Talk:Concubinage/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article name

Is "Concubinage" the best name for this article? It makes the writing and reading awkward and obscures the meaning. Wouldn't it be more correct to name the article "Concubine" and re-write the article for that reference? —Frecklefoot 16:57, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Heterosexual vs. homosexual cohabitation

The article includes the following:

Several US states legislatively forbid cohabitation between heterosexual partners. The law is not typically enforced, but various public agencies are said to discriminate against their employees using such laws. Some civil rights activists believe that such use of the law is unconstitutional, and provides homosexuals with rights denied to heterosexuals.

That passage is in need of some serious verification. First, can anyone name states that outlaw heterosexual cohabitation but have no laws that would extend to homosexual cohabitation? For obvious reasons, states that had sodomy laws up until Lawrence v. Texas don't count. Second, if "some civil rights activists" genuinely believe such a thing, then names, direct quotations, and primary sources are in order. Otherwise, the reference to "some civil rights activists" is just so many weasel words. Doctor Whom 17:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO, this passage misrepresents the laws. Some anti-homosexual groups use this argument in relation to protected domestic partnerships. Pretty sure that Georgia has some laws controlling welfare benifits that disallow co-habitation. More often enforced against heterosexual co-habitation. But it has been used against homosexual co-habitation, too. Will check sources for clarification. --FloNight 09:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was this re-directed from Living Together?

I think this category has a very judgmental sound to it. Concubinage implies slavery and many couples who live together outside of marriage do so with mutual consent. To lump all cohabiting couples with sexual slaves is unfair, and it shows a bias towards marriage.

Quite - the article, or at least the initial (sophomoric) sections - should be deleted in toto as they cannot be salvaged. The main problem is not the judgmental tone, but the fact that it talks about entirely different types of relationships. WikiFlier 08:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Total Misunderstanding of Term

For all the sophomoric outrage at unequal relationships, male superiority etc., the term concubine does NOT simply mean "living together without obligation".

Rather, a concubine is a lower grade quasi-wife and as such entitled to a certain level of economic support. Similarly, her children have a defined status as children of the father. Where there are no "legitimate" heirs, the child of a concubine may inherit the father's position and estate.

A concubine remains exclusively attached to her man for life, or at least for a long period of time. The term "concubine" also implies the existence of a higher class wife.

The term concubina is well defined, for example, in Mexican law. See for example this decision by a California court dealing with the concept of concubina under Mexican law.

In Japan, the most famous emperor of recent times, the Meiji emperor, was the son of a concubine. He was groomed for the succession because other potential heirs were deemed unsuitable.

To sum up, a concubine is far more than a partner in a casual relationship. The difference is precisely that she does have - limited - rights as a minor spouse. She may even have gone through a form of "wedding" with the "husband". WikiFlier 09:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

pilegesh

I don't think pilegesh should be merged into concubinage(as someone has proposed on pilegesh page) pilegesh is a a term primarily used in the context of Judaism and Jewish law and thus should have a separate article like mutah (a Muslim form of a pilegesh like relationship)has. 71.236.185.58 17:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Concubinage rules

196.205.156.215 21:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In Al Nissaa 3, The Quran mentions that you may marry one wife or live with a concubine ما ملكت أيمانكم. I need your help with details about this relationship and its rules and borderlines.

I've removed the reference to Hinduism and Buddhism as they clearly don't follow the Christian Bible. If you can find a reference to concubines in the sutras feel free to re add.. Secretlondon (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Solomon fact

says 300 wives, 700 concubines here, on the wiki page for Solomon, its reversed, just thought i'd let someone know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.116.31 (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh?

Although the nature of a concubine relationship is defined, the nature of sex within that relationship is not explicitly stated. Shouldn't that be more clear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.200.56 (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Common Law

Removed reference to common law marriage. A common law marriage is a marriage.

I agree, and I believe the reference to a California case should be removed, as it is about Mexican common-law marriage which is called 'concubina'. The referenced article even says: "Vargas contends concubinage is equivalent to a Mexican common law marriage...". --Bobbozzo (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the reference. --Bobbozzo (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A Chinese Emperor with his concubines inspecting his fantasy fishing fleet

Could someone replace this misleading image with something else please? The couple were not even East Asians at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.246.28 (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that the actual name of the painting, or just a description? If the former, then presumably it should be capitalized and italicised, e.g. as "A Chinese Emperor With His Concubines Inspecting His Fantasy Fishing Fleet, by Jacques Vigouroux Duplessis". If the latter, then I can only see one concubine (and indeed, how do we know it's a concubine and not a wife etc). Plus, what does it mean by a "fantasy fishing fleet"? Wardog (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This picture is pointless. It is a western fantasy rather than a realistic portrayal of China Imperial life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.243.169.73 (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Concubine Housing

I've seen this before... What's the word/term for the place where concubines are housed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.45.61 (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Further to "Total Misunderstanding of Term"

This is linked to "Concubinato" in Spanish; and I believe these are false cognates. Concubinato is more akin to "Domestic Partnership." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.195.12 (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

odd, nothing about Christian (particularly Roman Catholic) concubines

There was a long tradition, going almost up to the modern era, of Roman Catholic priests having concubines, particularly in small towns. Not often admitted, but pervasive nonetheless. We hear a great deal about Jewish and Islamic here, but not a word about Roman Catholic . . .! 74.90.227.120 (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)captcrisis

Copy editing

I copy edited all of this article except the Islam section, because that section seems to be under discussion. I worked on all the other sections.Coaster92 (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixing Paul Sources

The verses cited to at the end (1 Cor. 3) have nothing to do with sex. Perhaps the editor meant 1 Cor. 7? Emperor001 (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Loan word?

