Jump to content

Talk:Harem/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Huh?

The first sentence under 'History' makes no sense: "Contrary to the common belief among some, a Muslim harem is the collective term for the wive(s)and in some cases concubines, only in the case of princes and the very rich it is generally part of a palace and its inhabitants do not necessarily consist solely of women with whom the head of the household has a sexual relation, their young offspring plus staff (women and eunuchs)." ..I'm attempting to fix it.

Consider Joining the Sexology and Sexuality project

Are you a member of the Wikipedia Sexology and Sexuality wikiproject ?

If not, consider joining if you want to make changes to this page, or other pages in this context.

If you don't have that kind of time, and just have a few changes, please note them in those talk pages, unless they are minor edits.

Note: You do not need to be a member of this project in order to edit this page, whether or not the edit is minor, per Wikipedia:Be bold, et al. 164.11.204.56 19:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Harems in old India and old China

Other cultures had harems, that is a group of kept women secluded from everyday life, and supported and enjoyed by a rich man, often a landowner in the country. I would like to see contributions by those with some knowledge of the culture of old India and old China.

David Erskine58.165.167.146 (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, badly placed.
Agreed with above and since no discussion in over a year removed section, China has its own page and India is discussed in the lead and history. Added citation request for history claim that harem is strictly muslim.

If not answered will incorporate more about India into main body of history section. Seraphimsystem (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming this refers to your removal of the section "In other cultures". If RSs discuss these phenomena using the term "harem", then they belong in this article. It's not clear whether it's the case for all the examples, so some of them may stray off topic. This calls for source verification rather than section blanking. The statement for which you added a citation request was already properly sourced. Eperoton (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

To Do List

  • Need to find references for the noted items, and much more
 a) "While some Muslims assert that the Islamic religion never proscribes the use of harems, and that it emerged rather as an extension of Ottoman culture, there is no doubt that the Prophet Muhammad and his followers practiced slavery, accumulating women as war booty"[citation needed]. 
 b) "The Qur'an allots these captured women, married or not, as property "of the right hand," and sexual relations are said to be lawful with them"[citation needed]. 
 c) "As such, while it is true that women were not kept in a harem-style extensions of the household, the precedent for such tradition does stem from Islamic slavery practices"[citation needed].
  • In general, more breadth in the article, and some organization

Atom 17:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

History

[User:Fastifex] I left discussion about this on your talk page. Please take a look and respond there, or in my talk page [User_talk:Atomaton] (or here if you like) so that we can find wording that works. Atom 18:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC) It looks like a typo in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph: "Muslims assert that Islam never proscribes the use of harems, and that they (re)emerged rather as part of Ottoman culture." Check the difference between "prescribe" and "proscribe".


I think this page would be improved by a discussion of what happened to the harem in the 20th century? Do harems still exist? When were they outlawed in Turkey? What about in other Islamic countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.193.161 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Works of fiction are not reference sources

Why are historical novels being listed in the Sources and references section? Binabik80 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fiction is acceptable, as long as it is referenced as fiction (as it is here), and not used as a cite for sources of information or facts in the article. A person referencing the article from a general interest perspective may find those of interest. Atom 12:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe relabel as "Examples of the Harem in Fiction"? Even broaden it a little; the movie The Sheik would be one example.

meaning of Haram

It says Arabic word Haram(wives or concubines).Does the word Haram mean such thing? As far as I know the meaning is conserved or forbidden.--208.110.21.195 21:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

NOte that the article discusses two arabic words, translated into english as harim and harem. Ince the vowels are omited in Arabic, I am not certain how one knes the difference. However, someone who knows Arabic has suggested in the definion that " harîm حريم (compare haram) is the part of the household forbidden to male strangers" and the Turkish harem, from the Arabic haram (wives and concubines), originally entailing "women's quarters," literally: "something forbidden or kept safe," from the root harama: "he guarded, forbade." The triconsonantal H-R-M is common to Arabic words entailing forbidden."

Both from the H-R-M = forbidden root.

If you can clarify this based on your knowledge of Arabic, that would be appreciated. Atom 02:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Split

This article is a merge of the everyday Islamic term, and the vulgar western view of what was happening in the palaces of rulers. I want to split the later into a Non-Muslim view of Harem. Any objections? --Striver 10:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

10 days, still objections? --Striver 20:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "split" Putting a seperate section to focus on the current day Islamic usage of the term would be great. Splitting into another article is just a bad idea.

The western usage may be viewed by you as "vulgar", but the purpose of the article is to describe the term in an encyclopedic manner. There is no "non-muslim view" as you put it. There is a term that means similar but differnt things to different people. That is the same as it would be to try and describe a "muslim view". There is no such thing. Islam is a spectrum of religious and philisophical thought. Atom 22:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My stance is that there is a Muslim view, and the rest are non-Muslim views. As for there is no Muslim view, see Category:Muslim views. Or perhaps Non-Muslim view of Ali and Non-Muslim view of Muhammad. And my arguement is not about vulgarness, its about undue weight, you can't have a term used by Muslims, and then have an article that is in 80% about how non-Muslims view (not use) the term to be.--Striver 10:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The article is about current usage of the term. In the English language Wikipedia, as in other language versions, there is a degree of ethnocentrism. I'm not saying that it should be so, or needs to be so. Of primary interest to English readers are the history of the Harem, as well as current usage. Muslim views (as there is not one view) are of interest of course. But, I don't feel that current day Muslims, have any ownership of the term. You suggest that there is something very different about the Muslim viewpoint. Why not start a section and express that? The article will be here for a long while. After you write such a section, we can work on polishing to find proper balance and integration with the historical view, etc.
Listen, the term Harem is a Islamic term, just as salat is. Even the views on salat has small differences between the madh'hab, but nobody is sugesting that it results in the term not being a Islamic one. Thing is, there is less disagreement on the concept of harem then the concept of Salat. Just pointing to some differences in the view of its users does not make the term less Islamic. And you know what? I have not even seen an example of the alleged different views among Muslims. So i repeat my stance, the article is overdominated by the western view of a term that is exclusivly used by Muslims, and that is undue weight. Thing is, the argument that the Islamic section of the article needs to be expanded is an argument for spliting out the western view, it is the lack of material in the Islamic section that gives the western view an undue weight. Its like having an article on christmass, only giving the christian view some minor presentation, and then following it up with how christmass is the ugly ritual of a blood cult, and who they engage in drinking the blood of a semi human God, complete with pictures that make no fairness to the Christian view. That is not what wikipedia is about. The missrepresenting western view must be split out in order to give a balanced representation of the topic, in the Islamic world, a Harem does not conote a place were you see semi-brothel activity, it is a place of seclusure and safetyness for the womans, not somewere they can be exploited for their bodies, and the viewer can indulge in visualy raping them. --Striver 10:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't argued that historically the term "harem" had not originated in the Islamic world. If you read the article, you see that it has been adopted into the English language since at least the early 1800's. English has borrowed words from many, many languages, most notably french. So, "ownership" of the word is not an issue. This article subscribes to the WIkipedia policy of NPOV. That means that alternate meanings and interpretations that can be supported by references and citations are welcome. I've already asked you to contribute a section that describes and documents the Islamic view. I don't understand your description that the western view is seen as a place where one sees "semi-brothel activity". Indeed the western view is that it is a place of seclusion and privacy for women, largely forbidden to men. The pictures here are artwork, perceptions of artists who had seen Harem. They show the beauty and peaceful seclusion of a time from the past. Look at the recent image donated by Mr. Haydar Hatemi. It shows the beauty, grace, affluence and leisure of the women in a harem, and does not exploit them, or "visually rape" them in any way. I've worked very hard to make the article accurate, and yet elegant. The images here are of the past, of historical harem. It does not try to represent how Muslims, or the Islamic world views the current day harem.
I think that it is clear that english speaking cultures have very little understanding of how the Islamic world thinks. My personal opinion is that the Islamic world is, and has been at war with itself for more than a hundred years, the forces of fundamentalism trying to espouse various puritanical versions of Islam that have never existed in the past, and are not accurate interpretations of the Koran. The existing, more modernized Islamic world (Turkey, what is trying to emerge again in Iran), Indonesia, and Malaysia are involved in this battle. The western world has made the mistake of becoming involved in the middle of this. The views of a womans role, including what a harem is is directly tied up in this. The resurgence of the wearing of the veil (niqab), enforced upon women against their will in most islamic countries, when it had almost dissapeared from use 20 years ago is an example of this movement from the beauty of what Islam was (some of which can be seen in the artwork in the article) to the fundementalist views forced upon women, and persectution and violence in the name of "islamic law" (sharia).
What I propose is that you do not wish to make edits to improve tha article, that you submit some suggestions here on the talk page as to ways that it could be improved, and I and others will see if we can do that. I personally am not that interested in making revisionst edits to the article to change a description of what harem actually was, to a more puritanical view of how current day people wish it had been, or to censor description of what they wish it had not been. That being said, a section that talks about current day Islamic perspective is entirely welcome. Atom 13:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What i most strongly notices was that you asserted that non-mahram was acctualy allowed into the so-called harem of somebody, and on top of that, the women in the harem, not only did not became horrifed, but in fact showed their brest to the non-Maharam?!


You do NOT show your breast to non-Mahram, SPECIALY not in Harem. It is this kind of "nudness is ok as long as its in the harem" attitude of the west that this article portrays that is making me react. There is no disscussion about this, no room for interpretation, Muslim woman are NOT allowed to show their breast for non-Mahram.

This two views are so blatantly opposed to each other that it is a disservice to accuracy to portray them in the same article. --Striver 18:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In the article I don't see the area that you object to. I'll review it again. Where does it say that it allows opposite sex anywhere in the article, with the exception of children, or of eunich servants? I agree with you that predominantly in harems from long ago to very recently would not allow non-mahram in the harem, especially regarding nudity. The artwork presents that nudity was common in the harem, which is true, but that nudity was only amongst the other women of the harem, and eunichs or children of the harem. The one section that discusses that males up to age 16 were allowed in the harem is the one thing I think is unlikely, but may be historically accurate in the context described (Ottoman harem). The artwork is from artists long ago, and at that time Islam was not as conservative, and sharia law did not yet exist.

I'll try to come up with a paragraph that describes maharim and the relationship in the harem. Atom 01:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A section clarifying what could be missrepresented by the pictures is a start. It also needs to be put through that the subject of the pictures did not pose for them, since that would be totally against the very principle of having a harem. Also, the subjects, if they are actually persons, would with all likely hood object to being portrayed nude. The pictures are from 19th century. Are you arguing that Sharia was not formed in the 19th century? If not then, then when? --Striver 10:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

harem art section

Its breaking the page for me in both Firefox and Avant and I'm at 1024x768. I want to replace the current table with the gallery below.

Harem Art

Any objections?--KrossTalk 00:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Looks good to me. Atom 00:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How accurate are these pictures? Do we know if the artists were allowed access to a harem? If not, did female visitors to a harem advise the artists? David Erskine58.165.167.146 (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole topic deserves a separate article, something like Harem depictions in Western art as a typical motif of Orientalism. The article Harem should concentrate on historical facts. --Mkill (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm no art historian, but how does a painting of a single nude woman depict a harem? --SweetNightmares (awaken) 21:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This section is confusing! "Sex ratio in harems"

The section: "Sex ratio in harems" is confusing. It would be helpful if someone could make it more idiot-friendly. As it is, I have no idea what it is trying to explain. Althena 07:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposite to harem?

What's the opposite of a harem i.e. where a dominant female has many male followers? Ryan4314 (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Two possible terms I found on wiki here; Reverse Harem and Male Harem. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Word for owner of a harem?

How is the word for the person owning a harem?

