section and the section above. It's not clear to me that a consensus has been reached on anything. Part of the problem is the bickering: applying labels to other editors' arguments is not constructive; saying you disagree and why is far better. More than one editor is guilty of this kind of distracting argumentation. The protection on the article expires tomorrow. I have the article on my watchlist, and I'm not going to be charitable with editors who make changes to the article without a clear consensus for the changes. You would have done far better to try to break down your differences into very discrete issues and have RfCs on each of those issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
It would be more useful if protection on the article were extended until the move discussion is over.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@Toddy1: The move discussion began on November 10, nine days ago. Although the discussion may be constructive, as far as I can tell, there's no consensus at all. I don't like the idea of extending full protection for a long time to prevent editors from misbehaving.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
What edits to the article are sensible depends on the results of the move discussion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edits by IP

The edits by this IP are unhelpful. They are also quite similar to a blocked user who periodically makes sock puppets and they inevitably get caught. But lately they've been using dynamic IPs. I've already requested IP protection on some other articles and will request that protection here too if this activity persists.VR _talk 13:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

All the minor edits actually seemed fine. Only the 454kh unsourced additions seemed unhelpful. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This edit removed something that's in the source. And the 454 addition wasn't just unsourced, it put stuff in the lead, giving it undue weight.VR _talk 13:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes and no - that statement was (and still is) badly phrased. Edits seemed generally good faith. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to phrase it better, but the IP just removed it altogether.VR _talk 13:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I just tried, and I've realised the quote from that unfinished thesis is all over the place and full of holes. It says no one could attack or rape a slave girl, but obviously a master could rape a slave girl - it would just be labelled a master's prerogative. And an example of a male slave (the lowest of the low) getting punished is hardly evidence that no one could get away with it. This is the problem with using thesis content written by barely graduated students instead of peer-reviewed journals and published literary works. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I stand by the assessment that everything from that Saad thesis should be discarded. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe that stuff and the consent section should be merged. I know some scholars say master could rape her, but others say she could take him to court for that. My point is that all perspectives need to be included. Here's the text: "The Hanbali scholar Buhuti (d. 1641) even says that if a master forced a slave woman unable to bear intercourse to have sex and injured her, she would be freed as a result." Slavery and Islam page 96.VR _talk 14:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You're right - but we should also probably only include reliable perspectives (as above). You know how when an opinion is a little in doubt, we would normally says "XXX says..." - well I'm not sure how I would qualify the Saad source - "Saad opines in their unfinished thesis that..." Retaining such sources makes a mockery of the reliability guidelines. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 10 November 2021

This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 22 December 2021. The result of the move review was decision endorsed.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to History of concubinage in the Muslim world – there are a few strands of consensus in the discussion that lead me to this close. First, there is a consensus to move to a "History of X in the Muslim world"-style title, which also makes the article consistent with Islamic views on slavery/History of slavery in the Muslim world. Secondly, the matter of the use of the word slavery in the title – from my analysis of the discussion, I don't see anything to suggest against the assertion that "concubinage", by itself, is the primarily used term. While I agree on a personal level that it may be euphemistic, that in itself shouldn't be a disqualifier if the use of the euphemism is widely used (q.v., famously, toilet). For these reasons, I believe the balance on which X to use is "concubinage" by itself. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Sexual slavery in Islam → Female slavery and concubinage in the Muslim world – Following extensive prior discussion on the talk page, I think the time is ripe for broaching the long overdue renaming of this page to something more precise and representative. The proposed change in the switch from "in Islam" to "in the Muslim world" has been advocated for on the basis of the fact the article is largely composed of historic examples in specific places, i.e.: within the Muslim world, whereas "in Islam" suggests some sort of purely religious discussion, which is already covered by the likes of Islamic views on slavery, Islamic views on concubinage, et cetera. The proposed shift from "sexual slavery" to "Female slavery and concubinage" follows the logic of a number of experienced Wikipedia editors, such as Bookku and Nishidani, who have noted, among other things, that: Female slavery was a a fluid concept within the historic Muslim world, so there was little distinction between female slaves in general and slaves specifically used for sexual purposes. In many sources, it is almost impossible to distinguish between statements about female slaves in general and those referring specifically to female slaves used for sex. In other sources, the term surriyya is often commonly translated as "concubine", and there are numerous sources that mainly use this term, particularly for the later history, such as regarding the harem structures of the Ottoman Empire, where concubinage took on quite a different meaning from simply "female slaves used for sex". The two terms are therefore both common names for different aspects of the topic and with subtly distinct meanings in many historical settings. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
— Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Addendum Ok, so I'm clearly terrible at articulating these things, so I'll just add an addendum framing the key points in terms of WP:TITLE, since that is ultimately the guiding criteria, i.e.: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision and Consistency. First, the current title is not a natural fit: Sex slavery is a highly modern term linked to modern prostitution and sex trafficking that is rarely used in sources in reference to historic practice [3]. It is also not precise, as it makes no mention of gender, as this article is entirely about female slaves, and does not use the most common form of academic terminology, which is "concubinage". Female slavery and concubinage in the Muslim world on the other hand, is recognisable on account of the "female slavery" part, which is also consistent with articles such as Female slavery in the United States, as well as natural in relation to the sources, which largely use "concubinage", which is also consistent with the likes of Concubinage in China. Both terms are required to be precise, because not all concubines were female slaves and vice versa. The title is also recognisable overall, because who could not understand, between the two terms, what the article is about? Concubinage is ultimately more precise, but female slavery is probably more recognisable for non-native English speakers, of which Wikipedia has many. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Second addendum In a further note on the subject of Consistency, I earlier failed to note the existence of History of slavery in the Muslim world as an extant article, which throws weight behind the alternative title supported by a number of editors of History of concubinage in the Muslim world, which would parallel Islamic views on concubinage in much the same way that History of slavery in the Muslim world parallels Islamic views on slavery. I would happily support either. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Support. My preferred title would be either History of concubinage in the Muslim world or (History of slave concubinage in the Muslim world, as suggested by Wiqi55), but I think Iskandar323's title is better than the current one.VR _talk 11:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"Concubinage" is the WP:COMMONNAME that is used by most (if not all) sources in the article, as shown here and here.VR _talk 11:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
That too. For the uninitiated here, while numerous sources clearly use the terms concubines and concubinage in reference to the general topic of female slaves, servants and sex, Grufo stoically defends the rigid ideological position that concubinage can only refer to "Concubinage (law)". Iskandar323 (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Concubinage is completely absent from the scope of the article – I wish Wikipedia had an article on actual concubinage in Islam – while what is presented is slave concubinage. Furthermore, “Muslim world” is “Islam” by definition. I do not oppose keeping the current title or renaming the article to Islamic views on sexual slavery. --Grufo (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I fear I may be going over old ground, but most of the article is history and historical examples, so how can it realistically be called "Islamic views" on anything? The title of an established article should ultimately reflect what the article consists of, not what one might like it to consist of. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
We talk about religions through their concrete manifestations (interpretations, laws and practices). As for the extensive history present, exactly the same thing happens in Christian views on slavery. The only argument in favor of Islamic views on sexual slavery would be the fact that it would be WP:CONSISTENT with the various [RELIGION] views on [WHATEVER]; but I believe that Sexual slavery in Islam is also well phrased. --Grufo (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
We have History of slavery in the Muslim world so the proposed title would be WP:CONSISTENT with that.VR _talk 12:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I somewhat wish you hadn't shown me that: yet another article that is way too long and confusing. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