What is the source for the notion that Pilegesh is a loan word into Hebrew from Ancient Greek,and not the other way around? Sochwa (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Theology

This part is interesting with some valuable information, but does not meet the Neutral Point of View standards of Wikipedia, especially in such phrases as [This is how Islam set an example of equating a slave to free human where standards of justice demanded.], which come across as a lecture from a teacher to pupils. It immediately puts the question, "says who?" Please could this be edited to make this particular part of the article more neutral? 2.28.174.172 (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It refers to chapter 4, verse iii "But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses." i.e. it says to MARRY the slave (what your right hand possesses), doesn't it? Not to keep her as a concubine...The flow of this seems to be quite a bit of original research/opinion. 122.149.173.130 (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of neutralizing the section a little bit by removing the following statements, all of which lacked any references:

-"The ancient Greek, Roman and pre-Islamic Arab cultures were subjugated with inhuman traditions, taboos and rules of misusing slave woman by raping, selling, sharing etc." True, but comparing Islam with noncontemporary ancient cultures is not the focus of the section.

-"It was a reforming measure for penetrating essential change that Arab culture required then." This is just a poorly worded sentence whose point was restated more eloquently in the very next sentence anyway by, "Awarding to concubines (slave women) status equivalent to wives and fatherhood to their children was in fact a revolution in the society for considering slaves equivalent to elites."

-"Islam thus taught mankind to treat human as human instead of throw-able commodity." -"Muhammad hence set an example of equality." -"That is how Islam discouraged unjust attitudes, taboos and customs against slaves and concubines." -"In fact today's world has reached and adopted such pro-human standards because of the centuries long efforts of Islam that consistently discouraged concubinage through enforcing standards to treat slaves equivalent to elites and manumit them as possible."

Removed the above non-neutral point of view statements. Statements of personal opinion have no place in Wikipedia. A more acceptable and neutral way of conveying these ideas would be to cite well-respected scholars on Islam who have made similar analyses of the Quran and of the historical influence of Islam. Otherwise, leave the analysis to the reader. The nobility of Muhammad in his fair treatement of his concubines speaks for itself.

I also made a few other minor edits mostly for grammar and brevity and combining redundant sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.80.223 (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This section still has neutrality problems, it's clearly written from a pro-Islam POV and needs to be balanced. Those women taken into sex slavery historically (and currently) would doubtless struggle to recognise the rosy view presented here. 92.251.51.3 (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This section discusses the Islamic jurisprudence concerning concubinage, and not the experiences of concubines in the Islamic world. The jurisprudential discussion seems neutral to me – though I speak without expert knowledge. This section is similar to the "In Judaism" section which, as of yet, has attracted no dispute of its neutrality. Rcrptmncr (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I just went about reorganizing the article to put like items together. To me it seems obvious that the situation under slavery in the United States goes under the Christianity section, even though in no uncertain terms nearly every modern Christian would disavow such practices. It stands to reason likewise that Islamic State practices go under Islam, even if good Muslims repudiate the group as unrepresentative of their religion in every way. This is an overall taxonomy of religion we are using to organize this material, not a key for identifying particular species. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

-Islam gives men and women equality. According to some scholar concubine are allowed if the man take permission from his wife. If the wife did or the girl whom the man want to take as concubine do not agree then the man can not take her as concubine. On the other hand many influencial scholar of islam like Muhammad Asad disagree with it according to those scholar Islam did not give permission to Premarital sex. According to them if someone one to have relation whom they right hand posses then they have to marry them first. For more information check this article. http://therationaliser.blogspot.com/2013/07/does-quran-permit-sex-with-slaves.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ominictionary (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Copy Editing: "China" section

I tagged the "China" section of this article, specifically the paragraph that begins with "A display of concubinage...." It seems either to have been written by a non-native English speaker, or to be a rough translation. If I get some free time, I might take a stab at it if no one else has by then. Also, the paragraphs needs citations. Matuko 17:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"A display of concubinage is in" could be worded better. The word excellent needs to be changed to something but what? Roll back what I did on the article if you think it's worse. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

In the last sentence of that section "but remain deep spiritual love to his cousin" needs work. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Concubinus

I'm not aware of current practices or the extent of the practice in ancient history, but I think there is scholarly study on the role of the "concubinus". There was information on this in the article, but it was removed without explanation. I have re-added it, and hope that, if it's removed again, it will at least be explained. See this link for a translation of Catallus and notes on it, which refer to the slave "boyfriend" a young lord kept, while engaged. I am not a scholar, so I cannot say definitely what the role of concubini is or was, but I believe there have been periods in history where the taking of an official male lover (or lovers) was not condemned in certain cultures. See pederasty for an indication of this, especially the Romans section. As this article is (or should be?) on concubinage in general, I do not see why concubini should be excluded, unless there is evidence to support that it was not true concubinage. Maedin\^talk 21:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I know this is very old. But just to answer your question, a concubine by definition is a woman who is in a interpersonal and sexual relationship with a man. Concubinage can only exist between a man and a woman. Also, a man cannot be a concubine of a woman. Only a woman can be a concubine. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Can men be concubines to women?

Is there anywhere in history they have been? I've heard somewhere in Africa women are regarded as superior and the men take their last names rather than the other way around. 68.189.241.158 (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Men cannot be concubines to women. Concubines by definition can only be women. I haven't heard of the supposed African society that you point to, but even if it exists it would not matter when it comes to this article. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

My changes

I'd like to see some more reasonings for why my changes were reverted beyond "well the article has always said this before". Tons of old sources are incorrect and don't reflect the actual history of a people described, (like avoiding LGBT history). I'd like to known why my sources apperently aren't good enough to be included.★Trekker (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me just say (respectfully) that I am not interested in engaging in a very long and unproductive argument over an issue that I see as having a pretty obvious answer. I’ve grown tiresome of useless arguments on WP and I am sure you have as well, especially considering that you’ve been on WP a whole lot longer than I have. Also, I would like to say that I am not trying to avoid LGBT topics on WP articles at all. I know that your statement above did not imply that, but I just want to make that clear.

Concubinage can only exist between a man and a woman. It’s not just some dictionary definitions that say that, reliable sources say that. But first off, dictionary definitions can and have been used as cites on very well established WP articles. See the Sexual Intercourse WP article for examples of this. Here are some other RS that clearly define concubines as only women and concubinage as only being between a man and a woman. The Oxford University press defines a concubine as "a woman who lives with a man but has lower status than his wife or wives". Here is an academic source talking about concubinage in Anglo-Saxon England and polygyny, which is when a man has sexual relations with multiple women. Here is the legal definition of a concubine. The fact is that concubinage is adjacent to marriage and heavily connected to sexual reproduction and thus it can only exist between men and women.