History Rocks (the real French girl in the harem), Fiction Sucks (the Christian's ridiculous sorry version)

Why mention that trash written by a know-nothing western woman in your text? Her story is so full of you-know-what to please a bigotted and frustrated and racist western readers out to protect White Christian women's honor and chastity. What a load of crock and full of bunk! Why not mention the REAL French girl who conquered the harem? Aimee Debucq de Rivery, a real French girl from Martinique. In 1784, on her way back to Martinique from Nantes, the 21-year-old Amiee was captured by the corsairs and sold to the Dey of Algiers. The Dey presented her to the Sultan Abdulhamid I in Istanbul. Being exotic and fair, the sultan named her Nakshedil (Emvroidered on the Heart). She had a son Mahmud. Being very intelligent, she rose to be the 4th kadin and earned the title Sultana. She survived the death of Abdulhamid in 1789 and was asked by the new sultan Selim III to remain in the harem because he had always admired the French. She taught him French and inspired him to send an ambassador to Paris. He even started a French newspaper in Istanbul. But Selim's francophile raised the ire of the establishment and he was assasinated in 1807. Nakshedil hid her son from the assassins and Mahmud II became the next sultan. As the mother of the reigning sultan, she became very powerful and influential and continued the reform. Throughout her stay in the harem, she remained a Christian and her religion was tolerated because Muslims consider Christians "brothers of the Book". When Nakshedil was dying in 1817, a Catholic priest was sent for to give her the last rite. Now, let's tell it like it is. Religious Intolerence has historically been one sided, Christians against Muslims, for over 1,000 years. Only in the last few decades has the trend been reversed. --VimalaNowlis (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In the past, it has been more like Christian against Christian, Catholic against Protestants, Christians against Pagans, Christians against anyone with differing beliefs. Muslims have been only one group of people that Christian Kings or Rome has seen as an enemy. In current times, it is the same thing with a twist. The larger battle is Muslim against Muslim, not Muslim against Christians. Atom (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


Your story is a good one -- facinating and true. There is much more to it, of course. There is already a Wikipedia article on Aimée du Buc de Rivéry. Atom (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it normal to put claims without any verification or source of claims in main wikipedia articles?

I read the following for the first time and i have never see any refference to sassanids having harems: "It is claimed that harems existed in Persia under the Ancient Achaemenids and later Iranian dynasties (the Sassanid Chosroes II reportedly had a harem of 3000 wives, as well as 12,000 other women) and lasted well into the Qajar Dynasty."

Panturkist even cliams that harems are a byzantine tradition, but without a reliable source you should remove claims from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.142.152.216 (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Too much imaginary paintings

There are too much imaginary paintings in the article that makes it look non-encyclopedic, poor erotic Orientalism. Almost all paintings are not historical and informative encyclopedic, which makes non-free paintings not fair use. As in Talk:Harem#harem art section section other users said:

  • The whole topic deserves a separate article, something like Harem depictions in Western art as a typical motif of Orientalism. The article Harem should concentrate on historical facts. --Mkill (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm no art historian, but how does a painting of a single nude woman depict a harem? --SweetNightmares (awaken) 21:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
See Odalisque -Seraphimsystem (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll clean up the article and retain some pictures. For more pictures the reader will see the commons, just like other wikipedia's articles.--Taranet (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources

I don't think I believe this: "Due to the secluded nature of the Harem, there are virtually no reliable accounts of life in any of them at any time, and most accounts in the literature are conjectural." A brief search turned up several, for example "Dreams of Trespass: Tales of a Harem Girlhood" by Fatima Mernissi. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Harem anime

Perhaps something on harem anime and how the harem captured Japanese anime and manga artists' imagination would be fitting for this article.

In short, it is a major genre of Japanese anime, where there is only one boy or man in an all-women cast. There is also the reverse-harem, for which it's the other way round.

It may be worth a mention on this article. Yannis A. ✆|☑ 14:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

An answer to 'How does Islam justify harems?' would be useful

Assuming it does, what does Islam offer to the suggestion this is a form sex slavery without ambiguity? Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect mainly through interpretation of the Qu'ran, in much the same way the Bible has been interpreted to condone sexist treatments of women in the middle ages. The same Qu'ran has later been used to preach against the practice of slavery. Showing something stated in a holy book is 'without ambiguity' is a thorny question indeed, and subject to neverending religious debate. - Redmess (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It was written in the 7th c. so probably much in the same way Vikings did. See Thrall
Seraphimsystem (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Good grief

I have to say, it's shoking to see an important article with over 1000 views per day in such a sad state. At least the orientalist imagery has been relegated to its own gallery but its erotically obsessed fantasy lives on in the lead image and the lead itself peddles the crudest popular misconceptions. I'm rounding up academic encyclopedias to fix this mess. Eperoton (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  • In addition to your argument, as noted by others above, this article is essentially incorrect by pitching harems as specifically Islamic. Harems were part of Middle Eastern culture long before the Middle East became Islamic roughly 1300 years ago, and they are also a part of traditions in China, Southeast Asia, and India, prior to and after, Islam. Gautama Buddha in the history of Buddhism is noted to have had a harem. Gautama predates Mohammad and his practices by 1,000 years. We need to rebuild the summary introduction of this article so that it can reflect known history, rather than the shortsighted and very narrow perspective that it now currently brandishes.Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
There's a distinction here we should be careful about. The word "harem" has two meanings in English: colloquially it refers to polygyny, which has its own article, while technically it refers to domestic spaces reserved for women of the family, which may be monogamous. Previously the lead confused the two meanings, so I rewrote it to reflect how the topic is treated in academic references. In the second meaning the word "harem" is mostly, though not entirely restricted in usage to the Islamic civilization. Other terms such as gynaeceum and zenana are used in other contexts. The lead notes the connection to the latter, though not the former. The reason I didn't mention the gynaceum was because it wasn't mentioned in the sources I used. I have not had a chance to rewrite Harem#Outside_Islamic_culture, which is still devoted exclusively to the other meaning of "harem". We would need to find additional sources to do so without violating WP:SYNTH, because the sources that discuss seclusion of women outside Islamic culture in more detail generally don't use the term "harem". Even Leila Ahmed's Women and Gender in Islam, which a standard references on the subject, doesn't use the word in this context. Eperoton (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Do you really think this article is the correct place to discuss Montezuma's concubines? Just because a ruler has concubines does not make it a harem. The source is "Sex in History" - harem is not only about sex or keeping concubines. Please don't accuse me of not reading carefully, I don't make uninformed edits. I understand the rules for women in zenana are different then for concubines or mistresses in other cultures and the separation originates with purdah in India. Harem concept exists before Islam. When women are in purdah, it becomes necessary for them to live in a zenana, a separate space for women, and this began in South Asia. The article mentions it but I think it would benefit from more detail and historical discussion. I don't think calling the section "Outside Islamic Culture" is helpful, it is confusing for me and adds in a lot of information without giving any of it historic context. I suggest perhaps attempting to rewrite this article and describe the historic progression of the harem in culture beginning with India, where it originates.
Also, I want to change "Ladies of the Royal Harem Kabul" to a picture of the Topkapi harem, since that section of the article talks about Istanbul, but I will make changes incrementally. I would prefer photos that show well-known harem spaces, instead of family photos with vague descriptions like "Harem scene" - I think painting of Odalisque eating fruit is an icon of this period, and should be featured in the lead. "Erotically obssessed fantasy" is your interpretation - not every painting fits it, though I did choose one rather quickly, and would be willing to look around for a better example. It is a painting from a time when photography was not in wide use, like a painting of George Washington, and at least it is verifiable that its subject is a harem, instead of an unattributed (Dead link) family photo. Seraphimsystem (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the "Outside..." section is problematic. Your earlier comments on the talk page didn't make sense to me, and I apologize if I misjudged you. I'm all for careful and incremental improvement.
I think replacing the Kabul ladies with the image of the Topkapi palace is fine, though it needs to be moved to appear next to the relevant text. However, I strongly object to using an orientalist painting in the lead. The article is about the harem as a historical phenomenon. The text of the lead explains what the term "harem" properly refers to and how it related to orientalist fantasies on the one hand and the colloquial Western use of the term on the other. If we put an orientalist fantasy there, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot by reinforcing a popular misconception rather than illustrating the text which reflects RSs. Orientialist imaginaries have their own section, where they belong. Eperoton (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
P.S. The only painting from the gallery which may be appropriate is the one by Quintana Olleras, since its purpose also seems to have been to correct popular misconceptions about the harem by depicting a normal (if rather upscale) domestic space. However, I think the current image has the advantage of being an actual photo labeled with the word "harem" by the source. Eperoton (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned in my comment above the source for your photo is a dead link. I have not looked through that particular gallery, but my suggestion is not an erotic orientalist painting. Not all of the portraits of harem women are orientalist fantasy paintings. I understand what you are saying. Most orientalist paintings are a mix of erotic idealization and historic setting. Maybe it will be easier if I show you the portrait I am thinking of - there is nothing erotic about it.: [[1]] -Seraphimsystem (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The source of the current photo is archived here [2]. I don't see why your suggestion would be more appropriate here. It shows a lavishly bedecked young woman. As an image, why would that be a good choice for an article about the harem? As a specimen of the odalisque genre, it's not canonical (i.e., not a reclining nude shown from the back), but its purpose is still to display the charms of an odalisque (a slave concubine, according to the Western usage of the time). Eperoton (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. I understand your objection about a portrait that is fiction/fantasy being depicted as history, and I agree but with your last comment I think you are coming very close to WP:OR and not having WP:NPOV. Why is it important to show a photo of a harem woman in an unflattering way? It is a neutral portrait of a woman who happens to be very attractive. Further it is WP:DUE for the lead. I think insisting on a photo of a family living room from the Qajar period over a portrait that accurately depicts period clothing, hair of the Ottoman harem is WP:FALSEBALANCE . I have no problem showing the photo in its own section on harem in Iranian Qajar period, or adding a section for that topic in the article, but I think its WP:UNDUE for the lead. Seraphimsystem (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
You misunderstood my objection. It has nothing to do with attractiveness. It has to do with the topic of the article. The article is about a certain type of domestic spaces. It's not about "harem women", which as a type exist only in orientalist imagery. According to the RSs summarized in the lead, a harem woman is simply a woman at home (her own, or someone else's). I don't insist on a particular image. If you can find a better image illustrating a domestic space reserved for women, without placing undue emphasis on polygynous royal harems, that's fine. But I won't agree to using a decontextualized portrait, whose only relevance to the subject is belonging to a harem-themed subgenre of orientalist art. If we can't agree on an image, I'll revert to the one which has been up long enough to count as the current consensus. Eperoton (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not only an article about "certain types of domestic spaces" - it's also about the (legal) status of women in a particular cultural context. Harem refers to the women as well as the space (that is in the lead.) I think showing the woman who is clearly recognizable as a cariye is WP:DUE. "Harem women" existed in real life, not only in "Orientalist" imagery - please do more research. I am using plain English but cariye would be more correct, and I will be including references. What you are saying that a harem woman is simply a woman at home is uncited WP:OR and one of the points that needs clarification in this article. I don't think the lead or the article is clear enough, but I think it is an important distinction, and I will address it with WP:RS (though I can't promise they will all be in English.) You may be confusing it with zenana and unless you are willing to put a lot of work into added cited content on this, please do not edit war over the lead photo. I will be removing unreferenced discussion on "polygynous royal harems" but a portrait of a woman from the Ottoman Harem in the lead is not WP:UNDUE Its only decontextualized if you are not knowledgeable about the subject, as she is wearing period clothing and she is identified as a concubine, but I will discuss that with cited material in the article as well. I plan to actually edit the article at some length with references to books and I would ask that you not edit war or revert, unless you plan to make significant referenced contributions to the article. Otherwise it would be disruptive and not collaborative. Given the state of the article, the flags and obvious problems, I think characterizing the status quo of the article as a "consensus" is a stretch. I hope you understand. Seraphimsystem (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
First, I see no evidence that this is a "Portrait of a harem concubine" rather than a portrait of a model in oriental dress given a fashionable title. Second, I wrote the lead based on two academic encyclopedias, and I can tell you that the emphasis on concubinage made by this image is undue according to these standard references. Third, both encyclopedias define harem as a type of domestic space (the term is also used to refer to the women of a harem in colloquial English -- and in Arabic -- but this is not how these sources treat it). Does a portrait illustrate a domestic space? It does not.
You're very welcome to improve this article, which I have not had time to continue working on, but you have to do it in a policy-compliant way. If you want to make a disputed change, you need to get consensus. I'll make an attempt at a compromise solution by using a more appropriate orientalist image, but if you try to force your preferred version through without consensus, we'll need to escalate dispute resolution. As for what constitutes consensus, see WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Eperoton (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I checked Meriam Websters which is one of the sources and it refers to both the women and the space, which is what I said. As for whether that is colloquialism, please see Britannica - harem also refers to the women. "Undue according to these standard references" shows a misunderstanding of policy, please see WP:UNDUE. I will also note that British sources like Oxford Encylopedia are not WP:BESTSOURCES for research about the Ottoman Empire, an issue anyone interested in Orientalism would be aware of. I think we should consult a wider range of resources on this. I do not have a copy of the encyclopedias you used, so I can't comment on the specific content, but I will flag for reference check. The painting is titled "Odalisque" by Gustav Richter. I changed the caption to read "Portrait of a harem concubine" to make it easier for readers, but I am flexible on language. Your position on Odalisques does seem to be not WP:NPOV to me, and I don't think it is supported by your citations. I am not opposed to asking others for input to reach consensus, or dispute resolution if it is necessary, or continuing to look for an image that satisfies both of us. However, it must depict the women of the harem fairly and accurately in a significant historic context that does not give WP:UNDUE weight to "Harem in Qajar Period" for example. Seraphimsystem (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I can email you the text of those encyclopedia articles if you like. We can't rely on Merriam Webster's for much except common English usage. Of course, the term harem sometimes also refers to women, but I think it's pretty clear that academic encyclopedias place the emphasis on the other sense. Here's EI2 [3]. Based on the proportion of space these sources devote to concubines, using an image of a concubine for the lead is undue. I'm puzzled by the special emphasis you're placing on the Ottoman angle, but I believe Ottoman Turkish used the term حرملك (see haremlik, though the content is dubious and poorly sourced) for harem in the sense of this article and harem (as part of the expression حريم همايون) only for the seraglio, but this is not really germane here. In Arabic the sense of women is prominent, but this article is not primarily about word usage in Arabic or Turkish. I'm not sure if you've seen my compromise image proposal. I'm also not sure what you meant by the reference to WP:BESTSOURCES -- Oxford encyclopedias are not as authoritative as EI2/EI3, but the Encyclopedia of Islam and Women meets all the WP criteria in spades. On the other hand, an unsigned entry in Britannica is barely (if at all) a RS and it doesn't even state what you're arguing (it refers to the derived form ḥarīmī, and, by the way, in what language is "ḥarīmī" a collective noun??). Eperoton (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate a copy of the articles, yes. I think we should WP:BALANCE general Encyclopedias against more specialized historic sources, and the image we choose for the lead should reflect the content of the article and the available/cited scholarship. Most of the scholarship I have available is about the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire spanned a period of over 600 from 1299 until 1923. I don't consider it special emphasis, but WP:DUE emphasis because it is among the most widely studied and documented examples of harem in scholarship. I don't see one word in the article about harems in Moorish Spain, which appears to be the style represented in the painting. It's also somewhat dependent on what sources are available to us. There may be some gaps in scholarship about Islamic culture that I don't think we can or should attempt to fill as Wikipedia editors. Check the Further Reading section and you will see almost every book listed is about Istanbul or the Ottoman Empire - We should devote space to other historic examples of harem also, this article is not exclusively about the Ottoman Harem - but given the scholarship I expect the majority of the article's content will be about the Ottoman Empire WP:DUE - arguing against this without a specific reason does not seem WP:NPOV. I will keep looking for a lead photo that better reflects the content of the article and the sources we have available. I think you are giving this "physical space" thing too much emphasis. Seraphimsystem (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Please let me know when you've enabled email on your account, and I'll send you the articles. I have nothing against specialized sources, but academic encyclopedias are an important tool for establishing due weight. The three encyclopedias I'm using don't assign any special weight to the Ottoman empire in their articles on the harem (in fact, they don't mention it at all). That doesn't mean that the article shouldn't cover Ottoman harems of course, but it does have consequences for due weight in the lead. Eperoton (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I was able to access the article and it is very short and says little more then "The harem was a secluded space for women." It is too much emphasis on the definition of the word over the historical context, but I am over it. As a compromise, why don't we use the lead photo from the purdah article, as the concept of purdah is the starting off point for discussing the Mughal Harem. (I have a reference for this that I am already working through.) I've changed the lead photo. It illustrates clearly the concept of "separation" and a "space for women" - let me know what you think. My research says that zenana (persian?) is the same as harem, so maybe a redirect and merging would be appropriate? Seraphimsystem (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with this image. In an Islamic context, zenana is synonymous with harem (cf. EI2 [4]), and the discussion of the Mughal zenana could be merged here, or at least synchronized. A separate article for zenana should probably still exist in some form on account of its Hindu usage. Eperoton (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphimsystem: Please leave a note when you've arrived at a stable draft. Among your good improvements, there are some changes I disagree with, but I don't want to get into that while the article is in flux. Eperoton (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It would be better for me if you could tell me now while I am working on it, but if its about that atrocious image gallery we can just escalate to a dispute, I don't want to spend any more time on that. DId you see the cover photo on wikiwand? It wasn't appropriate, and I had to adjust the image gallery accordingly. I put a lot of effort into this article and I don't want a pornographic cover especially after we put so much time into agreeing on a photo that would be suitable for a lead. Seraphimsystem (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
My main concern at the moment is about terminology. For now, I'll make some general observations for you consideration, and I can elaborate with references to the sources later.
For harem we should try to distinguish between different usage areas of the word: 1) predominant encyclopedic (academic) usage; 2) meanings in Arabic; 3) etymological origin; 4) similar institutions which are not generally called "harem"; 5) non-typical academic uses of the word; 6) popular English usage. It's not easy to distinguish cleanly between them, but I think the previous version did a better job than the current one.
"Purdah" is a regional term, which seems to be basically restricted to South Asia. It doesn't even seem to be used in other Persianate areas, despite being a Persian word. For example, there's no entry for it in Encyclopedia Iranica and the only entry for it in Encyclopedia Islamica is about a musical term (in the Persian edition, not translated by Brill). We should not be using it as a standard term.
In a few cases, you've removed content sourced to academic encyclopedias for no apparent reason, sometimes replacing it with content based on weaker sources. I'm planning to bring it back, but I want to see your final proposal for the article structure beforehand. Eperoton (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, the parenthetical references and excessive use of quotation marks were not better. I have not changed the content. You can escalate this to dispute if you want. Your version said "sacred" "inviolable" "forbidden" and mine just put those three into one sentence, that is cited. It enhanced readability and clarity, without changing meaning or content significantly. Also your version was copied verbatim from the encyclopedia articles, which I checked, and that is a copyright violation.
I am telling you now that there is no consensus for a revert, and "I'm planning to bring it back" is not an effort to reach consensus. If you insist on reverting edits I spent days on, improving for language and readability and cleaning up citations, removing copyrighted material and uncited content then this has to go to dispute. I find this more disruptive then collaborative.