“History” emphasizes the chronological variation, while other important variations that exist in sexual slavery in Islam are geographical and theological, and there are no reasons to emphasize the chronological dimension above the other two. Btw, not everyone seems happy with the title at History of slavery in the Muslim world. --Grufo (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
What I want the article to emphasise is what actually happened, i.e. the practice of sexual slavery. Lots of societies have nice value systems in their propaganda (e.g. communist regimes) but in practice routinely commit crimes against humanity. So let us focus on the reality of ruined lives, rather than nice-sounding theological statements. A "history of" title focusses on practice.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. History of slave concubinage in the Muslim world would be a better, more exact title. Surely an article on Female slavery and concubinage in the Muslim world also include female slavery that did not involve the master having sexual relations with the slave - for example if the slave were employed as a cook or a cleaner.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment. Good point about “female slavery”, I hadn't thought about it. One of the consequences of using “history” in the title will be that we will have to drop all the “interpretations” – as these are only theology, not concrete history. That means that if someone practiced “A”, but a Quranic commentator said that “A” is incorrect but with little impact on the history, we will have to omit that Quranic commentator. --Grufo (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1, you're right, but that is somewhat the point. In most historical circumstances, there was little distinction between a female slave used for domestic chores and one used for sex, and a master could change the way in which they used their slaves in a fluid way. This fluidity is the point that Bookku made under the talk header: Female slavery in Muslim world", when he suggested that title. It is also a matter of sourcing. Most sources talk about female slaves or concubines, and what their masters could or could not do or did or did not do to them. The sourcing does not support statements about "sexual slaves" (13 mentions in this article), it supports statements about the treatment of female slaves (40+ mentions) and concubines (100+ mentions). "Sexual slavery" is not the terminology of this article. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that slave concubinage is probably quite a good term, but the fact is that few sources use this terminology, so sadly it would ultimately an exercise in WP:SYNTH to try to construct or reconstitute an article along the lines of that terminology. We should use the terminology of the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I've suggested "female slavery AND concubinage" principally because there are two warring camps in this subject area: those that think concubinage or something related to concubinage is the only appropriate terminology, and others who think this is hopeless WP:EUPHEMISM for slavery when you could just say slavery. I've proposed a halfway house both because that seems like the option most likely to generate consensus, and because the sources also use both. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Although any female slave could be used for sex, the Arabic word used, surriyya, does not translate as “any slave who happens to be a woman”, but translates as “a female slave whom one takes as a possession and for concubitus” (i.e., a sex slave) (@Wiqi55: this is definitely your territory). Furthermore, as long as what we use is backed by sources, we can choose in total freedom and we should not count what is used more often (it is ultimately an editorial choice). As I have said a zillion times, “sexual slavery” is broader, less specialized and more WP:COMMONNAME than “concubinage” (not just the odd “concubinage with slaves”, but “concubinage” in all its meanings). --Grufo (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
What is the difference between a concubine and a sex slave? M.Bitton (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
A sex slave is a sex slave in every context, a concubine is a sex slave only in Islam. --Grufo (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, which makes the use of the term "concubinage" all the more relevant. M.Bitton (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't follow. It makes the use of the term “concubinage” more specialized, not relevant. When we can avoid specialized terms that require context in favor of non-specialized terms that don't require context we should choose the latter. --Grufo (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The context here is the Islam and your answer to my question proves that concubinage is what should be used. M.Bitton (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
You have strange ways of proving things. The context is Islam, but the knowledge that “concubinage” expresses a peculiar meaning in that context would become specialized knowledge that Wikipedia would require from its readers. You might want to have a look at WP:PAGEDECIDE and optionally read WP:SCOPE. --Grufo (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I asked you a question and your answer says exactly what the subject is all about. There is nothing specialized about the term concubinage and this is not some children's encyclopedia where basic terms need to be avoided. M.Bitton (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing specialized about the term concubinage A term that appears with a particular meaning only in one single context is among the most specialized things we can think of. --Grufo (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Utter nonsense! If the term is good enough for other encyclopedias, then it's certainly is good enough for Wikipedia. M.Bitton (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The term is definitely good for Wikipedia too. However it is not to be preferred for a page title, as there are better (less specialized) options. --Grufo (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Says who? M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:CRITERIA, WP:PRECISION, WP:PAGEDECIDE. --Grufo (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Again, utter nonsense! WP:CRITERIA, WP:PRECISION apply to the term "concubinage". M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
My words will not become “utter nonsense” simply by you repeating it. This from WP:CRITERIA works with “sexual slavery” but does not work with “concubinage”:

“Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.”

(Translation: If a reader is curious about sexual slavery in Islam it is very unlikely that they will search for concubinage in Islam)

This is instead show how we should ignore the “popularity” of a term among reliable sources:

“Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.”

I could go on with quoting the guidelines, but I will stop here. It is your turn now to quote the guidelines to support the proposal of using “concubinage” for meaning “sexual slavery”. --Grufo (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
works with “sexual slavery” but does not work with “concubinage” That's a baseless assertion that will remain so until it' substantiated using RS. Until then, I'd say that what you quoted applies to concubinage and is what is practised by every tertiary source out there (see the examples given in the above discussion by Vice regent). M.Bitton (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Now I can say “utter nonsense”! Look at all the disputes about the name of this page and count all the editors who actually did not know that Islamic “concubines” needed to be sex slaves. Now try to compare that to how many editors would not know that sex slaves needed to be… sex slaves. And we are talking about editors… imagine the readers! Na na, I can definitely say: “utter nonsense”! But if you really think that “concubinage” for meaning “sexual slavery” is an expression of naturalness, well… we can happily stop here. --Grufo (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Your reply is pure baseless WP:OR, therefore, what I said above stands. M.Bitton (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, if we're talking reliable sources, "Natural disambiguation" definitely supports concubinage - if one of the terms were to be considered more obscure or made up in the context, it would be 'sexual slavery", which simply isn't a term that anyone routinely uses to refer to anything medieval. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
“Natural disambiguation” defines three categories: 1) alternative name used in few sources, 2) preferred-but-ambiguous name used in many sources, 3) made-up name never used in sources. Out of the three it invites to use the first one. --Grufo (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:Criteria says:

Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.

which in this case would have to be concubinage. M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
All the options we are discussing here are backed by reliable sources. What we choose though does not depend on its popularity. --Grufo (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Your previous cherry picked nonsense has been duly noted and ignored as such. M.Bitton (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Please mind WP:CIVIL. --Grufo (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of other cultures have practiced concubinage with slaves. For example, Abraham's concubine Hagar was a slave. See also Concubinage#Concubinage and slavery.VR _talk 14:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but in all of them but Islam a concubine could also be a free woman, which means that everywhere but in Islam “concubine” cannot be considered a synonym of “sex slave”. --Grufo (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Best stay away from tales of Ahraham as a frame of reference - didn't he also live to the age of 200 years? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment I would support History of concubinage in the Muslim world as "concubinage" is what is used by the scholarly sources. M.Bitton (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
So I agree that concubinage is broadly speaking more precise, but I also appreciate that a case can be made that A) the term concubine could be interpreted as a little bit of a WP:EUPHEMISM, particularly given the slightly gentrified modern usage of concubine to mean free-spirited courtesan or mistress, and that B) Islamic concubinage was a product of but not always identical to other forms of female slavery at any given time. Think Ottoman Harem versus slave prostitutes. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Not only is concubinage more precise, it is exactly what is used in other tertiary sources. What those who have an axe to grind could interpret it as is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
While I hear you, I would suggest that it's not quite so simple here, as while concubinage was the preferred academic terminology certainly right up until the end of the 20th century, a growing number of scholars in the 21st century abandon it in favour of the terminology of slavery, particularly those engaged involved in the study of Islam and gender, such as writers like Myrne Pernilla and Kecia Ali - female voices on the topic that ought to be heard. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The tertiary sources haven't abandoned it. Concubinage in Islam has a specific meaning that hasn't changed, and while the fringe theories can be cited as examples (some concubines became queens), they in themselves do not represent primary topic or how it's covered in the overwhelming majority of RS. M.Bitton (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: the term concubine appears 25 times in Pernilla Myrne's work (including 15 instances of "slave concubine"), and concubine appears 181 times in Kecia Ali's Marriage and slavery in early Islam.VR _talk 16:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh ... have they been grossly mis-paraphrased in the article then, or do they use the terms interchangeably? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
If enough people swing behind History of concubinage in the Muslim world, I can totally roll with that. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Toddy1 How would you be with History of concubinage in the Muslim world, minus the "slave" - I personally see slave concubine as a bit tautologous given that slavery as a concept is largely (though not entirely) self-contained in the Islamic concubinage concept. ~~I've also realised that there is a rather better term to be found for any "free concubines" in the term "courtesan", as per this source:~~[4] Iskandar323 (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
In 20th Century English, a "courtesan" is a woman who sells her favours, i.e. a paid girlfriend, who may have more than one man who is paying her. It can be used to describe a girlfriend/mistress who is financially supported by her man. It is also used as a euphemism for a prostitute.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The book Concubines and Courtesans: Women and Slavery in Islamic History by Matthew S. Gordon and Kathryn A. Hain is probably using the word "courtesan" in an older sense - a woman of the court, to mean female entertainers (though I have not read the book).-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I presumed so, as I also have not read the book. It was just the first book I had seen that used both of those terms in the title. I assume that it is probably referring to Qiyan, female slaves that were artistically trained as entertainers. In hindsight I realise that the distinction here is probably not between free and not free, but between female slaves used for sex and entertainment. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
You guys really like re-inventing meanings. A courtesan is a woman of a royal or noble court, or a lover of a noble man. As of course this cannot apply straightly to the book's context, it is used there for an exceptionally high status sex slave, almost half unfree, half free. From the book review that Kecia Ali made (p. 255, emphasis mine):

Some, as I have tended to do in the past, use “slaves” and others, as I try to do now, make a point of using “enslaved person.” The latter phrase highlights that enslavement is not a natural state but something that is actively done to one human being by another, who is not simply a “master” or “mistress” but a “slaveowner.” English terms such as concubine and courtesan (or borrowed terms such as geisha) connote varying levels of status and agency; Nielson argues that “the ambiguity” attending prestigious, highly trained qiyān carved out “a liminal social and legal space between free and unfree” which makes courtesan a more accurate term than ones conveying “concubinage or servitude alone”. Reynolds, while noting “myriad” divergences, suggests that “the geisha of Japan are perhaps the most comparable form of socially institutionalized female companionship and entertainment for male patrons”.