Sure, concubini did exist, and technically still exist just like concubines technically still exist. But they are not concubines and they are not related to concubinage. They are different and off-topic for this WP article. However I do think that a WP article for concubini could exist or that it should at least have its own section in a relevant WP article (which I believe it does). But this article is not that article. Under Roman Law, concubinage was defined as the cohabitating of a man and a woman outside of the man’s marriage, implying sexual intercourse and it also talks about the children born from this relationship.

"Male concubines" don’t exist because they go directly against what the true definition of a concubine is. Some people (and even sources) may refer to concubini as “male concubines” but that is just to relay the type of relationship that those 2 men may have. It’s like saying “male harem”. That is incorrect, because (as everyone knows) harems are a specific area where women reside, specifically where the wives, and concubines of a man live. But the average reader will be able to understand that “male harem” is intended to mean an area where only men reside even if the usage of the term is technically incorrect. Like harems, concubinage and concubines have a long and historically established definition and culture that is related to only women. Including concubinus in this article would be offtopic and go against the definition of a concubine.

I haven’t checked this but Hardyplants stated that one of the sources that you used appears to be about fictional writing.

As a sidenote...Yay! I've just met another fan of Bret Hart on Wikipedia! -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggested intro for Concubines in the US re:law, slavery, consent, and repudiation of slavery on legal aspects

I feel that the content in the section is relevant in a legal and historical context of the use of the English word concubinage but the discussion of sexual relationships with slaves needs some context. The resulting reality in law and legal custom is that in hindsight the only consenting or non-rape relationship possible is when a slave had 'stolen back' her own consent and had an 'illicit' affair with another slave or free-person who was also 'stealing' the truly voluntary and un-coerced by neither hope for reward nor fear of punishment the consent, affections, and/or sexual attentions of the slave and without the proxy consent of the slave's owner. This as opposed to a master imposing a breeding program upon two slaves where both would be in a situation of rape at ever occurrence and may also define any period of coerced pregnancy, in another example a widow ordering a slave into her bed for her sexual enjoyment no matter what the feelings of the unfreed slaves would also be him being raped. The Foster and Allain cites could also show women taking Concubines qualified with slave-rape but of the male identity concubine for contrast in this article.

Text: Relationships with slaves in the United States and Confederate States were sometimes euphemistically referred to as concubinary. From lifelong to single or serial sexual visitations these relationships with un-freed slaves illustrate a radical power imbalance between a human owned as chattel and the legal owner of same; they are now defined, without regard for claims of sexual attraction or affection by either party, to be rape. This is because when personal ownership of slaves was enshrined in the law an enslaved person had no legal power over their own legal personhood, the legal control to which was held by another entity, therefore a slave could never give real and legal consent in any aspect of their life. The inability to give any kind of consent when enslaved is in part due to the ability of a slave master to legally coerce acts and declarations including those of of affection, attraction, and consent through rewards and punishments, but legally the concept of chattel slavery in the United States and Confederate States defined and enforced in the law owning the legal personhood of a slave; meaning that the proxy for legal consent was found with the slave's master who was the sole source of consent in the law to the bodily integrity and all efforts of that slave except as regulated or limited by law. With slavery being recognized as a crime against humanity in United States law as well as in international customary law the legal basis of slavery is repudiated for all time and therefore repudiates any rights of owner-rapists had had to exercise any proxy sexual or other consent for their slaves. /text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.14.16 (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This has been in talk for about two months without comment on text or cites so on my next visit I plan to add the text as an intro to the USA/CSA section.109.66.40.119 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that, as consent is not really possible in a situation of slavery, and that concubinage is a real legal status in many places, calling female slaves concubines is at best a very stretched euphemism. They never had legal recognition in any sense, and the U.S. has never allowed legal concubinage anyway. I'm not sure that this belongs in the article, as the slaves truly weren't concubines. It's also very outsized to have an entire section on the U.S. (a country without concubinage) when no other countries have their own sections. AnandaBliss (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Common features of pre-modern concubinage

Grufo, why are you removing sourced content? VR _talk 21:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Being sourced does not make a content WP:DUE. You are obviously POV-pushing a connection between concubinage and sexual slavery here while there is a dispute under Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam. But:

• The Concubinage page is not about historical concubinage, and hopefully it gets expanded more into the present rather than the past
• You have created a paragraph called “Common features”, but it is definitely not a common feature today to practice concubinage with a slave; and if the paragraph had not been WP:UNDUE it should be named instead “Common features of pre-modern concubinage” – but I have strong doubts that it is necessary, since the page is already unbalanced towards history
• Repeating that it was common for slaves to be used as concubines, unless you are talking about societies where only slaves could be concubines (e.g.: Islam), is WP:UNDUE: in slave owning societies slaves where used for all kind of things

--Grufo (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

If the content is commonly mentioned in WP:reliable sources then, by definition, its WP:DUE. I'll restore the section with your suggested section name. You are free to add features of modern concubinage, though I personally didn't find much in reliable sources on the topic.VR _talk 21:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

“If the content is commonly mentioned in WP:reliable sources then, by definition, its WP:DUE”

That is complete nonsense. An article about String Theory can be a very good source, but it is completely WP:UNDUE in History of soccer.

“I'll restore the section with your suggested section name”

Please do not edit-war. The sense of writing in a Talk Page is that of letting as many editors as possible intervene, not that of restoring a contested content five minutes afterwards.