If you feel I have left out something critical please tell me what specifically, otherwise please do not revert to an unreadable version that was obviously rushed through.
Also, I do think there may be too much about separation of genders in Judaism in the lead, but I am leaving the purdah section in because it is necessary to the context. Still, I don't want to emphasize it too much, especially in the lead, so I am planning to take some of it out, now that I am satisfied I have clearly introduced the topic of the article. I absolutely will not agree to revert back to the first version. I don't think that first line requires three citations. Readability, excessive citations, clean citations are all factors I'm working on improving. I think this version is significantly better then the first version.
One last thing, I am beginning to question the reliability of EIMW - I can't find other sources to corroborate its version that Judaism and Christianity influenced Islam + I have seen sources that directly contradict this, but they are also not WP:IMPARTIAL. I want to clarify this article is not about harim it is about harem, harim is an Arabic word and it is the origin for the English word harem, which means a living area for women in Islamic culture. I dont think you are doing it on purpose, but you are making this more complicated and confusing then it needs to be. I think it would greatly simplify things, and help to avoid WP:OR to be very clear that harem is an English word that means a living area for women in an Islamic household - this definition is consistent across multiple dictionaries. Historical background is ok, such as the Assyrian letter/cuneiform translation, the influence of Hindu culture/purdah on the Mughals and anything else that can be cited, but I am not sure EIMW is reliable on Jewish/Christian influence. I would like more sources for this, or I may remove it entirely. Do you have any other sources?
If you want to distinguish between 6 different types of the word harem, and you have citations for that classification, and that is what you are interested in, then I think we should set up an article specifically for that in the linguistics category and I will link to it from the etymology section of this article. This article is start class sexuality, start class gender studies and c-class women's history and that is what I am focusing on improving.

Seraphimsystem (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not going to do a blanket revert. By "bringing it back" I meant restoring some statements that were simply removed without replacement. Whether they should be in the lead or elsewhere depends on due weight in RSs, and since you're looking into additional sources, I want to give you some space for that work. For statements that were changed in a way that disagree with my reading of the sources, we'll follow the normal process of consensus building. You'll lay out your core concerns, I'll do the same with mine, and we'll try to arrive at a version which addresses them all. At the moment, I'm too busy elsewhere to get into a detailed discussion of these issues, so please just continue your work. Eperoton (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't consider EIMW a reliable source, since I have checked it and it is in conflict with other sources, and I don't think there will be consensus that "Islam adopted the harem because of the influence of Judaism" - I can not corroborate the EIMW account anywhere else. Unless there are other sources to back it up, I am removing EIMW entirely. Also, copying verbatim is copy right violation and basically the entire article was copy and pasted from two encyclopedia articles, one of which is not a WP:RS Seraphimsystem (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like you're mixing up WP:V and WP:NPOV policies here. The EIMW article meets WP:RS criteria both based on the publisher (major publisher of academic texts) and the author (academic specializing in this general field). It may well be that it overstates the influence of Christian and Jewish practices on the emergence of the harem relative to the body of RSs on this topic. For example, it cites Ahmed's book, and IIRC Ahmed is more cautious on this point, which was why I also used a more cautious formulation when I wrote the lead. This is not a valid rationale for declaring a source to be unreliable, however. You can get more feedback at the RS noticeboard if you like.
I'm completely baffled by your last sentence. The only part based on those two encyclopedias was the lead (I cleaned up the rest of the article, but only added a couple of statements based on other sources to the rest of it). I followed the sources closely in the lead, but no sentence was copied in its entirety, so I have no idea what you're referring to. Eperoton (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


I am not using a source that presents a fringe theory that I can not back up with supporting sources. The information in EIMW is likely to be challenged, and I want this article to progress past "start class". If we can not reach consensus that this particular EIMW article is biased, this will end up in dispute. I have plenty of other sources I can use, and I don't feel comfortable relying on this article given that the tone is quite biased in favor of pushing a minority interpretation of history. You have not even told me what you want included from it. This does not feel like it is getting us anywhere. Some of the content I removed because it was poorly written and not correct English:
"In the West, Orientalist imaginary conceptions of the harem, as a personal brothel where numerous women lounged in suggestive poses, have influenced culture and to certain extent relationship with Islamic societies through many paintings, music, stage productions, films and literary works, and the word has become particularly associated with polygyny and large royal harems."
In the future, instead of telling me "your reading of the sources" please come with specific content you want added or you are disputing, and the specific quotes and citations you are using to back up your position. You may use [disputed – discuss] or [citation needed] as well, and I will be responsive. Do you know if quotes can be added to citations with the r template? or is there something better I can use? Seraphimsystem (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as I already wrote, I certainly will discuss issues in more detail, when I have more time. For now, I'm just asking you to let me know when you've arrived at a what you consider to be stable version (i.e., at least some parts of the article that won't be rewritten the next day), which is how this exchange began. I'm seeing a lot of continuing changes and I don't want spend time chasing issues that you're about to address yourself.

I let some editors tweak the last sentence in the lead, mostly not to appear as if I laid a claim to owning the article. We do need to address this topic in the lead in some way, since it's prominently covered both in RSs and this article. For the record, my version combined the two sources as follows: 

 In the West, Orientalist imaginary conceptions of the harem as a personal brothel where numerous women lounged in suggestive poses have influenced many paintings, stage productions and literary works,[3][4] and the word has become particularly associated with polygyny and large royal harems.