--Grufo (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we're not guys, but anyway, seems like that quote confirms what we were saying. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Arguing, arguing, arguing… Pronouncing a “thank you” from time to time will not kill you. If I hadn't read this sentence of yours I wouldn't have bothered intervening: In hindsight I realise that the distinction here is probably not between free and not free, but between female slaves used for sex and entertainment. --Grufo (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: How on earth did you do that search? - I can't even find searchable google books for these. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I get only 28 occurrences of “concubine” in Kecia Ali (and they are most of the time mixed with “sex”, “sexual”, etc.). --Grufo (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Grufo: When I click that link I see "Showing 48 results in this book for concubine," so it is not consistent. But that only counts the number of pages that reference the term, whereas I looked at every single usage of the term (a single page can have more than one usage of the term). I also included search results for "concubines" and "concubinage" into "concubine" - sorry for the lack of clarity.VR _talk 17:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I mean, whatever way you look at it, the book uses the term A LOT. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: You should look at the last number I posted, in which “sexual slavery” [bugfix] ~~wins over~~ looks better than before compared to “concubinage”. But this is anyway the wrong way to look at the problem. Even if one of the two were way way less represented than it is, we would still make our own independent editorial choice based on several factors, including clarity and ambiguity. --Grufo (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Your last numbers were wrong and after you corrected them, you have a result that says the exact opposite. The editorial judgement should be based on tertiary sources (those that establish DUE). M.Bitton (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Google scholar results for usage of "concubine" vs "sexual slavery" were provided by Toddy1(table1,table2,table4) and Grufo(table3). Every table shows "concubine" being most commonly used by reliable sources. VR _talk 20:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Support the move, though History of concubinage in the Muslim world is probably preferable. We could also go for "Islamicate world" too as recent sources have moved towards using that term, but "Muslim world" is perhaps more clear and used in many sources. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
A suitable title would be Sexual slavery in the Islamic world or alternatively Sexual slavery in the Muslim world. Mcphurphy (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
The change from "in Islam" to "in the Muslim world" seems like a change of scope. What is the justification? Srnec (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Srnec: Indeed. --Grufo (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Srnec: this is for WP:CONSISTENCY; for example slavery is divided into Islamic views on slavery (theology and law) and History of slavery in the Muslim world (actual historic practice). We already have Islamic views on concubinage so the counterpart would be History of concubinage in the Muslim world. The reasons for the split in both cases (slavery and concubinage) are WP:SIZESPLIT (because the material is too big) and because what Islam preached and what Muslims practiced are often quite different.VR _talk 13:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
When you split on the basis of WP:SIZESPLIT you split different topics. This page and your POVFORK talk about the same thing, which is why the editor who closed the renaming dispute at your POV-fork (Spekkios) said the exact opposite of what you are saying: “There does appear to be some basis for a discussion on merging articles”. --Grufo (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, fine. History of (slave-)concubinage in the Muslim world is fine by me. There are limits to how long discussions can drag on.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Original comment copied here based on this message by @Nishidani:.VR _talk 14:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a good topic with many relevant references. It should be a non-POV overview of the several ways that sexual slavery exists and has existed in an Islamic setting. There is room for several other articles on more specific topics, such as what constitutes concubinage and whether or not it constitutes or overlaps slavery... and even more sensitive topics. This will always be a struggle, and offensive to some, but Wikipedia is not censored and so eliminating the topic from Wikipedia is not justified. Andrewa (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Andrewa: Hi, I'd just like to point out that no one is trying to substantially alter the scope of this topic, but instead, better align the current title of the article with the terminology used in the reliable sources that it references - there are many discussions about this on the talk page, both above and below this move request, that seek to address this. Sexual slavery is a modern term that is only used widely in connection with articles about Isis specifically, and this usage is already covered extensively in more specific articles such as Sexual violence in the Iraqi insurgency, Genocide of Yazidis by the Islamic State and Slavery in 21st-century jihadism. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
That is not the way it appears to me. If sources say that sexual slavery has not occurred in Islam up until recently, then the article should say that. But they don't. There is a lot going on... the practices that would today be regarded as sexual slavery were once common to most if not all societies. But the particular interest in and notability of sexual slavery in Islam is that there is still significant practice of it in modern times, and worse, that this is claimed to be part of the tradition and even essence of Islam by those who continue the practice. Again, if this is rejected by most Islamic authorities today (as I think is the case and that sources do indicate), then the article should say that. Andrewa (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Depending on the exact definition of "sexual slavery", it can cover the topic of this article (which most RS call "concubinage", see this), along with forced marriage ([5][6]), child marriage ([7]), bacha bazi ([8]), forced prostitution etc. WP:Precise requires we use the most specific term for article title, not an umbrella term.VR _talk 14:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
We do not go by any person's exact definition but by the common meaning of the term, and yes it does include most if not all of those other more specific topics. Concubinage may be a synonym for sexual slavery in some contexts, and yes it has been strongly argued that this is one such context, but whether or not that is the case (I am still a bit sceptical) it is not recognisable as that by many English readers. Andrewa (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that no one is trying to substantially alter the scope of this topic: Leaving intentions aside, the proposed renaming will substantially change the scope of the article. All religious views on sexual slavery will become out of scope. --Grufo (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This table shows that the sources used in this article prefer the term "concubinage" over "sexual slavery".VR _talk 14:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
And here we go again repeating ourselves… We don't choose a title based on its popularity. WP:QUALIFIER defines three categories: 1) alternative name used in few sources, 2) preferred-but-ambiguous name used in many sources, 3) made-up name never used in sources. Out of the three it invites to use the first one.

“Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.”

The usage of “concubinage” and “sexual slavery” in the sources amounts to the same order of magnitude, and probably some corrections will be necessary too, as sources that use slavery-related titles might still use “concubine” in the body and be counted for both, although they would need to be counted only for “sexual slavery” – as “concubine” would not constitute WP:QUALIFIER. I believe will not be necessary to explain in this comment also why using “sexual slavery” is less ambiguous than using “concubinage” for meaning “sexual slavery”. --Grufo (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Andrewa: Can I ask two clarifying questions please:
Do you object to the article title starting "History of..."?

Do you object to the article title saying "in the Muslim world" instead of "in Islam"?

-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I oppose both.

I can understand sexual slavery, and particularly the current practice of it, being an uncomfortable topic for Muslims, but it is one of great interest to many. We should not descope the article to restrict it to historical practice.