--Grufo (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your string theory and soccer analogy. In any case, do you feel the material is irrelevant? Do you feel it presents a fringe viewpoint? I don't get your reason for removing it.VR _talk 22:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Besides being poorly written and WP:UNDUE (so yes, irrelevant), I believe that using a dictionary of slavery for an article about concubinage constitutes a perfect example of using a WP:POVSOURCE. --Grufo (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not what a WP:POVSOURCE is, and in any case there is nothing wrong with a source covering a topic from a particular angle. The sources I used are very reliable and we can take this to WP:RSN if you have any doubts. And how is it irrelevant when the source is talking about concubines? Is this not an article on concubinage? VR _talk 04:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

“Covering a topic from a particular angle” is the definition of WP:POV (“If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article”). --Grufo (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

(←) These are the sources that you appear to dislike. Can you show how the constitute "an extremely small minority"?

• The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, edited by professor Junius P. Rodriguez, published by ABC-CLIO.
• Slavery in the Modern World: A History of Political, Social, and Economic Oppression, lso by Junius P. Rodriguez, published by ABC-CLIO.
• Slavery and Social Death, written by professor Orlando Patterson and published by Harvard University Press.

Can you show WP:RS that reject the viewpoints of the above sources?VR _talk 14:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

“These are the sources that you appear to dislike”

I do not dislike the sources, I dislike their usage.

“Can you show how the constitute "an extremely small minority"?”

The fact that this is a position held by a small minority is shown, for example, by the fact that if a link between sexual slavery and concubinage had been evident, the same unbalance that you have added to this page (using only sources about slavery) would have been reflected also by the zilion actual sources about concubinage. If this does not happen it is not because the sources that deal with concubinage want to minimize slavery, but because the link appear only when you look at it from a particular angle (see examples below).

“Can you show WP:RS that reject the viewpoints of the above sources?”

See WP:ONUS.

Being WP:POVSOURCE does not mean being unreliable, being WP:POVSOURCE means that what they state must be filtered, since it comes from a context where things can have a slightly different meaning. Two concrete examples related to your edits:

• Take this sentence: “Not all concubines were slaves but most were”. What does it mean exactly? If the author uses the word “concubine” informally, involving any non-marital relationship, then of course, slaves have always been constantly raped. This happened also in ancient Rome for example, but we know that in ancient Rome a “concubine” had a precise legal status, the name concerned free women, and the Roman Empire has constituted a very big part of the world population for centuries. So what should we do? Should we call concubines also the slaves the Romans had sex with, despite the Romans called concubines something else, and arrive to the conclusion that most concubines were slaves? The source is WP:POVSOURCE because (correctly) focuses on slavery, not concubinage, and the usage of the second word might not be strict enough.
• Take this other sentence: “The practice of concubinage, practiced in patriarchal cultures throughout history, is far more limited in modern times” (which you have referenced with a note). The source of this sentence is so focused on slavery that it does not even take into account that concubinage applied to the modern world is a synonym of “civil union” ([1], [2]) – quite the opposite of slavery and very far from declining.

--Grufo (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

There is currently nothing in the article that refers to modern day concubinage. Why not add it? In the meantime, if you feel that my edits present facts that are contested, then we can attribute them, e.g. "According to X, concubinage has declined, but according to Y it is very much well and alive." And Roman empire did practice slave concubinage, I'll add that to the article.VR _talk 16:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

“And Roman empire did practice slave concubinage”

They had sex with slaves, but the term concubina (which the Romans invented) was used only for free people. Sexual intercourse with a slave was called “contubernium” ([3]). Your last edit is probably the greatest evidence that you are using WP:POVSOURCES.

“I'll add that to the article”

You should not open a discussion seeking for consensus about something you do anyway (that's already the second time in a few hours today).

--Grufo (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It is ok for there to be disagreements between reliable sources. In that case, we simply include all major viewpoints and attribute them.VR _talk 18:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no “disagreement between reliable sources” about what concubinage was in ancient Rome. There is only an imprecise usage of the word “concubinage” from a non-specialist WP:POVSOURCE. --Grufo (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

These are the two sources.

• Matthew J. Perry. Gender, Manumission, and the Roman Freedwoman. Cambridge University Press. p. 40. {{cite book}}: External link in |author= (help)
• Kyle Harper. Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275–425. Cambridge University Press. p. 460. {{cite book}}: External link in |author= (help)

If you think they are non-specialist maybe we can take this to WP:RSN.VR _talk 16:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A solution

We are obviously not going to agree on whether this content belongs in this article. But it belongs somewhere. I suggest at a new article Concubinage within slavery and have set up draft:Concubinage within slavery to explore this possibility. It obviously needs work but it's just a start. If it is eventually moved to the main namespace we can then link to that article from this one. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Even with that article, I think the concept will at least merit mention on this page as its clearly related. I think an appropriately named section could be the solution. I'll WP:BOLDly do that and feedback would be appreciated.VR _talk 21:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, we need to evaluate WP:DUE weight based on how much WP:reliable sources talk about a subject. So if this viewpoint is not prevalent in reliable sources, one needs to substantiate that claim with references to WP:RS.VR _talk 21:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You talk about WP:DUE weight? You have been so fixated in POV-pushing a controversial meaning for the word “concubinage” that you have ended up editing the Concubinage page using dictionaries of slavery or even sources do not distinguish between a contubernium and a concubinatus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grufo (talk • contribs)

Let's consider the source you gave above. It says

The Greek and the Roman came to call a concubine any woman who had a more or less permanent agreement with a man for common sexual living without being a full legitimate wife. It included every form of sub-marital relation. And because of this, a tradition of confusing terms has been established among all writers since that day, so that even when speaking of the oriental institution they speak of the slave-wife, the slave-girl or even of common-law wives as concubines.

So the source seems to be saying that the Greek and Romans included any woman lower in status than the wife (including slaves) in the definition of concubinage, but this wasn't necessarily the case in Jewish history? It also seems to be recognizing that there exists a confusion among academics. If so, we should also make a note of that in this article.VR _talk 22:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Roman Law is quite well documented. Here both concubinage and contubernium are well explained (emphasis and Latin translations in the notes are mine):

From matrimontum, we should distinguish;

First, concubinatus, a union authorized under Augustus from the leges Julia et Papia, between persons of unequal condition, provided the man had no uxor. The concubina was neither uxor nor pellex, but uxoris loco. The children, issue of such a union, are neither legitimi nor spurii, but naturales. (Cod. 5, 27.)