In a ref template, you can use the "quote" parameter. I'm not sure if this is what you mean by "r". It also works in the sfn template. Eperoton (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The standard equivalent of "purdah" beyond the South Asian context is "seclusion". For example the Oxford Encyclopedia of Islamic World redirects "Purdah" to "Seclusion", and the latter article doesn't mention the word "purdah" at all. We should discuss the topic of course, but we should use the common term "seclusion" instead (that is, except where we're discussing its South Asian form). Eperoton (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

re: quotes I can't figure out how to use something like sfn when I need different quotes from the same source.
Yes, I am planning to work Orientalism into the lead, I am just not sure how. I am not taking the word purdah out of the article, its meaning is curtain and that is cited. Seclusion is mentioned also and I can use it in the subheading. I am using sources other the OEIW and constantly bringing this up is not very helpful. Honestly, the fact that OEIW does not mention purdah is irrelevant. You are giving this one source way, way too much weight, even if it is an encylcopedia its only one source and you keep bring it up, again and again, like it is the very word of God himself. Please stop doing this. I will not remove content that is well cited and essential to the article because OEIW does not mention it.
I have found some additional sources about harems in Hebrew culture, specifically re: Gideon, and I am reconsidering EIMW. I can also add a line about "Sacred" and "inviolable" to the etymology section, if it will resolve this issue, but I will not remove the Topkapi phrasing. I am set on using the dictionary definition for harem in the lead. I am not stopping you from adding content, but please try to avoid run on sentences, excessive punctuation (parentheses, commas, quotation marks, etc.) and use the same citations I have been using. If you can not add content without removing mine, it is not collaboration.
I added your Orientalism quote to the lead, it does not need two cites so I will use OEIW - I checked and EIMW did not really support that statement, so I hope OEIW does, because I don't have that article in front of me. I am trying to avoid excessive citation. The part about polygyny is not cited, so I left it out, I think it is (or will be) discussed in more detail in the Orientalism section anyway.Seraphimsystem (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
If you're using refs, why not just create separate refs with different quotes? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're asking.
Did you get the copy of the OEIW Harem article I emailed? I softened the phrasing it used: "The western Orientalist imagining of a harem as a private brothel where dozens of women lounged in perpetual competitive lust for one man's affections was popular trope for paintings, operas, and stories, but is entirely false."
This is the first time I've referred to The 'Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World here. You're thinking of another OEIW. It's actually the third standard reference I've mentioned to point out that RSs don't generally (ever?) use the term "purdah" unless they're discussing South Asia. What sources do you have that apply it to Saudi Arabia, or a general discussion of gender separation in the Islamic world? The first instance is unsourced, and I'm just going to change it. Also, the use of "purdah" in the sense of veil seems to be unusual even in that context. I think you misunderstood my objection to the current state of the gender separation section. I'm saying that basing it solely on sources about South Asia with its regional terminology is undue. I'm not insisting on using OEWorld for this, but the Seclusion article there is precisely a general discussion of that topic, so using that would be an improvement. I can email you a copy.
I'll try work on some other issues over the weekend. Eperoton (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
No, it is not an improvement, you can check my sources, they are already cited in the article. The Mughals are from South Asia. This is cited as well: "Purdah has further connotations for living arrangements within the home in the sense of separate living spaces for men and women — a feature that is often manifest in the architecture of family residences" from a different Oxford Encyclopedia. If you take out information that is cited correctly because you want to impose your own unsourced theories, and you think the article should cite the same one source for everything, I am filing a dispute because you are not competent to edit. I'm done talking about this.
Rather than commenting on this misplaced invective, I'll just expand the section myself. Eperoton (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Seraphimsystem (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Youshaa Patel is a professor of religious studies who specializes in Islam and Islamic scripture. Please provide quotes, and additional citations. This is too much detail, and this source is not about harems. I have only added this section to introduce the concept of harem, it is not intended to replace a full article on gender segregation. Please do not include information that is not necessary to discuss the main topic of the article, but that does push a particular WP:POV or use loaded terminology like "confinement" which is not standard across sources, without providing any context. Please do not take religious sources out of context or place undue weight on one source, thank you. Seraphimsystem (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:TAGBOMB. You need to explain the reasoning behind the tags here on in the tags themselves. I don't know why you found those statements unclear, irrelevant, or unattributed (clearly, a cited assertion is according to the cited author). Since I'm using the r template per your request, adding quotes is a hassle. I'll email you these sources instead (again, OEIWorld and OEIWomen are two different encyclopedias). On a couple of specific points, where you found the phrasing used in the sources objectionable: 1) other sources will probably allow us to switch "confinement", which I don't much like myself, to something else, but this word choice should be based on actual sources; 2) the word "ultimate" seems to be just a rhetorical flourish, so I'll remove it.

The sources discuss harems and seclusion together, both under the heading of harem and under the heading of seclusion. I see no rationale for labeling a section on seclusion excessively detailed. Seclusion is not the same topic as gender segregation, as you can verify by looking at [[[Gender segregation and Muslims]] and Sex segregation, which don't even mention the word "seclusion". It is rather a subtopic of gender segregation which largely overlaps with the topic of harem.

I also don't see a rationale for moving the passage on religious justifications for seclusion into a different section. The sources explain the interplay of religious and non-religious factors underlying seclusion in Islam (the civilization). The fact that the discussion is about Islam wasn't made sufficiently clear, so I'll clarify that. If we have sources with a similar discussion beyond Islam, we should reflect them here (I think the discussion of Purdah was in the right place), but the sources don't support splitting a discussion of seclusion in Islam into "religious" and "non-religious" sections. What's different about the later section is its focus on particular historical manifestations of the harem. So, that section should be called something "History of harems in Islam", in contrast with a discussion of general characteristics of harems and seclusion, which is what all the academic encyclopedias I've seen focus on (the Harem articles in OEIWomen, EIWMI, and EI2 and these two articles on seclusion). I'm planning to add another section for a discussion of general characteristics of harems based on those sources, including some material that was removed from the lead. Eperoton (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Seclusion is used in most of the sources I have seen, not segregtion. Segregation was the word I use, to mean the same thing. I want to remove this article from the religion category. Purdah precedes Islam and the discussion should not over emphasize Islam out of context, the majority of the article is about Islam. The separation section is specifically for pre-Islam background - maybe I should merge Judaism and purdah (in hinduism) into that section...I intended for the structure of the article to be mostly chronological. Its just a matter of working with the outline that is already there for the article, which I wrote because the article had barely any structure when I started working on it. Seraphimsystem (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
These words don't mean the same thing. The genders have been segregated in many contexts (e.g., schools) which don't involve seclusion. It seems that you're trying to construct a non-Islamic subject of harems, but this is not supported by the sources I've seen. All the encyclopedias I consulted treat the harem as an Islamic phenomenon, even while they point out parallels to similar institutions beyond Islam (there's more of them in Brill reference, and not just encyclopedias of Islamic studies). It's true that purdah is a regional rather than specifically Islamic notion, which should be covered here, though we also have a separate article about it. It's also true that some authors have used the term "harem" in non-Islamic contexts. We can cover those uses with due weight. You're welcome to adjust the content in a way that reflects all the sources we're using between us, but we can't misrepresent sources based on a non-policy-based agenda like removing the article from the religion category. Likewise, though you may want to make the article chronological, multiple encyclopedias treat the subject in general terms rather than chronologically, and we need to reflect those sources. As I proposed above, we can do that by having separate sections for discussing general characteristics and a chronological section for discussing particular historical manifestations. Your contributions are welcome, but making them doesn't mean that you now WP:OWN the article and get to dictate its structure based on personal preferences. Eperoton (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Then I misspoke. Its just a background section, as Islam came after and was influenced - it should not be too long for the reasons you said. I am using stronger sources then encyclopedias i.e. peer reviewed, JSTOR, books written by historians like Leslie Peirce, I honestly do not care that the one encyclopedia article you read on this topic does not treat the subject chronologically. A religious scholar ranting about how Muslims confine women and citing Quranic and Halakhic passages is not the quality of source I am looking for. We have given your sources more then enough weight. If you make edits to push your personal views on Islam that disrupt the logic and organization of the article, I will revert, and we can resolve this in dispute. I won't let you use article on women's history as an excuse to manipulate very general, non-specific sources to promote racial stereotypes. I have not removed your content, but I am not going to ruin the organization of the article just to give it undue weight. There are women who lived in these harems and I am trying to write an article about them and you come in here with a religious scholar interpreting Quranic verses - I will find a place for them, but I am not going to rewrite the whole article so you can put your Islam bashing into the first paragraph. You don't seem to be interested in improving the article, just making sure the poor quality of work in the first article survives my edits. This article is about the women who lived in the harems, and I really don't want to work on it anymore, good job. Seraphimsystem (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what you're planning to put in a non-Islamic background section, but here's what we certainly cannot put there: a summary of sources discussing seclusion and harems in Islam, scrubbed clean of Islamic references and misrepresented as something else. This discussion will be accurately presented for what it is, and we're not going to stash a reference to Mamluk Cairo under "ancient Egypt". I'm assuming that you're making these misrepresentations inadvertently and in good faith, so please consult the sources which you now have and be more careful. I'm putting this material back together as it is presented in the sources and moving it under the Islamic section. Also, since you're making no effort to explain the tags, I'm removing your "bombing run". If you do have specific concerns, please reintroduce the tags with specific explanations as to what is unclear, why you think the academic reference isn't enough, and so forth. Your disparagement of academic encyclopedias is not based on policy. Eperoton (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Can you rollback all my changes to the first format? You can do it from scratch, but I don't want to collaborate with you anymore. Seraphimsystem (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
nevermind I put it back the way it was, this is why the quality on wikipedia is quickly deteriorating. here is your "better" version, enjoy. Seraphimsystem (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
You've made some valuable improvements and I'll try to recover them later this weekend. You're welcome to resume work on the article any time, of course. Eperoton (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't want you to use or copy my work, no. That is why I have put it back the way it was. I am very serious about this. You don't have my permission to just steal it. I will not work with you. Seraphimsystem (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, your call. Eperoton (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

More good grief

Welcome back, Seraphimsystem. I barely had a chance to start missing you. I see that you are a relatively new editor, so perhaps the reason you aren't complying with WP policies is because you haven't yet familiarized yourself with them. In particular:

  1. WP:V and WP:RS have reasonably clear criteria of reliability, and entries from the two Oxford encyclopedias certainly meet them, both based on the publisher and the author. If you think that they don't, you need to justify that with reference to the policies. There is no requirement to cite more than one RS for a statement.
  2. WP:NPOV is expressely about "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It is not about labeling RS as "biased" or enforcing your opinions about unbiased presentation of subject matter, which are both forms of editorial bias. If a statement does not reflect the range of views found in RSs, then we need to find additional RSs and reflect them proportionally. Only if it is demonstrated with reference to a broader body of RSs that some source represents a fringe viewpoint, can it be removed.