And I see no advantage in talking of the Muslim world here rather than Islam. In practice those two titles have much the same scope, but with different emphasis. That proposed change would shift the emphasis to the practice. The current title puts the emphasis on the basis or claimed basis for the practice. Both are relevant, each to the other. We could even perhaps justify two articles, but I doubt a split is necessary. So I would stick with the more concise title, which may even have a slightly wider scope. Andrewa (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The reason for "Muslim world" is to include concubinage practices that occurred in the Muslim world, but had no roots in Islam. (This book covers several such examples) It also due to WP:CONSISTENCY with History of slavery in the Muslim world, Timeline of science and engineering in the Muslim world, Female labor force in the Muslim world, Science in the medieval Islamic world, Medicine in the medieval Islamic world etc. Note how we have "Medicine in the medieval Islamic world" as opposed to just "Medicine in the Islamic world", even though there's still medicine in the Islamic world today. This is because medieval Islamic medicine is unique enough to be a topic. Likewise historical concubinage is a unique topic that has been covered by many RS[9][10][11] (and many more).VR _talk 23:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The reason for "Muslim world" is to include concubinage practices that occurred in the Muslim world, but had no roots in Islam. So, as I thought, you are proposing a change of scope, not a renaming. A renaming is done to better reflect the scope, not to change a scope without a consensus. It is actually a big change of scope what you are requesting – basically another article. You and Iskandar323 should definitely find an agreement. --Grufo (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
What VR refers to is the fact that many of these current "in Islam" example practices were a complex product of both religious precedent and other social and cultural pressures within muslim civilizations. Take for example Ottoman practice, where a concubine could become a wife, when theologically it is quite clearly outlined that a concubine could not juts "become a wife". And then of course we have the Sunni-Shia schism and all manner of other denominational splits and cult formations - meaning that in any one time and place, what one person may claim is Islamic practice might be another's heresy. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewa: If you look at the article, you will find that it already emphasizes practice. Part of the reason for the change is that "in Islam" somewhat implies a theological approach, whereas this article is largely a compilation of historical and geographical examples of practice. In any case, the split you mention has already occurred. Islamic views on concubinage is its own article now (discussing the "claimed basis for the practice"), and Islamic views on slavery has existed as an article for an age. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
oppose the wording in Muslim world, support a title with wording in Islam. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
We should keep the article where it is. That is my opinion. The scond preference is to "Sexul slavery and concubinage in the Islam". What I am going to say next is original researchc, but it is true: followers of Islam interpret the Kuran, sharia, and religion differently. A few followers believe that unless the slave shows signs of manhood, till then he is not a male (beard and other signs). Under such cirumstances, the slave owners are permitted to have sex with the slave, as they are not having sex with a male technically. That is one interpretation. Like I said, this is OR, but true. Even though the article doesn't include the male slaves, I believe we should keep it gender neutral, and we should not limit it to "female slavery". —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any particular reason for expressing that opinion? In my personal experience, there is a very important distinction between the teachings of a religion and the societies in which those who profess to follow that religion are living. The article appears to have a scope that includes a description of some practices that are not directly a part of the religion itself and would even be considered contrary to the religion by most of its modern adherents. I therefore support replacing "in Islam" with something different, at least unless the scope of the article is very strongly restricted to the teachings of the religion itself. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The scope is restricted to the teachings of religion. What a religion teaches however is subject to interpretation, and this will lead to contrasting examples. But the article does not talk about examples of sexual slavery that are unequivocally alien to the religion but still happen “in the Muslim world” – or otherwise the article would also talk about prostitution, child pornography, etc. (as these happen in the Muslim world – like everywhere else – but in spite of the religion). Thus the article's scope is not “the Muslim world”, but “Islam”. I would further argue that associating a religion (“Muslim world”) with something unrelated to a religion (e.g., “child pornography”) is questionable in general, and we would usually prefer more neutral geographical names in these cases. --Grufo (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
What is "alien to the religion" is a controversial and a POV judgement. For example, the article includes ISIS though it has been condemned by most Muslims. Grufo similarly supported inclusion of bacha bazi (which involves men having sex with other men) even though most Islamic scholars have disapproved of homosexuality. Saying this is Islamic in wikipedia's voice violates WP:NPOV.VR _talk 00:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I do think that when something is justified using religion it must be presented as such, and this probably includes bacha bazi, although it constitutes a minority in that religion, more or less like we present the Mormons' opinions in Christian views on slavery, as I said in this comment (anchor). However the current article does not mention bacha bazi, so it makes no sense to even talk about bacha bazi in a discussion that is about what title best reflects the current scope (and we would probably need to discuss before inserting bacha bazi in the article). The latter does mention ISIS and Boko Haram, however the fact that the latter are not Islamic extremist organizations, but only extremist organizations would require a debate on its own – most of the Islamdom does not consider them as an expression of Islam, but a minority does (see Collaboration with the Islamic State § Groups expressing support for ISIL). Whatever the answer to the latter question is, it does not influence the scope of this page, but only the inclusion/exclusion of ISIS and Boko Haram from it. --Grufo (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This has been gone over a thousand times Grufo - as BarrelProof notes, there is an obvious distinction between what a religion teaches and what a society does. The burden of proof of a practice being "unequivocally alien" is not a bar that you get to set by yourself, but in any case, the article DOES includs examples of practices that were "unequivocally alien" to Islamic teaching, such as the enslavement on Circassians after the 17th century, when most of them had converted to Islam. The enslavement of fellow Muslims was unambiguously against Islamic teachings, but Ottoman society overlooked it. That's not currently written anywhere on this page, because details like this are a bit too encyclopedic and informative and don't really fit with the selective, saucy gossip column contents that the page currently contains. However, there is the whole section on "Sexual enslavement of Muslim women by Muslim men" that rather well illustrates the same point. All of this is content that would be fine in an article titled "in the Muslim world", but represents an odd disconnect between content and titling in an article labelled "in Islam". Iskandar323 (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Expecting reasonable effort towards at least reasonable participation of Women users in women related discussions and not to hurry up discussion closures til then.

- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
- Demand women's participation in decision-making at all levels
- Equality of women and men under the law; protection of women and girls through the rule of law
- Recognition of the fact that distinct experiences and burdens of women and girls come from systemic discrimination
- Ensure that women's experiences, needs and perspectives are incorporated into the ... social decisions.

Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is about terminology and sourcing, and this articles cites numerous eminent academics and scholars who are women, many of them specialised in gender studies or even more specifically gender studies with respect to Islam. A discussion of the sources is inclusive of these voices. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Support: I think the discussions at the Google scholar results section is itself explaining why the current title, containing "sexual slavery", is not suitable and a move should occur. The statistics show "concubine" is used far more than "sexual slavery" by the reliable sources. Also, I have previously explained my thoughts here and here. Among the numerous sources supporting the move, I would give more weights to sources like highly credible Encyclopaedia of the Quran and Encyclopaedia of Islam both by BRILL and The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women. Finally, I think History of concubinage in the Muslim world is a good suggestion, given the exchanged comments in this discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- That discussion did not establish that concubinage and sexual slavery are synonyms, and they clearly are not. And even if they were, there would still be the question of recognisability. Andrewa (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  You will not find them used in a manner like synonyms, because the two terms are not used interchangeably in the same works. You have books talking about "concubinage" and the use of "female slaves", which included as dancers and entertainers, but not solely as "sex slaves", because that wasn't really a concept. "Sexual slavery" itself is a very distinct post-1970s to 21st-century term, that is applies largely to events moving forward (for example, Isis-related sexual violence) in a world after abolition and slavery conventions. However, if you look back at, for example, Ottoman history, the use of female slaves, for among other things, sex, was embedded in a global landscape of slavery. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  - Btw, Iskandar323, Concubines and Courtesans refers to qiyan as "musical concubines".VR _talk 04:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, they seem to fit into a sort of societal niche not unlike Geisha - it's interesting. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
    - @Andrewa: Who said they are synonyms? --Mhhossein ^talk 08:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Could you please explain how they are not? How does a sex slave in Islam differ from a concubine in Islam? What are the two different Arabic terms used? --Grufo (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Well [12]. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You cite a comment of yours (anchor) in which you use Kecia Ali's book in support of the fact that according to you “concubinage” means “intercept of marriage and slavery” while “sexual slavery” means “type of slavery is meant for sex”. Does Kecia Ali make this distinction? No. In Kecia Ali's book a concubine is a slave for sex; not even a particular type, as Kecia Ali makes it clear that every unmarried female slave is at the owner's disposal as a concubine (p. 177). Please show how sources make a distinction between “slaves for sex” and “concubines”. --Grufo (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The entire article about "qiyan", which were a class of female slaves trained in the performing arts, shows that. These "musical concubines" or "courtesans" were not always restricted to harems, sometimes participated in public performances, and the emphasis was clearly on their artistic talents, not sexual activity. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that the English word “concubine” is used for translating “qiyan” while “slave for sex” is used for translating “surriyya”? You know it is not like that. A qiyan is not a concubine, but a female slave trained to entertain, and is usually left untranslated in English. Once again, please show how sources make a distinction between “slaves for sex” and “concubines”. --Grufo (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with Andrewa. The topic is a good one and there are many references available. The topic can be expanded to other articles if there is need for that, but Wikipedia is not censored and no grounded justification has been provided to change the name of the article. Iraniangal777 (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Support. I also believe that the proposed titles are more accurate than the current one. Besides "concubinage" is more commonly used in sources. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Ghazaalch: Thanks for your interest in this discussion. Please could you clarify if your support is for: Female slavery and concubinage in the Muslim world, the alternative suggestion: History of concubinage in the Muslim world, or either. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Iskandar323; The History of concubinage in the Muslim world is a better suggestion. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Oppose the proposed article title adds length and is less clear. The current article has a clear scope and is a notable topic, so it should be kept as is. A separate article on concubinage can be created if desired. I agree with Andrewa's comments above. (t · c) buidhe 08:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain how, in an Islamic context, an article on sexual slavery would differ from an article on concubinage? Because if you can't, then you're proposing the creation of a WP:Content fork.VR _talk 08:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Vice regent: I believe you should first justify the WP:POVFORK that your have created after failing to rename this page to “Concubinage in Islam” one year ago before telling other editors to do the same. --Grufo (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
My understanding is as follows:
VR believes that historically in mainstream Islam sex between slave owners and their slaves has been concubinage. i.e. If a slave-owner had a slave for sexual purposes, that slave was a concubine. Having said that, historically there have been some Muslim states where in some cases women freely entered into a state of concubinage – such women were only nominally slaves.
From VR's point of view, the article on Islamic views on concubinage deals with the religious laws and their basis.
But some editors see a continuity between the behaviour of modern (non-mainstream) terrorist groups who claim to be Islamic and the behaviour of Muslim societies in the past and those editors wish this article (Sexual slavery in Islam) to cover both the behaviour of mainstream Muslim slave-owning societies in the past and non-mainstream slave-owning terrorist groups in the present.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I think that pretty much sums it up. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: There is a continuity (in the practice, the justification, in the fact that relics of the institution were still alive in the 20th century – and beware, I said relics, not revivals) – although I agree that today it comes only from extremely traditionalist fragments of the Islamdom. As for other points, see this answer of mine (permalink) to Iskandar323. --Grufo (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not a fork of any kind - the article Islamic views on concubinage is about the theological approach; this article is about historical examples: just like History of Slavery in the Muslim World is the counterpart of Islamic views on slavery. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: This article (Sexual slavery in Islam) is about the theological approach, with historical examples in support. Being only about historical examples is what you would like to make it become via renaming. But your proposed change of scope still does not explain the apologetical removal of “sexual slavery” from the title, which is the elephant in the room of this discussion. Furthermore, Vice regent's POVFORK is not about concubinage, but about concubinage with slaves, and it does not even mention one single word about concubinage between free people, not even for saying that it is forbidden and constitutes zina. --Grufo (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is not about theology, it is about history. About 80% of the text is about historical practices and attitudes. There is no section here on the Quran, unlike Islamic views on concubinage#Qur'an. How do you talk about theology without Quran? One of the sources cited says historic Muslim concubinage was not rooted in the Quran. There are many other sources that discuss the divergence between Islamic theology and Muslim practices on concubinage ([13][14][15][16][17][18]). But historic Muslim concubinage practices - no matter how un-Islamic - have received significant coverage in RS. Eg an entire chapter is given to a concubinage practice that was condemned by theologians.VR _talk 19:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
You cannot measure how much space is given to history for judging the legitimacy of a scope, or I would ask you why Concubinage is not called History of concubinage. This page spends plenty of words about theology, the Quran is mentioned plenty of times even if there is no paragraph called “Quran”, and if we feel that the page grows too big we can always split the history to another page called History of sexual slavery in Islam, as we always do – and I would add that your WP:POVFORK should be probably merged to this page before we decide anything in that direction. Split or not, the fact that the topic “Sexual slavery in Islam” is more than worthy of an article has been stressed out many times by multiple editors. --Grufo (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
There are many precedents for separating legal and historic matters into different articles: History of prostitution and Prostitution law; Slavery in Britain and Slavery at common law; History of alcoholic drinks and Alcohol law; Marriage in Islam and Islamic marital jurisprudence.VR _talk 19:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Support There is the [[[Islamic views on concubinage]] article. This article here focuses more on the concubinage in the Muslim world, including a much larger section in the history (so not really "Islam" since the behavior of empires/dynasties in Islamic history don't necessarily represent what Islam actually teaches), even if it gives an intro to Islamic legal rulings. The term "concubinage" is also more commonly used in sources. (Google scholar shows double the results when using "concubine" instead "sexual slavery"). WatABR (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@WatABR: Thanks, do you think you will be also OK with History of concubinage in the Muslim world as supported by some users here?--Mhhossein ^talk 07:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. WatABR (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

History of slave-concubinage in Islam. Avoids WP:EUPHEMISM problems, while also ensuring the the content meets WP:Recognizability. "Islam" rather than "Muslim world" as "Muslim world" is too broad in scope with the article not discussing practices in the Muslim countries of South-East Asia, which tended to differ from what is discussed here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: I don't see how, from the particular perspective you have mentioned, Muslim world is a broader scope than Islam - surely Islam could also cover Muslim countries in South-East Asia too. The meanings are indistinguishable in that sense. You incidentally touch upon other discussions that have been had on whether the subject is altogether generally too broad in a geographical sense and might be better focused on tighter geographical regions, such as "Middle East", or discrete political entities, such as "Ottoman Empire", "Mughal Empire", etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
As I see it, something can be a component of a religion, but not practiced across the entire "world" of that religion. In Islam, the obvious modern day example would be Sharia, with it being a part of the religion but not being practiced across the entire "Muslim world", and I believe this separation also applies to this concept, with it being part of Islam (I note this is disputed, but there does seem to be a scholarly consensus on the matter), but never practiced across the entire "Muslim world".

I would agree with splitting the topic into regions, as it is too broad and the practices too different to cover the entire topic in a single coherent article. Working out where to make the splits, however, could be difficult. BilledMammal (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

What you're proposing is to restrict the scope to the religion of Islam; the current scope of the article clearly goes beyond that and includes examples from across the Muslim world. Furthermore, where is the scholarly consensus that sexual slavery (which includes forced prostitution, includes child porn, includes men sexually enslaving men) is a part of Islam? Your assertion seems rather POV (likewise the current title is a WP:POVTITLE). What sources do say is that pre-modern Islam allowed the practice of concubinage with female slaves subject to certain conditions and "concubinage" is the overwhelming majority name of that practice according to RS (this and this). Sources point out that most concubines in history across various cultures (not just Islamic ones) were slaves[19]. Sources that cover concubinage broadly (across history and anthropology) also refer to the Islamic practice as "concubinage"[[20] as does The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology[21]. There is no "euphemism" here unless you say that most scholars across multiple disciplines (history, anthropology, women's studies, Islamic studies etc) are all somehow wrong.VR _talk 23:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I would disagree that the current scope of the article goes beyond that, because the examples as I understand them are within the scope of the Islamic practice.