Second, contubernium is the perfectly regular and valid relation between a free man and a slave, or between two slaves. Through the civil law, it produced all the effects arising from the natural law.

— 

They even needed to be both Roman citizens to be in a concubinage, or they would not have their rights recognized:

A legal marriage could not be contracted except between Roman citizens enjoying the rights of connubium. However, the inevitable and necessary intercourse with the peregrini compelled the Romans to regulate unions with some other persons. Such a marriage was not a justum matrimonium, but neither was it a concubinage. They called it matrimonium injustum, non legitimum, or matrimonium juris gentium.

— 

--Grufo (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Andrewa:

“If it is eventually moved to the main namespace we can then link to that article from this one.”

Even before the recent edits I honestly did not like the current page too much: it is too much unbalanced towards ancient history (but still without the people who actually gave a legal definition of “concubine”, i.e. the Romans) and the institution of concubinage in its original meaning has actually had a great deal of life in the pre-modern (mostly with aristocratic people being concubines of each other) and modern world (civil unions, same sex concubinage, etc.). So in general I think that this article would need to be re-organized nearly from scratch, but it is quite some work to do.

“and have set up draft:Concubinage within slavery to explore this possibility.”

Here they call it “involuntary concubinage”, but I have no idea what encyclopedia that is, and more research needs to be done with more reliable sources. It might be not a bad idea though!

--Grufo (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

10 years ago, it was decided that the new world encyclopedia is not a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#New_World_Encyclopedia_is_not_a_reliable_source. I don't know if the consensus has changed.VR _talk 22:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

There are better sources too that use “involuntary concubinage”, like The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History --Grufo (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I would actually prefer to avoid the word concubinage except in direct quotation, as I have said, because of its obvious ambiguity and smell of POV. So if the page were to be moved to the main namespace I'd need to raise the question of the name again. But I will of course go with any consensus. Andrewa (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand that. But I think that the important thing is cleaning this page a bit. Whether by splitting it in two pages or by splitting it in two sections of the same page (“concubinage” and “involuntary concubinage”) is maybe not that important. --Grufo (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History is a good source. It also shows that both voluntary and involuntary concubinage have been widely practiced in history. It does not seem to favor one type over another. That means WP:DUE (and WP:NPOV) requires us to give significant space to both types of concubinage.VR _talk 23:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the IP with an account now. I'll make this clear to others as it becomes necessary.

@Grufo, I think you're focussing a bit too much on Rome here (which would be valid in the Roman section). This article is about the entire world including pre-Roman times so we can't possibly use them as a gold standard.

As a hypotherical example the Romans may not have considered marriage between non-citizens to be valid but it wouldn't be appropriate to use Roman law as a reference for all marriages across the world. We need to see how the sources use concubinage globally and I'm glad you're engaging with some of them now now.

I honestly see no need for hostility and appreciate your efforts to work towards brainstorming new drafts.

Previously on the other page you've stated "Being imprisoned in a harem makes the term “concubinage”"... usable for these women only with great care" but we can see numerous references here to bought/captured/imprisoned women. See for example China and the Vikings. If you're right this article would require a major reconstructuring and how are we going to differentiate the involuntary from voluntary concubinage? The only voluntary concubines seem to be in Roman law (were contubernium involuntary concubines?) and the modern day.

You seem to have Free Union [4] in mind (lo and behold, your points about Catholicism are found there) proponents of which (ironically for us) claim marriage to be a form of slavery. But using this to mean concubinage is rather off. Slave concubinage is more understandable but it would still be a subset within concubinage and there doesn't seem to be much historical evidence that non-slave concubines (defined in the non-Roman/non-Modern way) were all that free or well off either (See for example free Greek concubines who were from poor families). It'll be helpful if there are sources that spell this out.

The Women Encyclopaedia looks like a good source but I can't access all of it and it seems to discuss voluntary vs involuntary concubinage when talking about 21st century practice and has a full article on comparative concubinage where it notes that the issue of Roman concubinage is much disputed leading to many debates. The other sections seem much less controversial. I don't see any mention of Islam which is curious but I see a harem painting there, leading me to believe that they didn't consider it noteworthy enough rather than objections to the term concubinage. Regards. Ronakhtalk (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ronakhtalk: Finally you made an account! I don't know why The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History chose not to treat Islam in the article about “concubinage”. It might be that they consider it too much similar to sexual slavery to be listed under “concubinage” – even an involuntary one – or there might be other reasons. --Grufo (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• I took a look at another source: Women's Studies Encyclopedia A-F, edited by Helen Tierney, Professor Emerita of History, University of Wisconsin-Platteville, published by Greenwood Publishing Group. The article on concubinage (page 290-1) says a few interesting things. Areas recognizing legal concubinage have slowly dwindled: Eastern Europe ceased recognition with the spread of orthodox Christianity, Western Europe in the sixteenth century, China in the early twentieth." And, that a concubine was "often a slave or a freedwoman but could be an alien whose marriage with a citizen was not legal, a freewoman in a union with a member of the nobility or from a family too poor to pay a dowry" and "There are usually few or no guarantees of permanency for the union or for the concubines’ future maintenance. The fate of a slave concubine was likely to be sale to a brothel. The fate of a freewoman dismissed without maintenance, even if she had a family to grudgingly receive her, would not be enviable." VR _talk 03:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