I need to attend something else today, so I'll give you time to reconsider your compliance with these policies and hopefully restore the properly sourced content that you've deleted. In the meantime, I'll ask other editors to take a look at your new section on slavery via related talk pages. Eperoton (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The new section is copied directly from another page, so there are some things I need to do to be compliant with policy, and I will get to them. I am disputing that Yoshuaa Patel is an unbiased source, and even more that you are an unbiased editor, given the history of our conversation and your interest in introducing information in a way that is misleading. It is your use of the information more then the source, and its WP:JUSTALINK I don't know how to file a complaint so if you want to you can, I will defend my position. Seraphimsystem (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors are required to follow Wikipedia policies. It's not enough to hurl accusations and proclaim that you dispute something. If your arguments aren't grounded in specific sources and policies, they're just empty talk and edits based on them are policy violations. Eperoton (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:JUSTALINK - what specific part of the policy do you want me to review? This statement is disputed by many other peer reviewed sources, which are cited. We can include this information about the Quran, but not out of context, because it creates a bias in the article. It implies a conclusion that is inconsistent with the account provided by many other peer reviewed sources, and accepted by historians. Yoshuaa Patel is not a historian. I have said all of this several times already. My edit summaries were quite detailed. Do you need me to explain again? Seraphimsystem (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Here are some of the specific problems I have had with you: WP:NAD WP:FRINGE WP:SCHOLARSHIP WP:INTEXT Seraphimsystem (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Criteria for reliability are described in WP:SOURCES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. There is no question that The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women meets those requirements. When in doubt, one can ask for additional input at WP:RSN, but to suggest that major Oxford encyclopedias are not RSs plainly contradicts the policy -- OUP is the actual example used in WP:SOURCES to illustrate reliability based on the publisher, for crying out loud.
The point of NPOV is expressed clearly in the opening definition I quoted above. If you think that a particular source does not reflect the range of views found in RSs, then supplement it with alternative viewpoints from other RSs. Do not remove properly sourced content -- improve it. Fringe viewpoints can be removed, but their fringe status has to be demonstrated either by presenting a more authoritative RS with identifies that viewpoint as fringe, or by a systematic review of sources showing predominance of alternative viewpoints. The latter doesn't mean, by the way, googling for sources supporting a certain viewpoint; it means designing a reasonably unbiased source selection rationale with a buy-in from other parties in the dispute.
Thank you for starting to refer to specific policies. Now please explain how my specific edits violated these specific policies. Eperoton (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Your version is WP:UNDUE. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements" I have explained in the edit summaries. Your version contradicts stronger sources and you provide no attribution. It is presented as a historical source, when the author is a religious scholar. You insisted on re-structuring the article to give it prominence. I understand if you want to escalate to a dispute, but you have not changed my mind. Seraphimsystem (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
What stronger sources does it contradict? Please present them and supply quotes. My edits summarized RSs (and no, Patel is an academic, not a "religious scholar") and I've provided you a copy. Until you do the same, this is just empty talk and policy violation. So far, you've provided no sources to justify the removal of content from Oxford encyclopedias -- all you've done is replace them by unsourced content (including the ludicrous suggestion that the Book of Esther is a historically accurate description of the Persian empire). I'm signing off for now, and if this is all you can muster, I'll restore the properly sourced content and remove the unsourced replacements when I'm back. Eperoton (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I did that in the previous version that you changed so you could feature a fringe religious scholar, which is what Patel is, look him up. That article you found is apparently his ONLY significant publication. You even insisted that this article should not be "chronological" so you could emphasize the Quran's influence on the harem institution, refused to provide additional context or citations WP:INTEXT, and insisted on changing chronological WP:STRUCTURE to de-empasize my (thoroughly cited) research, that relied on multiple peer-reviewed sources and expert books. If you keep pushing your own thesis over majority scholarship, I will remove it. Seraphimsystem (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Labeling content from an Oxford encyclopedia as "fringe" without providing sources which demonstrate that it contradicts the supposed mainstream view just isn't going to fly here. Not only that, you didn't even bother to check that the passage on religious justification you removed had two citations. I've consulted additional sources -- though not because I'm planning to indulge unsubstantiated objections like the above -- and came away with partly modified conclusions. The role of Quranic verses pertaining to Muhammad's wives in articulating the seclusion ideal is discussed across standard references, including Brill's Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures [5] and Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān [6]. I'll restore the passage with phrasing adjusted to reflect this broader collection of sources. On the other hand, tribal custom is mentioned in this context only by that one source in my sample, so I'm satisfied that it is undue. Eperoton (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Its better now, where is the language about a "model for decorum for all women" - I think this should be removed. It has been thoroughly debunked in critical studies, it is orientalist garbage, and an irrelevant sentence about the "chagrin of religious authorities" is not encyclopedic. I would like to remove that part, and the anecdotal story about Cairo as well, but otherwise it seems much improved. Seraphimsystem (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't mean to be stubborn about particular turns of phrase and sentences, but I do need your help in understanding your objections here. Why is that phrase "orentalist garbage"? How has it been debunked? Here's why I think it's important: 1) it emphasizes the fact that the Quranic verse was used by later commentators to define a standard for all Muslim women, even though it was always understood to apply originally only to Muhammad's wives (this is noted by all the sources); 2) it underlines that this was seen as an ideal, which we then contrast with actual practice. As for the Cairo example, it's not just one example randomly picked from a bunch; it's one of the very few currently available pieces of historical evidence which illustrate how the seclusion ideal differed from social reality in pre-modern Islam. It comes from Women and Gender in Islam by Leila Ahmed (pp. 119-120), which is one of the most influential works in this field. If you help me understand what your concerns are, perhaps we can find another way to address them. Eperoton (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Cairo may be ok, I think you mean this is from the period when Egypt was part of the Ottoman Empire, not Ancient Egypt? Ancient Egypt would be off topic and confusing, but sometimes comes up in discussions about pre-Islamic harems. Is "chagrin of religious authorities" a direct quote, because if it is, it should be attributed. If it is your language, it should be reworded WP:COLLOQUIAL
I know why you think including Quranic verse is important, and after reviewing the quotes you are relying on, I still think what you are saying is borderline improper synthesis and off topic for the article, which is about harem - you have said yourself that neither the verse nor the article is specifically about harem. There is a separate article for purdah Seraphimsystem (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Egypt was under Mamluk rule in the 14th century. The source has: "Despite the frustrations of many Muslim religious scholars, women in fourteenth-century Cairo could still be found roaming the cemeteries, markets, mosques, and festivals alongside men." I prefer my phrasing. Eperoton (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Its not encyclopedic tone. Please consider using neutral, formal language that is verifiable WP:V. Your edits seem to add in a lot of out of context information and you don't use any secondary sources - Egypt is a good example. How is a reader supposed to know if you are talking about Ancient Egypt or Mamluk Egypt? Even though you say 14th century (BC?), it's confusing WP:WBA. If you don't have time, I can just leave you a note when its ready for review. Seraphimsystem (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I noted the era and picked more formal phrasing. Eperoton (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

"Jewish slave merchants supplied the harem system."

I believe this was eventually resolved via normal editing of the article, but for posterity: At this time, there is a weak consensus against including the fact that traders who supplied eunuchs were Jewish. The consensus is that this is tangentially related to the topic and that its inclusion would provide undue weight. All participants in this discussion are reminded to be civil while dealing with other editors and to walk away temporarily from discussions which are frustrating rather than escalate conflicts. Further, I'll note that this is a consensus emerging from a relatively small number of editors, and an RFC might be appropriate if an editor wishes to obtain outside input. ~ Rob13Talk 01:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Besides being sloppily worded -- Jewish slave merchants didn't supply the harem system, but they may have supplied women to the system -- this sentence lacks context, is poorly sourced, and likely gives undue weight to Jewish participation in slave trading.

First, neither source says that Jewish merchants supplied women to the harem system.

Second, besides Jewish merchants, who else participated? What proportion of the harem trade did Jews make up relative to merchants of other religions? It seems like somebody has Jews on the brain. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And eunuchs. Which merchants are you talking about? Seraphimsystem (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Why are you asking me? You added the sentence to the article. Which merchants are you talking about? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Jewish merchants are the ones mentioned in the sources, the primary sources I am not referencing for now say that only Jewish merchants supplied Eunuchs. As there is debate amongst scholars, I am looking for multiple secondary sources to balance and treat the issue fairly. For some reason, the secondary sources don't seem to reflect the primary sources. I am looking at non-English language scholarship also. Why are you using sockpuppets? Seraphimsystem (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not using socukpuppets. Please read WP:VALIDALT and User:MShabazz.
Also, please consider drafting text in your userspace until you straighten out the sourcing issues. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure. This version has already consensus on another significant page, which is why I copied it, but of course I won't add anything until I can source it. Seraphimsystem (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Why is a section titled “Slavery and the Harem System in Islam” all about the Jews? The Jewish encyclopedia does not even say anything about the harem. Other than the Jewish encyclopedia it’s all primary sources.
The eunuchs and young slave boys part is off topic.Jonney2000 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
That is what I found that had consensus on the page I copied it from. It was just added today. I did not title the section "Jewish Slave Merchants" and there is room for expansion under the current section title. There seems to be unusual inconsistency between primary sources and English language secondary sources. I want to include this, but treat it fairly. I do want to make it clear in the article that Jewish slave merchants were not representative of most Jews who lived in the Ottoman Empire. Eunuchs were slaves in the harem, why is it off topic? Seraphimsystem (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have a secondary source S. Assaf that confirms "Jews played a very small part in that trade" (relying on Jewish sources) but it does not cite those sources or explain further, and it seems to be biased and religious-oriented "the jews treat their slaves very well...many of them behaved like devout Jewesses even in slavery" - it does confirm that Jews did have a part in the Ottoman slave trade based on Jewish sources. Seraphimsystem (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems quite off-topic and I'll suggest that it be removed until the relevance to this topic is shown. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to include that quote because it is offtopic but I am looking for better sources. Not mentioning the slavery of eunuchs at all would be detrimental to the article. This section needs a refimprove template. Seraphimsystem (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with @MShabazz:, @Jonney2000:, and @Smallbones:. It is off-topic. Drsmoo (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I see that Seraphimsystem has restored the text despite consensus being opposed to it. Just a reminder that wikipedia is based on consensus. I second Malik Shabazz's statement that the info is off topic and very questionable. It will be removed again. If Seraphim System wants to include information, he/she must build consensus first. Not make sweeping changes to articles and then ignore consensus when they are reverted. Drsmoo (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
In response to Seraphim system's edit, I don't see any approval anywhere for any of these edits, even after the "changes". To single out a specific religion like this does come across as an editor having "Jews on the brain". The section is unacceptable, and as consensus has shown, cannot stay until it is either balanced or removed. Drsmoo (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
There may be some countervailing sources available, but I don't have any on hand. What did you have in mind? Seraphim System (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I have in mind you removing the undue statement per consensus on this discussion and then working collaboratively with other editors. Drsmoo (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
If you have any balancing sources that are about the eunuch trade, they should be included. I also urge you to avoid resorting personal attacks. Seraphim System (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Eperoton also added sources to that section, there is more discussion about eunuchs below. Seraphim System (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I see where Eperoton wrote "If you want to make a disputed change, you need to get consensus. I'll make an attempt at a compromise solution by using a more appropriate orientalist image, but if you try to force your preferred version through without consensus, we'll need to escalate dispute resolution." I don't see any editors supporting your edits here. Please show consensus support for your edit. Drsmoo (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
And did we escalate to dispute resolution? -no. I think Eperoton and I spent at least 2 hours discussing that photo before reaching a compromise. Seraphim System (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
We are discussing the text, not the photo. Please show consensus supporting your text. Drsmoo (talk)
A large portion of that section was written by Eperoton, and it was edited with a degree of close collaboration that can not be disputed from looking at this talk page. Basically, I am not going to remove well-sourced content, relevant content just because it is about Jews. Seraphim System (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
You say you won't remove it. That's fine, Wikipedia is based on consensus, not on what you think. Not every possible statement that can be cited belongs in an article. That's why Wikipedia had the concept of Undue. Based on the fact that articles on Ottoman harems don't prominently mention Jews, the inclusion is Undue, as has been pointed by an overwhelming consensus on this talk page. Drsmoo (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're talking about the same section. I don't recall contributing anything to the slavery section and the image that Seraphim System is referring to is the lead image. I have my hands busy at the moment trying to perform some archeology on other sections of this article, so I'd rather leave discussion of the slavery section to other editors. One would have to look at the cited sources. Eperoton (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Eperoton has contributed a lot to this page, but we can hunt through diffs if that is what you all want to do. Based on the discussion below, I did add some balancing information based on Eperotons concerns, but it seems to have been removed, possibly when he reverted back from the Nijinsky photo. That statement, or something like it could be added back in. Seraphim System (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
See also Yaron Ben-Naeh. This is well-documented in primary sources, and those primary sources are discussed by secondary sources. There are court documents from this period also. It is not undue. Many of our articles about Ottoman women rely heavily on Leslie Peirce, simply because there is a lack of sources. This is not because of a failure to balance, it is just a limitation of an field that is under-represented in scholarship. Seraphim System (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I looked up Yaron Ben-Naeh and found this quote "For men in the Muslim East, a woman's sexuality was the basic element in the makeup of her identity, which was different from and inferior to that of men. Her sexuality was seen as being so seductive as to endanger the social order. The male, in contrast, was conceived as having a perpetual sexual lust for whom every contact with a suitable object of desire - a woman or a boy - bore sexual potentialities." Since it's from a reliable source, surely it must be in the article. I'm being sarcastic of course. Wikipedia is based on consensus and due weight, not on cherry-picking quotes. The role of Jews in the Harem is completely undue and overblown, as has been pointed out to you already. I won't go in circles. I've just posted on the Sexuality Wikiproject as well, in order to facilitate more community involvement. Drsmoo (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I think sexuality and gender in the Ottoman Empire is discussed by a number of sources, and much contested by scholars of Orientalism, but I don't see how it is on-topic for the slavery section. WP:UNDUE is not a license to remove content for POV reasons. The trade in Eunuchs was very important for harem, and is based on primary sources, which I have reviewed but not included as sources for the article. Seraphim System (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The particular religion of particular traders is also off-topic. The Wikipedia community determines what is WP:Undue, consensus has said your aside about Jews is undue. Drsmoo (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
This is the last thing I am going to say about this for the time being, I think you should carefully review the discussion and edit history of this page. Seraphim System (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I was asked to assess consensus in this discussion on whether this content belongs in the article. Malik Shabazz and Jonney2000, the content may have changed since you first viewed it. Could you provide your current opinions on whether it should be included in the article or not, explaining why you believe it should or should not be included? ~ Rob13Talk 05:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
BU Rob13 I know I'm not an expert in Wiki procedures, but shouldn't there actually be an RfC before WP:ANRFC?Seraphim System (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Any discussion can be closed, not just RfCs, Seraphim System. Often, consensus can be built without an RfC. ~ Rob13Talk 05:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
BU Rob13 Can you point me towards the relevant policy pages for that so I can familiarize myself with them? Seraphim System (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:DR and WP:CONSENSUS both mention discussing without RfCs, and the latter specifically notes RfCs are intended for things that have not been successfully solved through less formal discussion. ~ Rob13Talk 05:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I will say that the fact that two of the above editors have accused me of having "Jews on the brain" makes me think a broader discussion might be more appropriate to resolve this. Seraphim System (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
This is what I see in the policy you referred me to: "Keep in mind, however, that administrators are primarily concerned with policy and editor behavior and will not decide content issues authoritatively." I don't see anything about closures of discussions that are not part of some formal process (RfC, proposed merger, etc.). I'm concerned that this conduct may be inappropriate. Seraphim System (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I found WP:CLOSE. I think there are two problems here: 1) I have not been able to find the formal noticeboard request for closure. Instead, I see User talk:Drsmoo made the request directly on BU Rob13s talk page. 2) I am also concerned that this does not follow the policy guidance that the request should be "neutrally worded" - User:Drsmoo knows there is no consensus on this page about this version - even the section title has changed. In a content dispute between two editors, a more correct first step would have been to seek a non-binding third opinion, and to use the correct procedures instead of reaching out to a particular admin through their talk page. I would ask that the procedures for closures in the policy page be followed, i.e. making a formal request. This is important, so there is a record of the original action, in the event that the closure is challenged. Thank you. Seraphim System (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphim System: There is no "requirement" for a request for closure to be filed at ANRFC. In fact, most discussions which are closed do not come from such requests. That noticeboard is only designed to attract a neutral closer when no-one closes the discussion for an extended period of time. I'm not sure exactly what you're accusing me of, but as the interaction analyzer shows, I've certainly not had any contact with Drsmoo that would make me involved. He requested that an admin take action on a behavioral issue. I declined to act administratively, but instead acted as any editor can as a neutral closer, as that's what was needed to move forward. Rather than trying to find some "loophole" to enforce your view over the protests of many other editors, focus on making a policy-based argument for your view. Attempts to wikilawyer will not influence my close. ~ Rob13Talk 14:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Because of my and User:Drsmoo involvement in ARBPIA and the nature of the complaints (i.e. that the content is about Jews) and the fact that they have not been otherwise involved with the development of the article, I'm not comfortable with the circular tagging of one another on talk pages about this - even if the behavior is innocent, User:Drsmoo should be asked to make his requests on the appropriate noticeboards, like everyone else, because right now it looks like WP:CANVASS Seraphim System (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I have decided, assuming no objection from Eperoton to remove Andrew Handler as a source because I can not find any publications of his outside this book, which I don't think is widely cited. I was not very familiar with the details of WP:RS when I was working on this page some months ago. Ad hominem accusations of having "Jews on the brain" were also probably not conducive to consensus building. I would appreciate it if editors can make an effort to avoid these kinds of personal comments in the future. I will also remove the citation to the Jewish Encyclopedia, because it does not address harem - I actually thought I had already removed it, but saw it was still there when I reviewed the page. Seraphim System (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
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.