I would note that my preferred term, and the term under discussion in this conversation, is "slave-concubinage", not "sexual slavery", but I will mention that I don't understand the purpose of your examples, as they are examples of sexual slavery, not requirements for something to be classified as sexual slavery. I would also note that your examples support my proposed title; many of the quotes you provide describe concubines as slaves, as do the sources themselves for many of the others such as "Concubines and Courtesans: Women and Slavery in Islamic History" which describes "concubinage" as "sexual relations with slave women" and states that "Concubines in Islamic society, with few exceptions, were slaves".

Finally, it is a euphemism because the modern definition of concubine does not include slavery, and so the average reader will not recognize from the title that this article is discussing slavery. BilledMammal (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is based on RS usage, not personal opinion. I have shown again and again that English-language RS describe this as concubinage. All these sources were published in the last 20 years, so they are modern enough. The book you mentioned "Concubines and Courtesans" was published in 2017. I don't think there are any definitions of concubinage that preclude slavery. I looked up the term "concubinage" or "concubine" in several general encyclopedias (anthropology, women's studies, social history etc) and most of them explicitly state that a concubine was often a slave:

"The concubine ...is often a slave or a freedwoman" Women's Studies Encyclopedia
"a concubine was part of a formal system that, depending on the historical and geographical context, resembled either marriage or slavery." The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology. The source goes onto give examples of Ottoman and other Islamic societies as places where concubinage was practiced.
"Not all concubines were slaves, but most were." [Note this is talking about general, worldwide context] Historical Dictionary of Slavery and Abolition
"Voluntary concubinage should be distinguished from involuntary concubinage. In the latter the woman is sold, usually by her family. As a concubine she is rarely a slave, at least legally...yet in practice, the life of an involuntary concubine may look very much like a slave." The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History
"Concubinage was one of the social features of slavery which existed concurrently with the institution of marriage in both Muslim and non-Muslim societies in Africa and the Middle East." Encyclopedia of Social History
"A concubine is a term used to described a free or enslaved woman who was kept as a partner..." Enslaved Women in America: An Encyclopedia

I have also listed 22 sources that use the word "concubinage" to describe the Islamic practice in question table of 22 sources. Also the term "sexual slavery" fails WP:PRECISE; "sexual slavery in Islam" could be referring to Islam's relationship with child porn, forced marriage, or men sexually enslaving men - but this article is talking about none of those things.VR _talk 03:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Dictionaries from Merriam Webster, Cambridge, and Collins do not mention slavery in their definition of "concubine", and as such, to refer back to WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, the average reader will not understand from your proposed title that this article is discussing slavery. I would also disagree that a title including "sexual slavery" would fail WP:PRECISE, as the forms you have provided by way of example are examples, and not requirements. Indeed, by your logic every article we currently have at "Slavery in ..." would fail WP:PRECISE, as none of them include every possible form of slavery.

I also note that you aren't arguing against the title I proposed, which is "History of slave-concubinage in Islam", and does not include the term "sexual slavery". As such, can we return to discussing the actual proposal, rather than one you seem to believe that I am making? BilledMammal (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a lost battle, BilledMammal. You can have a look at how Vice regent bombed the Concubinage article pushing slavery-related content for understanding that they have a problem accepting the meaning of an English word – see also Talk:Concubinage and User Talk:Andrewa § Separate section.

Addition concerning this: “they are examples of sexual slavery, not requirements for something to be classified as sexual slavery” This is also a classic for Vice regent. Repeating the same arguments separately with different editors, despite each single editor shows the fallacy of the argument. I had literally told them that they “should stop defining sexual slavery on the basis of what it can include” (diff, anchor), but obviously I am not you, so Vice regent can repropose the same fallacy to you, who are a “fresher” here. --Grufo (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If the article Slavery in Spain only included certain types of slavery in Spain, but excluded other types of slavery known to have occurred in Spain, then that title would indeed fail WP:PRECISE (eg if it only included Christian slavery in Spain, but sought to exclude Muslim slavery or Roman slavery).

None of those definitions say that concubines can't be slaves. I think what you mean to say is that all aspects of the subject must be reflected in the title, which is unreasonable. Many features of a subject won't be in the title, but the body of the article. In fact, the term "sexual slavery" doesn't reveal that this article is only talking about male-female relationships.

And maybe I'm confused, but I thought you said you were ok with "sexual slavery" - if you're not, please clarify. I was the first person in this RM to suggest "History of slave-concubinage in the Muslim world", but good luck convincing others.VR _talk 04:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

In such a case you might have a point, but this article isn't such a case, as the scope is defined as "in Islam", and the examples you have raised are not part of Islam. However, you do make a good argument against changing from "in Islam" to "in the Muslim world", as the latter could be interpreted as a geographical region which would make the title imprecise.

As for the definitions, while they don't say that concubines can't be slaves, they do say that the current definition doesn't include slavery, and that is why we need additional context.

As for the article title, I do support those titles over the ones that omit mention of slavery, for the reasons mentioned in this discussion, but that is a discussion that we should be having where I mentioned that, not here. However, on the topic, I will note that I've struck my support for #7 and #8; the fact that they could be talking about geographical regions makes them insufficiently precise. BilledMammal (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Re this comment: "At "Shooting of Oscar Grant", [a reader] will correctly expect to find a shooting. At "History of concubinage in the Muslim world" they will expect, based on modern definitions of concubinage (...), to find an article about the practice of keeping mistresses in the Muslim world, when in fact they will find an article about slavery." Again, you're implying that concubinage and slavery are mutually exclusive in this context, whereas they are not. Just as "Shooting of Oscar Grant" and "Killing of Oscar Grant" refer to the same event (even though "shooting" and "killing" are not synonyms), likewise the practice of keeping a concubine in the Muslim world was (mostly) the same as a man having sex with his female slave. Because sometimes concubines were not slaves, the term "concubinage" is preferable to "slave concubinage", but I'm OK with both.

You haven't yet explained why your interpretation of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY clashes with most RS on the topic. If "sexual slavery" is such a recognizable name for this topic, how come most RS don't use it? If "concubinage" is such a poorly recognizable name, why is it so widely used by RS? (Table of RS preferred names)VR _talk 12:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Note concerning Concubines and Courtesans (book):

As the name suggests (“Slaves in Name Only”) the concubines in the Timurid dynasty were still sex slaves. The only difference is that they were free women who decided to accept to turn themselves into sex slaves – a very exceptional case in the Muslim world
What happens in the Muslim world does not necessarily influence what happens in Islam. The fact that Islam forbids the enslavement of Muslim women still remains, and the Timurid case would be forbidden in Islam (but not in the Muslim world) – but this article is about Islam.