All these differences show only one thing: that “concubinage” in the English language means only “a marriage-like cohabitation”; whether with a slave or with a powerful aristocratic woman, it depends only on the society we are talking about. Thus we cannot rely on the term “concubinage” to carry this information alone. --Grufo (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Not completely sure what you mean - are you trying to say that "slave concubine" is a more precise term? I found that some sources use that term, but most sources simply say "concubine" when describing concubines who are also slaves. Maybe they do so because of brevity. In any case, the above sources should be sufficient in demonstrating that concubines who are slaves or otherwise involuntarily in the relationship is very much within the scope of this article.VR _talk 12:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am saying that you should try to rename in your mind the Wikipedia article about concubinage to “Marriage-like cohabitation”. The name per se would have nothing to do with slavery and it can mean very different situations depending on the society you are talking about. --Grufo (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• There seems to be an interesting article about contubernium and these slave-partners (contubernales) in ancient Rome, mentioned by Kecia Ali's book about marriage and slavery in early Islam (“For instance, Roman law allowed only ‘a quasi marital relationship’ called contubernium, in which at least one of the partners was enslaved”). --Grufo (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I have created a stub page – specifically about the Roman institution – at Contubernium. --Grufo (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Grufo, your article describes "contubernium" as ranging from a "wide range of situations, from simple sexual slavery to quasi-marriage", though all including slaves. This would suggest that it can't be entirely classified under simple "sexual slavery" as per your formulations. You give the example of Caenis who is referred to as a concubine but not a sex-slave. In light of this, would you still oppose splitting the article on Islam into two, one for sexual slavery and another for the quasi-marriage institution focused on the multi-faceted relationship (as pointed out by HaEr48)(children, power, etc). What to call the second article would be a different matter though I still believe that we can't take Rome as a gold standard for what we term concubinage. Or would you suggest creating a sexual slavery in the Roman Empire article focused on the enslavement of women from foreign regions? Ronakhtalk (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There are not two different pages about the Roman contubernium (one related to when the slave was in love with the owner and one related to when it was not): there is just one single page – since the slave's opinion did not matter much. And the main difference with Sexual slavery in Islam is that contubernium includes every aspect of the sexual life of a slave, ranging from the relationship between two slaves (which cannot be classified as "sexual slavery"), to the relationship between a free person and someone else's slave against the owner's consent (which also cannot be classified as "sexual slavery", since in this case attacking the slave would be damaging someone else's private property). It is a very different situation compared to Sexual slavery in Islam. The latter deals only with the case of owned female slaves used exclusively for pleasure (which is basically the definition of sexual slavery – the “concubines” were even kept in harems for that). A parallel page of Sexual slavery in Islam applied to ancient Rome would treat the Roman laws that regulated the usage of slaves exclusively for sexual pleasure – but I am not expert enough about it. P.S. The Romans did not just enslave “women from foreign regions”, they enslaved also the men, and both genders could end up in a contubernium, involving a free Roman man, a free Roman woman or another slave. --Grufo (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• These recent edits are inappropriate. This edit seems to miss the point that the WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize the body and therefore is might very well contain the same information in the body. And this edit actually removes content without any explanation. I'm restoring both.VR _talk 12:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

“This edit seems to miss the point that the WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize the body and therefore is might very well contain the same information in the body”

WP:LEAD is not supposed to have duplicate sentences (see Concubinage § Concubinage and slavery), let alone duplicate sentences that have been marked as dubious by other editors or are openly contested in a Talk Page.

“this edit actually removes content without any explanation”

Explanation added now.

“I'm restoring both”

Of course. How could we doubt that.

--Grufo (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This really was a dispute waiting to happen. Grufo your nuances about Roman enslavement can very well be applied to Islam and China as well where slavery included enslavement of men and concubinage was more than just "exclusively for sexual pleasure". Your claim that the sexual slavery's article exclusively focusses on this is incorrect which is actually a justification for a new article focused on concubinage in Islam. Many women were like Caenis who can not be referred to as sex-slaves.

Your interpretation of Roman law can be contested as well. The woman's Encyclopaedia states that the issue of concubinage in Rome is much contested among scholars so it is only appropriate that we give all points of view rather than a preferred one.

"“concubines” were even kept in harems for that"

I don't understand your point. Harems were an area which included "wives" and concubines and even prepubescent children of the man. Perhaps you have a Western understanding of it [5]. And are you still arguing against the dozens, hundreds of sources that refer to such women as concubines?

"cannot be classified as "sexual slavery""

Trouble is you're making up your own definitions and qualifications as you go along. We still don't have any proper scholarly definition of what sexual slavery is and you've simply been focused on what you believe concubinage isn't. I had hoped that my post account edits could avoid repetitive disputes but I guess not.

P.S The voluntary vs involuntary distinction seems to be OR (what does quasi-voluntary even mean? The Greek section starts off with stating that most concubines were slaves or foreigners). Ronakhtalk (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Notes

References

Bibliography

• Stocquart, Emile (March 1907). Sherman, Charles Phineas (ed.). "Marriage in Roman law". Yale Law Journal. 16 (5). Translated by Bierkan, Andrew T.: 303–327. doi:10.2307/785389. Retrieved 2020-09-15.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
• Treggiari, Susan (1981). "Contubernales". Phoenix. 35 (1). CAC: 42–69. doi:10.2307/1087137.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
• Ali, Kecia (2010). Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam. Harvard University Press.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

“In slave owning societies, most concubines were slaves”

The sentence “In slave owning societies, most concubines were slaves” is dubious. In ancient Rome a “concubine” had a precise legal status (she needed to be a free Roman citizen), and the Roman Empire has constituted a very big part of the world population for centuries. --Grufo (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that disagree with this, then we can attribute as "A says X, B says Y". However, reliable sources do indicate that in the Roman Empire, "concubinage" sometimes referred to relationship between slaves and free. Also, the Roman Empire even at its height was eclipsed by China.VR _talk 20:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

“If there are reliable sources that disagree with this, then we can attribute as "A says X, B says Y"”

I do not know any source that says the opposite, but this is a case where WP:ONUS would be on the source. If a source said “all Victorian concubines wore glasses”, would we need to search for a source that states “not all Victorian concubines wore glasses”?

“However, reliable sources do indicate that in the Roman Empire, "concubinage" sometimes referred to relationship between slaves and free”

Not reliable on the topic if they say so.

“Also, the Roman Empire even at its height was eclipsed by China”

In the second century in Rome and the Han dynasty in China both empires each held about 60 million people, so this is not true. Furthermore, if in one empire concubinage was considered as such only between free citizen (Rome) and in the other empire concubinage was possible with both free and non-free persons (if I did not understand Chinese concubinage wrong), how could slaves be the majority?