Original Research - Slavery

I just tagged this section of the article for its original research. This article is about harems, so why is this general but off-topic sentence there: "In the medieval Ottoman Empire, Jews were one of the few groups who could move and trade between the Christian and Islamic worlds." What does it have to do with harems? I didn't study it carefully, but in the Google Books preview, the pages referenced in the footnote don't appear to mention harems or the Ottoman Empire. Unfortunately, this cavalier disregard for following policy seems typical of this section of the article. (It may be typical of the entire article, but I've only focused on one section.) — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I looked at some sources last night. Marzolph's one-page entry on "Eunuch" in the Arabian Nights Encyclopedia seems to be written mostly on the authority of K̲h̲āṣī in EI2. The latter is fairly long and has a good deal to say about the role of eunuchs in harems and beyond, as well as about castration, but not much about slave trade in general. In particular, the role of Jews in performing castration, which is also being discussed elsewhere, comes from this source ("In conclusion, from the juridical point of view, prohibition of practising emasculation appears to have proceeded by a sort of tacit consensus: moreover, it was unnecessary, for it was left to Christians and Jews, preferably outside the dar al-Islam, to produce eunuchs, which the Muslims could then acquire without contravening their Law."), and more specifically: "With regard to the white slaves of European origin (Slavs, Franks, Galicians, etc.) included under the word Sakaliba [q.v.], al-Mukaddasi states that they were taken to Spain to be castrated there; the operation was carried out by Jews in a town situated around Pechina (probably Lucena), and the eunuchs who recovered were sold in al-Andalus or sent on to the Orient." Comparing that with the EJ statement quoted by MShabazz ("The trade in eunuchs, so much in demand for Oriental harems, depended on whether the Jewish slave trader could acquire castrated males."), we may have a disagreement between RSs, though this point is a bit murky (it's not clear whether EJ goes on to make a categorical statement about practice or only about Talmudic law and where the author believes the traders acquired castrated males).
Rodriguez' article in The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery has several paragraphs about the Ottoman imperial harem, but nothing about the role of various religious and ethnic groups in trading or owning slaves. Other cited sources, which I haven't checked, seem unlikely to discuss harems, though I could be wrong. It may be that these general aspects of slavery can be shown to be a due concern based on other sources discussing harems -- as is the case for the general topic of seclusion (another long-standing controversy on this talk page). I'm all for providing context, as long as it's deemed relevant by RSs. Handler's passage was a borderline case, I think. It did mention the harem, but tangentially, and was apparently found by a targeted search. I don't have a strong objection either to its inclusion or its exclusion. Eperoton (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
MShabazz Don't you think it might show a pattern of POV editing that your entire involvement with this article is to focus on a short section only because it is about Jews? Yet you are comfortable using insulting language to accuse other editors of POV-editing? All the time the article has been here no one has tried to improve it even though it was mostly unsourced and had many other problems - until some content was added about Jews that the editors don't like. Now suddenly admins are getting involved in ordinary content disputes? Obviously, admins should be concerned about contributing to the perception of systemic bias. I'm not Jewish, and I'm a female editor, and I think including this information improves the encyclopedia. Following up on the discussion here - yes this information came from a primary source, which is no more or less reliable then any other medieval primary sources relied on by secondary sources used in medieval studies. Sometimes when working on medieval history, I prefer to attribute a statement like this in-text to the chronicler and provide a secondary source citation, I would be willing to do this here too. Seraphim System (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
If you consider following Wikipedia's core policies, such as WP:V and WP:NOR, and requesting that other editors follow them as well, to be "POV editing", then I'm guilty as charged. If, like most people, you understand "POV editing" to mean POV-pushing or otherwise editing in violation of WP:NPOV, then I challenge you to show how my edits to this article constitute "POV editing". — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 23:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't mean to be dismissive about this but you are not being responsive to comments from editors who are trying to engage with a concern you raised about the content of this page. this is a pretty clear example of directing a denigrating comment to an editor instead of focusing on content. It is also an example of expecting other editors to source balancing content that you are free to add if you want to improve the article. I will not be responding to further disruptive comments. Seraphim System (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Bullshit. You don't mean to be dismissive? You've been nothing but dismissive. Trying to engage with a concern I raised? If dismissing other editors' concerns is now considered trying to engage with them, count me out. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
If you would rather withdraw from the discussion then engage with the sources I posted, please remove the template on your way out. Seraphim System (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I am currently waiting on a chapter from the resource exchange but I have also found these sources about the eunuch trade - there is significant debate in scholarship about this, not least of all about Verdun which should be added. I never claimed the section was "complete" or "final" - editors should really consider improving rather then fighting to remove sourced content:
Its definitely discussed in a number of sources, we need to be careful here to not decide which theory is right or wrong, but to present the available scholarship neutrally. Seraphim System (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It should be made clear somehow that this is about Eunuch slave trade, maybe by moving to a separate section on Eunuchs. More sources:

I really hope we don't need an RfC about whether the Eunuch trade is WP:OR in an article about harem, besides Michael Toch's footnote is very thorough, and I will try to get the rest of the chapter from resource exchange (waiting on two requests already.) Seraphim System (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The bits about Jews are off-topic and cherry-picking, as others have pointed out as well. Drsmoo (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
No, they are not and no one but you has pointed that out. If you can not make constructive comments and continue to disrupt development of this article this will end up on a noticeboard. Seraphim System (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Go for it Drsmoo (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm done with this article, I am not going to work on an article where an editor curses at me for posting sources and another accuses me of cherry picking sources before the section has even been written. Even assuming good faith, it seems undeniable at this point that neither editor is sincerely engaging with the consensus discussion - that now leaves BU Rob13 in a tough spot regarding the closure of this discussion. On that note, I don't think formal measures are necessary at this point, but as both Drsmoo and MShabazz have clearly demonstrated that they are unable to work with me civilly (I know they are capable with other editors, because I have seen them do it) I think we should handle this like grown ups and not go out of our way to interact with each other in the future. I will be working on other articles. Seraphim System (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I will try to address concerns about this section in the coming days. I think it will be improved if we separate into different subsections the two partially overlapping but different subjects it currently discusses: eunuchs and slavery. Some concerns about undue weight can be addressed simply by expanding the content, as Seraphim System has pointed out. Eperoton (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Eperoton I am staying uninvolved with development here, but please ping me when you have a workable version, I want to translate it to expand the rather short article on Vikipedia. In the event of an RfC, I still support balanced inclusion, and strongly object to BU Rob13 having closed a discussion as weak consensus when two were for inclusion, and two against, without any review of the sources you are working out of. The fact that Michael Toch was not even discussed in this supposed "consensus" discussion makes the whole thing pretty suspect, in my opinion Seraphim System (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphim System: Will do. Eperoton (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Arab Slave Trade

This needs to be discussed but should not confuse slave ownership, and general slave trade, with harem. It would be nice if there were specific sources to put it in context, as harem slavery existed outside the Ottoman Empire, and in other periods. But this should be specified and clear from the writing and stated explicitly in the sources. Eunuchs are harem slaves and that is widely attested to both in the definition of eunuch and the scholarly sources. Beyond that we should not assume all slave trade was intended for the harem. Does anyone have sources that explicitly discuss slavery in the harem context?

Chattel slavery is excessive jargon - how is it different from regular slavery? If you want to use this term, it would benefit from a full and thorough discussion of its context and relevance. It has colloquial uses that are perjorative, and we should avoid this for encyclopedic tone and neutrality.

I want to avoid excessive tags, but the date needs clarification (1887 or 1888 is not acceptable for an encyclopedia, this should be verifiable) I would like a quote added from "Through Samaria to Galilee and the Jordan: Scenes of the Early Life and Labors of Our Lord, Josias Porter, 1889" Right now, we have used him as a source about black eunuchs but it lacks context. He may be writing about the Ottoman Empire, but I would like to confirm this.

Also if Latin American and South Asian slave were part of the harem, this needs to be cited (including where and when), or I will remove it as un-referenced. There were Latin American slaves brought to Spain through the Atlantic Slave trade. The current article says this was through the Arab slave trade, and there is no evidence for this. There is also no evidence given that these slaves were intended for harems (were there harems in Spain in this time period?) . Seraphimsystem (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

We do need some discussion of slavery here, but its current placement under a general discussion of seclusion seems odd and doesn't reflect the sources I know. It is usually discussed under distinct historical rubrics. It features prominently in the emergence of large harems under the Abbasids (there's an account of that in Schick's EWIC entry I just cited and also in Leila Ahmed's book). I can add this material. It also appears in specific discussions of royal harems from later ages. I would suggest incorporating it into the history section.
The current emphasis on the Jewish role also seems odd. It's not mentioned in any of the general sources on harems I know. I believe the prominence of this controversy comes from the legacy of orientalist obsession with enslavement of Christians in the Muslim world. Enslavement of Christians residing in the Muslim world was illegal, so after the end of early conquests, these had to be imported, and Jews apparently played a prominent role in slave trade between Europe and the Middle East. But how important was that slave trade for large harems, compared to importation of "pagan" slaves from other regions, as well as capture of slaves through buccaneer raiding and wars? I doubt it was, though I can't recall seeing specific comparisons. Eperoton (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I have citations, I just haven't added them yet. I don't mind your adding information, just make sure it makes sense and is cited, with quotes that are explicit to harems - you don't have to explain it to me. I will eventually remove uncited information. The eunuch trade was important to harems, that is supported by all sources - if you are talking about something else, you need to cite it. Seraphimsystem (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about eunuchs at all (you may be thinking of another editor who commented above). I agree that eunuchs feature prominently in discussions of harems. Eperoton (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I have included a line that the significance of Jewish participation is disputed by some scholars. I can not answer your other questions, because I don't have any secondary sources discussing buccaneer raiding and posting my own WP:OR would be against policy. Seraphimsystem (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Right, in the paragraph starting with "The current emphasis" I wasn't articulating an actual objection, just musing out loud and hoping other editors with better sources at hand may provide additional insight. Eperoton (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Eperoton regarding the odd emphasis on Jews. I have posted on Wikiproject Judaism to get more feedback. I'll post on Wikiproject Sexuality as well. Drsmoo (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
If you all prefer this article in the condition it was before I started working on it, I am about ready to undo all my changes. Seraphim System (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Quranic Verses

Thank you for adding additional sources, but there is still no secondary source. Please add a secondary source for this. This article needs to be refimproved for secondary sources. I also find it strange that an experienced editor is not familiar with policy for secondary and tertiary sources.