Therefore, like for the other fallacy concerning what sexual slavery is supposed to include and citing the lack of child porn for it, please do not keep repeating this fallacy too. It should end now, as it concerns something that is inherently out of scope (Muslim world ≠ Islam). --Grufo (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The article as it stands definitively strays outside of practices that are permissible from an Islamic perspective, and which are only connected to Islam by virtue of a broadly Islamic society or self-proclaimed Islamic group. Good examples of this scope beyond Islam include references to Muslim women being enslaved as concubines, which is clearly un-Islamic. There is also the somewhat tendentious material about Islamic extremist groups, which have been roundly condemned by groups such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which is the closest thing to a collective voice of the Muslim community. It is a considerable stretch to maintain the inclusion of groups that are considered in violation of Islamic law, if not heretical, by the mainstream religious community under the umbrella of Islam. It is akin to using examples of the beliefs and practices of Christin doomsday cults under articles simply titled "in Christianity". Iskandar323 (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I've moved your reply down Iskandar in line with the break VI put in; I hope you don't mind.

To address your reply, I wouldn't agree that it goes beyond the scope in that example, as the forcing of enslaved Muslim women into sexual slavery was permitted, and how these women came to be enslaved is directly relevant and in scope, even in cases where Islam did not permitted the women to be forced into slavery. As for whether a group should be included or not, that would have to be determined by how they are classified in reliable sources - to determine how controversial inclusions are handled elsewhere, though noting that they are generally not classified as a doomsday cult (though I also note that Joseph Smith did arguably predict that the apocalypse would come by 1891 - incidentally, that article is in desperate need of WP:POV cleanup), I find that Mormons are mentioned on most "in Christianity" articles, a classification that is controversial.

I would however agree that there are two sections that are likely out of scope of the current title; "Sexual enslavement of Muslim women by non-Muslim men" and "ISIL", but as currently written they are not in scope for any of the proposed titles, and so are not material to this discussion - though a separate discussion on them is needed. BilledMammal (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose the current article is clear and interesting to the reader. The proposed new article title is too long and condufsing.--Lambrusquiño (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Summary table

This table contains the number of users who explicitly said they found a particular article title acceptable, not including those who didn't express preference for a particular title. Often users found more than one title acceptable.VR _talk 02:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

We cannot ask them, however we have to assume that Mcphurphy was in favor of the current title as well (anchor) – they are the ones that created the page and chose the current title, and they said that alternative titles were only acceptable “compromises” (anchor). I am going to add Mcphurphy among the supporters of “Sexual slavery in Islam” as well. If you have objections, please write them here. --Grufo (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

That diff is a comment by Mcphurphy that google scholar gives more hits for sexual slavery than concubinage. But there was a technical error, as Iskandar pointed out, and the results actually show that concubinage gets more hits than sexual slavery. They were indef blocked shortly after that comment. Anyway, I've left their vote but with an asterisk.VR _talk 23:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not possible to enter into the details of a discussion that never took place, and if the discussion had ended there by choice we would still count Mcphurphy's bare vote as not opposing “Sexual slavery in Islam”. --Grufo (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

While I support #4 as the "best" option in my opinion, I would also support #3, 5, ~~7, and 8~~see comment above over the options I have not listed, as I believe they have the least issues. BilledMammal (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Thank you. Table updated. --Grufo (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Titles and !votes
Title	Number	Users
Female slavery and concubinage in the Muslim world	6	Iskandar323, VR, Jushyosaha604, Mhhossein, Ghazaalch, WatABR
History of concubinage in the Muslim world	8	VR, Iskandar323, M.Bitton, Jushyosaha604, Nishidani, Mhhossein, Ghazaalch, WatABR
History of slave concubinage in the Muslim world	4	BilledMammal, VR, Toddy1, Nishidani
History of slave-concubinage in Islam	1	BilledMammal
Sexual slavery in Islam (current title)	7	Grufo, Andrewa, Iraniangal777, buidhe, BilledMammal, Lambrusquiño, Mcphurphy*
Islamic views on sexual slavery	1	Grufo
Sexual slavery in the Islamic world	1	Mcphurphy
Sexual slavery in the Muslim world	1	Mcphurphy

See above discussion

Proliferation of POV-forks

Slightly more than one year ago Vice regent attempted to rename this page to “Concubinage in Islam”. After the rename attempt failed they created a WP:POVFORK of this page at Islamic views on concubinage. Now something similar is happening again. Although Iskandar323's move request has not been closed yet, they have just created a new page at Concubinage in the Muslim world. --Grufo (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

One thing that unites both "support" !votes and "oppose" !votes (except Grufo) is that there should be an article on "concubinage" in the Muslim world. Two "oppose" !votes (andrewa and buidhe) said it should be created separately, while the "support" votes wanted to move this article to (some variant of) "concubinage in the Muslim world". At heart of the debate is whether "sexual slavery in Islam" and "concubinage in Muslim world" constitute the same topic. This is not an easy question because, while most sources cited in this article use the term "concubine"/"concubinage", few use the term "sexual slavery" (see this table). (As table1 shows, most search results for "sexual slavery" and "Islam" relate to ISIS). Grufo pointed out this source that uses the terms "sexual slavery" and "slave concubinage" interchangeably. Andrewa presented a source; it too used "concubinage" and "sexual slavery" interchangeably. VR _talk 18:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:POVFORK:

The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article.
— WP:POVFORK

Both your page and Iskandar323's page are like textbook examples of POVFORKS born after renaming attempts. As for whether “sexual slavery” and “concubinage” can be differentiated in Islam, this discussion favors the idea that “concubinage in Islam” is a subset of “sexual slavery in Islam”, and my personal opinion is that even a page that focus solely on concubinage in Islam should be have “slavery” or “slave” in the title, as the institution we are talking about cannot involve free women. --Grufo (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say that "a page that focus solely on concubinage in Islam" may include some mentioning of "slave" or "slavery" in the body (not the "title"). What's that insistence of having in the title coming from? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Addition. To bring further arguments to the WP:POVFORK nature of these spin-off pages and on the fact that the current^[1] rename proposal was in fact a re-scoping from the beginning (despite who proposed it always claimed differently), it might be worth reading a recent comment left by Iskandar323 on their Talk Page concerning Concubinage in the Muslim world:

I don't see why you are arguing against the article I created - it is essentially what a boiled-down Sexual slavery in Islam might have looked like if re-scoped.
— Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC) (diff, permalink)

--Grufo (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Notes

^ (Sexual slavery in Islam → Female slavery and concubinage in the Muslim world)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] (Sexual slavery in Islam → Female slavery and concubinage in the Muslim world)

[1]