--Grufo (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Roman

As Grufo has repeatedly removed the material, I propose having an RfC about some form of inclusion of the material. Until then I'm fine with keeping this material out for the sake of preventing edit-warring.VR _talk 21:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Nearly nothing in that paragraph is accurate. Here the discussion:

“as long as the relationships met social expectations”

All slaves were equally non-citizens, so it is not clear what kind of social expectations a slave needed to meet.

“he could make her a slave concubine by bestowing upon her the title of concubina, although legal commentators encouraged manumitting her instead”

Giving her the title of concubina was equal to manumitting her, or she would just keep being a contubernalis. Furthermore it seems that contubernia were more frequent between free women and male slaves rather than the other way around, so the whole setting of the paragraph makes few sense. Moreover: Who encouraged Romans to manumit slaves and promote their contubernales to concubinae or concubini?

“This allowed female slaves to obtain the closest status they could achieve to a free woman”

Trivial. Powerful slaves existed via all means. The slave-secretary of an emperor was probably more powerful than the almost-wife contubernalis of a governor and even more powerful than a free citizen peasant. And a contubernalis could still be kept just for sexual pleasure against their will, which is far from powerful.

“Slaves kept as concubines could be disposed at will by their masters. But if the master made no will, they and their children were free after his death.”

The children of a male citizen and a female contubernalis were always slaves. The children of a female citizen and a male contubernalis were always free iure gentium instead.

For the bibliography in support of my statements, see bibliography under Concubinatus and Contubernium. --Grufo (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, are you saying that I misquoted the source or that the source is inaccurate? VR _talk 04:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a separate section about concubinage in the modern day. Some of the info recently added appears misplaced in the lead when there is no body for it in the article. Ronakhtalk (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Concubinage and slavery

I have started to reorder the page as per previous discussion (see § Common features of pre-modern concubinage). Other sections of the current article might belong to Concubinage § Concubinage and slavery, however, due to lack of information, I have left them where they are. Please help improving the page. --Grufo (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edits are inaccurate. For example, in China many concubines were slaves. Same thing with Ancient Greece. Similarly, Hagar is described as Sarah's slave[6]. Secondly, now we have a lot of duplicate content. The previous arrangement by region and timeline made more sense. In fact, most sections can't be neatly categorized into "voluntary" and "involuntary" and it will be hard to find reliable sources that explicitly say one or the other. Please revert your changes.VR _talk 19:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There has been a long discussion about this, Vice regent, and many of us, including Andrewa and I thought you too, have shown consent for a reordering of this kind. If you feel that other sections belong better to Concubinage § Concubinage and slavery, please move them there, providing an explanation. --Grufo (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I never argued for re-ordering the article so drastically. What I instead suggested was one section to explain the differences between voluntary and involuntary concubinage. Again, such a drastic change would require more discussion. You're essentially re-writing the article. Most importantly, lots of concubinage would fall under "unclear", in the sense that reliable sources don't explicitly call it voluntary or involuntary.VR _talk 20:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The article did need a profound intervention, and it still does. If in a certain context it is “unclear” whether it was allowed only to slaves to be involved in a concubinage – but slaves were only among the other categories allowed to form a concubinage – it should not be moved to Concubinage § Concubinage and slavery, as the term “concubinage” is a neutral term in the mentioned case. --Grufo (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It is deeply misleading to have slave concubines in a section called "Concubinage#Voluntary_or_quasi-voluntary_concubinage". Slavery is neither "voluntary" nor "quasi-voluntary". The best course is to go back to the original organization of the article and start an RfC whether the article should be split in your suggested fashion. I see it deeply problematic to split the article in your suggested fashion because most types of concubinage can't be neatly split like that. My suggestion is to keep the original organization, but add an additional section that describes certain categorizations.VR _talk 21:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This is only a starting point. Let us try to involve also other editors in this discussion. If we feel that § Voluntary or quasi-voluntary concubinage is not appropriate we can remove this name and move all its subsections one level higher, at the same time leaving the paragraph § Concubinage and slavery for the cases in which it was absolutely mandatory for at least one of the persons in a concubinage to be a slave. --Grufo (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

As proposed above, I've gone back to the old ordering. The RfC requires a neutral question be posed. Here's what I propose:

This source mentions that concubinage could be voluntary or involuntary. This should be definitely covered in the article. But should every instance of concubinage cited in this article be necessarily categorized as "voluntary" or "involuntary"? For example, consider Grufo's categorization of all instances as either "Voluntary or quasi-voluntary concubinage" or "Concubinage and slavery" in this version. By contrast, the article's main organization scheme has been by place and time as seen in the current version.

VR _talk 03:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

“I've gone back to the old ordering”

You really don't resist at reverting without searching for consensus, do you?

“Here's what I propose”

It is not really clear what you propose. Voluntary quasi-marital relationships and involuntary quasi-marital relationships are very different things. We are here because of a long discussion where the need of a differentiation has even brought to the creation of a draft (see Draft:Concubinage within slavery). If we look at The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History, we find a strong invitation to mark a differentiation too:

Historically and currently, not all concubinal relations are equally oppressive to women who enter into them; voluntary concubinage should be distinguished from involuntary concubinage

“By contrast, the article's main organization scheme has been by place and time as seen in the current version”

The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History emphasizes the need of a differentiation, and barely touches the cases of pure sexual slavery (it does not even mention Islam for example). As for how we organize our article we are not bound to any particular source, and if we decided to follow The Oxford Enc. of W. in H. we would even have to remove Islam from the page.