Also, I am planning to restore EIMW content, since I was able to find secondary sources that also corroborate that harem institution spread to Islam from other cultures. Seraphimsystem (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

All these encyclopedias are both tertiary and secondary sources. The definition at WP:TERTIARY is admittedly sketchy on this point (perhaps because no one has given occasion to flesh it out before by contesting the use of encyclopedias), but this is made clear in the external link [7] cited for the source classification. If you'd like to continue contesting the use of academic encyclopedias, next stop is WP:RSN. You already have the text of two of those sources, and here are the relevant portions of the other two:
 Though “harem” does not denote women or women’s quarters in the Qur±àn, there is a verse that has been taken as laying the foundation for the separation of men and women. It reads, in part: “And when you ask them [feminine] for something, ask from behind a veil (hijàb); that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs” (33:53). Although commentators agree that “them” in this verse refers specifically to the Prophet’s wives, they have usually generalized it to include all Muslim women, and have taken this verse as ordaining that men and women must be spatially separated (al-Qur†ubì 1364 A.H., xiv, 227). EWIC

 Conversely, the verse ordering the believers to speak to the wives of the Prophet from behind a curtain also prohibits them from marrying the Prophet’s widows after his death (q 33:53; see veil; widow), a limitation unique to the Prophet’s wives. In this case, separating women from male visitors by a curtain, a hijāb, would logically apply only to the Prophet’s wives. [...] In qurānic exegesis (see exegesis of the qurAn: classical and medieval), the circumstances upon which the verse was revealed (asbāb al-nuzūl) indicated that some visitors bothered the Prophet’s wives to the point of sexual harassment. These accretions would dictate a more stringent approach to the separation of the women of the household from men who are not their kin, both for the Prophet’s wives and, by extension, for other Muslim women as well. EoQ
Eperoton (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please use the proper format for religious citations, cleanup excessive citations and place the relevant quotes directly in the citation (do not email them to me.) No one is contesting the use of academic encyclopedias, which you well know, but they should not be your only source, because they are weaker sources then peer reviewed scholarship. I am asking one more time to please provide quotes in your citations, and use the correct format. If it continues to present a problem, I will consider following up on your suggestion of WP:RSN. Seraphimsystem (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

All of those encyclopedias meet WP:V requirements, so any one of them is sufficient to source a statement. Period. If there was disagreement between RSs, relative strength of the sources would be relevant for discussing proportional representation of different viewpoints per NPOV. However, since you've presented no evidence of disagreement between RSs on this point, there's nothing to discuss.
Quotes have been provided in response to a specific verification request. How that's done is a discretionary choice. If you feel they should be placed in the refs, you're welcome to put them there. Eperoton (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not helpful to insert one line from a very generalized tertiary source that seems to contradict all the secondary sources included in the article, and EIMW, that say harem evolved out of local customs of conquered cultures, without providing secondary sources. Most likely these local customs influenced the writing of the Quran. Its POV pushing to insert one or two lines that perpetuate misconceptions. Also your source does contradict my secondary sources. "Though “harem” does not denote women or women’s quarters in the Qur±àn, there is a verse that has been taken as laying the foundation for the separation of men and women. " You need to find a secondary source that directly says this influenced harem, or it doesn't belong in this article. All the secondary sources say harem evolved out of local Hindu and Persian custom, not Quranic verse. You are reading this incorrectly. Seraphimsystem (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
If there are contradictions between sources, then WP:NPOV requires us to reflect all the views in them proportionally. If the role of the Quranic verses pertaining to Muhammad's wives is actually disputed, then we need to note the dispute. If different sources simply mention different influences, then these need to be listed alongside, as we're already doing. To remove the statement you would need to show that it is a WP:FRINGE view. I challenge you to take the four encyclopedias I've cited and your sources to the fringe theory noticeboard (WP:FTN) and argue your case. I still don't know what stronger secondary sources you're talking about. Sword of Islam? You think a tract on Islamic extremism from Prometheus Books, the publisher of Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom, is a voice of scholarly authority compared to which OUP and Brill encyclopedias are fringe? With your latest "synthesis" line of attack, I've finally lost hope that we can reach a consensus on this, so I'm going to open an RFC. Eperoton (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not thrilled about Sword of Islam either but my access to databases hasn't been approved yet, and that was all I could find. I am willing to refimprove it if you are unhappy with it, as the particular statements I cited from Sword of Islam are pretty consistent across sources and encyclopedias. Seraphimsystem (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I seems that you Googled this source using some combination involving the word "purdah". As I've already written before with references to academic sources, "purdah" is a regional (South Asian) term used for seclusion of women. Some South Asian authors and scholars of South Asia do use it as a general term, but this usage has little acceptance among the broader academic community. If you want, we can have a separate discussion on that with a systematic review of the sources. In fact, the two academic references you originally cited for purdah also made clear the regional nature of the term. Eperoton (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually I found it looking for a reference for Persian origins since I can't pull up the Papanek article right now. I applied for database access but I don't know when or if my requests are going to be approved. It doesn't matter which term is used as long as it stays on topic, but purdah is the correct term for Persia as in "Purdah seems to have spread to Islam from Persian culture" I am not sure why you keep objecting to this Seraphimsystem (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe what is confusing about this is in use for Afghanistan and other places in South Asia today, but I have not used it as a "general term" - however, I think it is correct to use it in the context of Persia as it relates to Harem. I do not think we should conflate separate issues that fall under the broader category of purdah instution (such as veiling) with harem because this is not supported by secondary sources, and I think it would be synthesis. Seraphimsystem (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source that can confirm that this sentence is about harem, and not veiling: "The practice of secluding women in Islam is based on both religious tradition and social custom." - I have not been able to confirm religious origins for harem in encyclopedic sources, only for veiling ("Spatial separation" is used by scholars to describe hijab- for example, Sahar Amer) Seraphimsystem (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm objecting to the content from "Sword of Islam" because I see no evidence that it's reliable based on either the publisher or the author. Its use of the term "purdah" is anachronistic (both the EWIC article on Harem and the Purdah article in EIMW state that usage of "purdah" to refer to seclusion rather than simply a curtain derives from the Quranic "hijab verse" whose mention you've been trying to remove). We can note that seclusion of women is sometimes called "purdah", particularly in South Asia, but I see no evidence that it was borrowed from Persia. The only RS I see which posits a direct Persian influence on the harem in Islam is from EIMW: "the Abbasid nobles and leaders adopted the Persian custom of the ownership of hundreds and thousands of concubines and slaves". This, however, is not about seclusion/purdah.

I'm not sure why you're asking for context on that article, which I've emailed to you, but here's the context: 

 The practice of confining women to the exclusive company of other women in their own home or in separate female living quarters is one mechanism among others—including modest dress, veiling, self-effacing mannerisms, and the separation of men and women in public places—that are employed to undergird sexual morality in Middle Eastern Muslim societies. The practice of women's seclusion is grounded in both religion and social custom.

This is the start of Doumato's Seclusion article, so the suggestion that it's not relevant to harem just doesn't make sense. Eperoton (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to review it against other sources if I am granted database access, including secondary sources - I've requested access for Questia and Oxford. I don't open emails from wikipedia users, for a number of reasons. You can check Papanek if you want to. Seraphimsystem (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, that certainly makes collaboration more challenging. You may not have been on WP long enough to qualify for those accounts. Which text by Papanek are you referring to? Eperoton (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I think Papanek is mostly about Hinduism, but Fedorak says the origin of purdah remains unclear but it may have developed in Persia. This really needs more context from secondary source research then can be covered by encyclopedia articles. Seraphimsystem (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
You can check KumKum Chatterjee's purdah article in The Oxford Companion to the Body, this discusses purdah's significance to harem. Papanek discusses that purdah limits women's mobility outside the home. I will remove the line about Persian origins from Sword of Islam. Seraphimsystem (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
There's no doubt that traditions of female seclusion (called purdah in South Asia and some authors more generally) are significant to the institution of harem. It even seems too obvious to point out. My objection to the other sentence is confusion between different epochs. Authors who talk about the emergence of the Islamic harem generally are talking about the early Abbasid caliphate and the influence of Persian customs during that era in modern-day Iraq and Iran, while Chatterjee is talking about South Asian regions which fell under Islamic rule only several centuries later ("about 1200 AD"). I've googled Fedorak and found only this book, which doesn't say anything about development of purdah in Persia. It only notes that the word means "curtain" in Persian, like the other sources. Why don't we summarize what Chatterjee says on the subject instead of relying on the dubious Sword of Islam? Eperoton (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree, the quote you selected is a good place to start. Seraphimsystem (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC about Quranic influence