I am sorry, but bringing back the article to the mess it was before makes very few sense. Either you find consensus in support of your position, or at the moment a stronger consensus is for differentiating sexual slavery from the rest of the article. This is still a work in progress and the article needs still a lot of work. The ideal for the situations where a quasi-marital relationship was possible with both slaves and free citizens would be to distinguish the two cases as it is currently the situation for ancient Rome. For example, this could be done with ancient Greece too, presenting the pallake first, and dwelling in the appropriate paragraph on the slave-pallake in the (few? many?) cases where she was a slave. --Grufo (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your change. Please don't revert war over this. I have proposed doing an RfC to get outside opinions to see if others would support re-organizing the article along your lines. I agree with mentioning academic discussion on differentiation between "voluntary" and "involuntary" concubinage. But no source attempts to classify every instance of concubinage as "voluntary" and "involuntary". VR _talk 02:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You have started to revert “my changes”, which were a complex intervention on the article born from a discussion. --Grufo (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Your changes are very drastic and don't correspond to academic literature on the topic. If you want them to stay, you need broader consensus, for example, through an RfC.VR _talk 02:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Drastic or non-drastic is not a criterion for choosing, the only criterion is what emerges from consensus. There has been a long discussion here, and before at Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam, where a strong opinion in favor of differentiating between concubinage and sexual slavery has emerged. If we followed both The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History and what emerged from Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam, the Roman contubernium and Islam should not even be mentioned in this page. If we mention them, we do need to treat them differently. --Grufo (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus for your recent edits, and you need to seek it before you make drastic and contested changes.VR _talk 03:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Let us try to involve other editors in this discussion, or we will just keep fighting. --Grufo (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I proposed an RfC above, but you ignored it. Until there is a consensus, we should keep the long standing version.VR _talk 03:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no long standing version of this page. You have constantly intervened on it for the past weeks ([7]), adding so many mentions of concubinage with slavery that you have transfigured the original version. The need of a differentiation comes also from the wish to find a compromise and keep the information that you have added. --Grufo (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Today is Sept 23. As late as Sept 19, the article was organized not according to "voluntary" and "involuntary" but according to place and time period, see this revision. This organization has been followed for many years, for example, this revision from 2011 is also organized by time and place.VR _talk 03:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The article as it was before your first intervention was already a poor article. Then you have started to intervene only adding information concerning concubinage with slaves (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, only to mention some of your edits). Then a discussion began. And there it emerged that you have then given a good opportunity to follow The Oxford Enc. of W. in H.'s advice to differentiate between voluntary and involuntary concubinage. Some editors have already expressed their opinion, but have to involve other editors on this. --Grufo (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

have to involve other editors on this - you seem to be acting like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have proposed an RfC at least 4 times now,[8][9][10] yet each time you ignore it. I even proposed an RfC question[11] yet you seemed to have ignored that.VR _talk 04:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

How am ignoring it your RfC, Vice regent? I have been asking to involve other editors since before you even thought about it. But you are the one that reverts the page without discussion and only with announcement, remember? --Grufo (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

TODO list

Further actions needed to adjust this article

• Increase the discussion about contemporary world (LGBT rights, civil unions, etc.)
  • Create a new section about concubinage today (as suggested by Ronakhtalk), and the usage of the word in contemporary countries according to their respective laws (✓ STARTED)
• Reduce the oversized presence of ancient history without losing information, by referring to dedicated pages when these exist:
  • Concubinage § In Judaism: Leave only a few sentences here and move most of the section to -> Pilegesh (✓ DONE)
  • Concubinage § In Islam and the Arab world: Leave only a few sentences here and move most of the section to -> Sexual slavery in Islam (✓ DONE)
  • Concubinage § China: Leave only a few sentences here and move most of the section to -> Concubinage in China (✓ DONE)
  • If other dedicated pages exist, do the same
• Improve the quality of the poorly written sections.

--Grufo (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

If you are going to try and drastically reduce certain content here, I would advise you to discuss and seek consensus first. You're always welcome to add new content, including on modern concubinage.VR _talk 09:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussing is what I am doing. Is there anything that does not convince you? --Grufo (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this removal. You also seem to have removed content I added, which I disagree with. Please self-revert and seek consensus before removal.VR _talk 10:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Good then. Self reverted. --Grufo (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please also self-revert the re-organization and seek consensus for that via an RfC. I have already proposed a question in the above section to do so. As for the material on China, I'm not against summarizing it, but a summary does not mean simply copying the first 3 sentences and deleting the rest.VR _talk 10:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

One thing at a time. The current “organization” is what emerged from a discussion that expressed a minimum consensus in favor of differentiating between concubinage and sexual slavery. Could you please explain in the meanwhile why you would like to have duplicate content with Concubinage in China? --Grufo (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There is was nothing in that discussion that indicated the article should be so drastically re-organized. The discussion on China is already happening in section below.VR _talk 10:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

“There is was nothing in that discussion that indicated the article should be so drastically re-organized”: You really think so? Have you read Andrewa's paragraph § A solution? This seems to me much less radical than splitting the part concerning concubinage with slaves to a dedicated page, for which even a draft had been already created. --Grufo (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

So go ahead and improve the draft. It may be a notable article that satisfies WP:GNG. But that doesn't trying to categorize every single historic practice of concubinage as either "voluntary" or "involuntary", especially since in many cultures both may have happened, and especially when reliable sources are often unclear themselves. It doesn't mean changing the original re-organization scheme of this article.VR _talk 10:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

“So go ahead and improve the draft”: You seem much interested than me in “concubinage within slavery”: that should really be your task. --Grufo (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Seeking for consensus. First split: China

I had moved the oversized section Concubinage § China to Concubinage in China. However an editor “strongly disagreed” with my intervention (without explaining why) and asked me to seek for consensus. Hence I self reverted my edit and I am here seeking for consensus. --Grufo (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I did explain why. If you are going to move a lot of content, you need to leave a summary behind. "Summary" does not mean copy the first 3 sentences and delete the rest, as you did. You actually have to read all the paragraphs and then come up with an adequate summary of them.VR _talk 10:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

If that is the main problem it can be worked out. But keep in mind that having a separate page is exactly for not going into details here. Could you please choose yourself the sentences to leave (the shorter the better) and restore the split? --Grufo (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Done it for you. Feel free to edit Concubinage § China as you wish. --Grufo (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Second split: In Islam and the Arab world

Concubinage § In Islam and the Arab world has now been moved to Sexual slavery in Islam § Discussion. To remain as neutral as possible I have left only three sentences here. Please feel free to expand a little, in line with the other sections in this article. --Grufo (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Third split: In Judaism

Concubinage § In Judaism has now been moved to Pilegesh. The page is now ready for a fresh start. --Grufo (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)