Is this statement properly sourced, due, and relevant in the Historical Background section? "Along with a number Quranic verses discussing modesty, the passages which enjoined seclusion on Muhammad's wives (33:32-33, 33:53) were later held up by Quranic commentators as a model of decorum for all Muslim women and religious rationale for their spatial separation from men."[1][2][3] Eperoton (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Yes I think the refs and quotes speak of themselves. Eperoton (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No The quotes are off topic from tertiary sources about veiling and hijab. The influence of Islamic law and harem is complex and should be discussed in a separate section, well-referenced by secondary historical sources, and should be relevant to harem. Seraphimsystem (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes It is literally from the bull (or rather the prophet)'s mouth. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • NO. While the citations provide support Islamic separation of men from women, it did not specifically address the issue of harem. In answering specific historical questions, you need to mark sure the context of your evidence is specific as well. It would help to have sources specifically related to the development of the harem. I am guessing that while Mohammed did shape his culture, the opposite might be said also, Namely, that ancient Middle Eastern culture shaped a lot of Mohammed’s views. But I am not a scholar in this area by any means.Dean Esmay (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Desmay: Why do you think an encyclopedic article titled "Harem" (second citation) or one which refers to the harem system in the provided quote (first citation) do "not specifically address the issue of harem" or aren't "specifically related to the development of the harem"? Eperoton (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • I've lost count of the objections Seraphimsystem raised to this sentence, but apparently it violates just about every WP policy. I found none of the objections convincing, but after a lengthy exchange I've finally lost hope that we can reach consensus on this between us, so I'm requesting broader participation from the community. Eperoton (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • One of my objections is that these quotes are not about harems. "Qurʿān enjoin separation and modesty in dress and behavior on women" and "Though harem does not denote women or women’s quarters in the Qur'àn, there is a verse that has been taken as laying the foundation for the separation of men and women. It reads, in part: “And when you ask them [feminine] for something, ask from behind a veil (hijàb); that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs” (33:53). - none of this is about harem, and that can be confirmed in multiple sources that these verses and quotes are about veiling and hijab. Something that is sourced correctly can still be confusing or irrelevant. Seraphimsystem (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Let's see if anyone else agrees that the quoted passages are not about the harem (specifically, its religious justification) I certainly don't. Eperoton (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
You have me at a disadvantage because I can't access Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures to review for WP:WEIGHT but I hope we can at least agree on the sources that are specifically about hijab, modesty in dress and generalized seclusion/purdah Seraphimsystem (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't put anyone at a disadvantage by refusing requests to provide sources I use. I've volunteered to share these sources via email and if anyone else would like to see them, they just need to let me know. Eperoton (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The statement is well sourced. It's also more readable compared to a similar statement found in the article. However, I'm not sure how it relates to the historical development of the harem. I think we should provide more context, such as which jurists have accepted that interpretation or what influence it had on Muslim and non-Muslim communities, etc. It might be more suitable as part of a paragraph or a section devoted to harem in Islam. Wiqi(55) 07:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
This section is about the development of harem in Islam. All the general discussions of the harem we have (six encyclopedias by now?) define it in an Islamic context, and then also mention similar pre-Islamic institutions (which some also call harems). Seraphimsystem keeps rearranging this section to fit their own view of the subject rather than how it's presented in the cited sources. As for which jurists have accepted that interpretation, those details may be presented in other sources, but not the ones currently cited. In any case, I think that would be too much detail for this article. Eperoton (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I just want to be clear that the articles Eperoton is talking about are about a different topic, veiling and seclusion. I am relying on Britannica and EIMW articles on harem, - The fact is the tertiary source articles on harem that we are using don't support Eperotons additions from the articles about veiling. I dont consider that rearranging the section to fit my views WP:ASPERSIONS. Seraphimsystem (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
They are not about a different topic. Schick's article is titled "Harem". The relevance of Doumato's article to harems is clear from passage quoted in the ref and from its opening which I've just quoted in the preceding section. The passage quoted in Siddiqi's article refers to "the separation of the women of the household from men who are not their kin". Are you seriously arguing that it's not a reference to the harem? Eperoton (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
It would help if I could access the sources myself, and do additional secondary source research. I assume the reason you have not provided secondary sources like I have asked is because secondary source research takes a lot more time then quoting encyclopedia articles. I would be happy to do it and let more experienced editors help me with review, but I will need access to the databases. I don't have much more to contribute at this point. Seraphimsystem (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
There are three reasons why I have not provided non-encyclopedic sources for this statement. First, as you point out, it would take additional time to track them down. Secondly, per WP:TERTIARY, I try to use academic encyclopedias to determine how to cover subjects with due weight and only use more detailed sources if additional detail is needed. In fact, in cases where I've read both a book and an encyclopedic article by the same author, I tend to use the latter to reduce my temptation to deviate from how the author compresses the material. Third, your requests for non-tertiary citation in presence of academic sourcing seemed like pretexts to remove properly sourced material without policy justification. You're welcome to revisit this material when you have additional sources. In fact, I'm about to go away on a trip for a week with limited internet access, and it would be great not to have to worry that the content with proper sourcing will be unrecognizable the next time I check. Eperoton (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I am in agreement with WP policy on this. Tertiary sources "may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other" but encyclopedias are not a substitute for secondary sources. I have only removed material after repeated requests for secondary sources. The policy also says "Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided." For high quality articles, it simply is not enough to cite encyclopedias. Peer-reviewed articles are highly preferred sources. This is not my personal view, it is WP policy. Seraphimsystem (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
It's absolutely not WP policy to remove material for the sole reason that the sources have academic editorial review rather than formal peer review. Feel free to ask any admin. Eperoton (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
"Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided." This sums up everything I have been trying to say. WP:DONTUSETERTIARY " While a tertiary source can usually be used without incident to source non-controversial facts, such citations can and should be superseded by ones to reliable secondary sources...stacking tertiary source citations after a sufficient secondary one is not advised; it does not add more verifiability to the claim in the article, it simply adds clutter." There were also issues with poor wording, editorializing, and religious format citations I had to clean up. If the tertiary source contradicts my better sources, and you are unable or unwilling to provide a sufficient secondary source, I will remove it so the article makes sense Seraphimsystem (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Eh, you're trying to justify your previous deletions with a policy statement you've never mentioned before? If you want to use it, you'll need to explain what multiple interpretations the relevant passage in the source is open to, and how it is cited imprecisely. WP:DONTUSETERTIARY is just an essay. Anyone can write an essay, and only a fraction of them have some acceptance in the community. On top of that, you haven't provided any "better sources" that contradict the statements you have removed, just making vague claims about them and ignoring requests to back them up with quotations. Eperoton (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
If you are citing Quranic passages from a religious scholar (not a historian) and applying his work to harem, then I will ask for precise citations from secondary sources - The quote you selected from OCTB supports what I have been saying - veiling may have been influenced by Islam, but harem predates Islam. Judging from your responses to me, there is nothing wrong with your ability to read. You are the one who has access to secondary source databases, so what is wrong with my asking you to provide secondary sources for this? You have shared a lot of your personal theories with me, but have still not produced any secondary sources that would help us add context. If you are unwilling to do that, please do not add in material from tertiary sources that only makes the article more confusing. The WP:BURDEN to provide sufficient citations for your edits should not be on me. There is no policy I can cite that will fix the fact that you are willing to apply quotes about veiling out of context to insert your POV into the introduction. Seraphimsystem (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC) 20:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with asking me for help with finding additional sources. I'd be glad to oblige to the extent that time and priorities permit, though I would be more forthcoming if I see that you're also making an effort to find and share sources regarding the disputed points e.g., via Google Books. However, it's not ok to issue this "request" as an ultimatum preceding content removal. We've had some constructive collaboration and we've had some intractable disputes over unjustified content removal. The former is the part I'd like to continue, but I can't simply ignore the latter, and our discussion about the relevant policies seems to be going nowhere. If unjustified content removal continues, we'll have to continue our discussion of policies on the admin noticeboard. I need to sign off to prepare for my trip. Eperoton (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The other problem I am have had with this article is poor wording, but I have left the content in for now until I can find more sources to address it. Veiling and harem and not the same, but related - I found your edits about the Quran to be more confusing then clarifying WP:WP:ONUS - it seemed their only purpose was to contradict the majority of sources which say the origin of harem is not religious. As others have said above, I think we should provide more context. Seraphimsystem (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "personal theories" of mine you are referring to, but this last argument seems to be based on the unsubstantiated assumption that the Islamic practice of seclusion/harem can't be both similar to pre-Islamic practices and given religious legitimacy with references to the Quran. That assumption makes little sense and isn't based on any of the sources we're citing. Doumato even combines these two propositions in the same sentence: "Although Islam helped to institutionalize and perpetuate modesty and seclusion practices by endowing them with the aura of religious sanctity, these practices did not originate with Islam; they were well established in Byzantine and Syriac Christian and pre-Christian societies of the Mediterranean, Mesopotamia, and Persia before the coming of Islam." (By the way, after your edits all mention of the Christian precedents has been lost). You've yet to provide a source which contradicts the passage under this RFC rather than simply happens to not mention these aspects. Eperoton (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
That was actually a pretty good example of the type of personal theory I am talking about. It is directly contradicted by the quote that you chose from Chatterjee. Seraphimsystem (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
As for Christendom, the Byzantine Empire should be in there, I must have removed it accidentally. I will add it back in now. The Doumato quote you just gave me says "modesty and seclusion" - it does not say harem. She could be talking about veiling, or other shared customs. The Chatterjee quote makes the distinction crystal clear. Seraphimsystem (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
How does Chatterjee contradict it? Please, don't just make vague claims about contradiction -- make a precise argument, explaining how a specific statement by Chatterjee contradicts a specific part of the statement at the head of the RFC. It doesn't. As I wrote before, I don't believe that other editors would agree with you that Doumato isn't talking about the harem, which is clear from the passages I quoted on this page. I'm pretty desperate to expand this discussion beyond just the two of us, and I'm hoping this RFC will eventually find its way to other editors willing to engage with the sources and take an active part in the discussion. Eperoton (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
"The purdah, as veiling, was possibly influenced by Islamic custom, [...] But, in the sense of seclusion and the segregation of men and women, purdah predates the Islamic invasions of India." I am very concerned that you need me to explain that but is a contrast word. Can you please say specifically what claim you are using Doumato to support? Religious legitimacy is a separate issue, and an encyclopedia is not a sufficient citation, the issue is too complex. You must discuss different views in secondary scholarship, there is not going to be only one view. It may require in text attribution to a particular scholar. It is not background historical information. Encyclopedias are best for simple facts that are not likely to be challenged (for example: Suleiman was the tenth and longest-reigning sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1520 to his death in 1566.) - the problem we are having is that (stacked) tertiary citations are not sufficient for the content you are trying to insert. Seraphimsystem (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I searched google books and could not find any sources about Quranic passages and harem. I found many about veiling, some using the same language you are trying to insert. Some of the language I removed was literally you inserting Quranic language into the article without quotations ("enjoined") Seraphimsystem (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Where does Chatterjee make any statement about Quranic commentary? How can a statement about existence of a pre-Islamic institution contradict a statement about existence of Quranic commentary? Does pre-Islamic practice of seclusion make Islamic teachings about it impossible? The Doumato ref supports the statement "Quranic passages which enjoined seclusion on Muhammad's wives were later held up by Quranic commentators as a model of decorum for all Muslim women", which is an almost verbatim quote of her cited text. Why on earth are you calling the term "enjoined" (borrowed from Doumato) "Quranic language"? Echoing your recent phrasing about me, from your other contributions there seems to be no problem with your reading ability, so I'm just baffled by all these assertions.
What do you think Chatterjee means when he says veiling may have been influenced by Islam? There are at least 2 translations of the Quran that have translated 33:59 as "O Prophet, enjoin your wives and your daughters and the believing women, to draw a part of their outer coverings around them" - There is nothing wrong with encyclopedias as long as you use them correctly. I use encyclopedias a lot when editing. But in this case, there is a lot of dispute in scholarship about the meaning of the passages - Doumato is not only talking about the commentators, she is speaking on the passages themselves. It's not a good quotation to rely on, even if it is from a RS. Seraphimsystem (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Since you aren't making any effort to take your objections to academic encyclopedias to an appropriate noticeboard, I'll do that myself at WP:RSN (probably tomorrow, as I don't have much time today). Eperoton (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi all. I'm here as a rfc message. There is much going on in this lively discussion, and I compliment everyone for their good faith and civility while having distinct disagreements. I find validity to much of what is stated across the comments. I am restricting my response to the initial double-barreled question posed by Eperoton. After reading through, including other information, reliable, published sources and WP:TERTIARY, I do believe that the comment is properly sourced. I say that while encouraging other sources, ones with greater precision, which might be added. Please understand that does not preclude the notion that the proposed sources are proper. I also find the comment one which fits as relevant in the Historical Background section. There is much salient information already there, and this one could be added in a way which increases relevant information. Considering that this article has been tagged for improvement, I believe this is a step in that direction. Much more, or course, needs to be added; this is only a small part. I also encourage other editor comments as this is a multi-faceted discussion worthy of added input. Horst59 (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment I am not sure why this RfC was opened. I have had problems with having to clean up User:Eperotons edits for close paraphrasing, not using correct religious citation etc. I have had to spend hours cleaning up edits that were unclear or misleading because they did not have enough context, and because certain parts were close-paraphrased/plagirised significant language from the sources without quotation marks or in-text attribution. I am not sure why he felt RfC was necessary to establish that these are reliable sources, because that is not in dispute. Seraphim System (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It was opened precisely to counter (in this one instance) such flurries of objections which are neither substantiated nor policy-based. As far as I can tell, you're still opposing including the full statement under discussion, for whatever reasons that might be. You still haven't explained how precisely the properly sourced details you're objecting to here are unclear, misleading, missing context, or whatever -- much less how it is consistent with NPOV to remove them rather than clarify, provide additional context, or do whatever else constructive editing might be appropriate. Eperoton (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Please review WP:PLAGIARISM - neither substantiated nor policy-based is exactly how I feel about the above comment. If you insist on dragging this out, I can find diffs of all the edits where I "constructively" added necessary context to your edits, where I had to fix your citations and verify them because you provided incorrect page numbers, and where I removed language that was plagiarized. Seraphim System (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
This RfC doesn't have a point, I am not trying to exclude any sources. In fact, I used those sources myself. Being reliably sources is not enough for inclusion. Is there something you are trying to add that we can't reach consensus on? - no. This is the kind of behavior that has been disruptive to the development of this article. You have instructed me to not make edits that you don't "approve" of - I stopped working on this article after you threatened me with ANI. Since then, I notice you haven't made a single improvement. I am asking you to voluntarily step away from this article, before this situation escalates. At this point, it seems like your recent involvement in this article has been to engage with me personally, though I appreciate that this strange conduct has been limited to only this article. Seraphim System (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't mean to delay the ANI report for that long. I apologize for this delay. I'll make it a top priority. I've lost hope that we can make progress on the disputed points without getting admin help in establishing some ground rules first. The couple of sections where your removal of content I happened to write prompted that step can be considered subject to an active dispute and I should tell you that I'll be requesting their return to an earlier state, but there's nothing to hold you back from working on the rest of the article. Eperoton (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Eleanor Abdella Doumato (2009). "Seclusion". In John L. Esposito (ed.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The practice of women's seclusion is grounded in both religion and social custom. Numerous verses in the Qurʿān enjoin separation and modesty in dress and behavior on women. Sūrah 33:32–33, for example, states: "O ye wives of the Prophet! Ye are not like other women. If ye keep your duty [to Allāh] then be not soft of speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease aspire [to you], but utter customary speech, and stay in your houses. Bedizen not yourselves with the bedizenment of the times of ignorance." Qurʿānic commentators were later to hold up the modesty and confinement enjoined on the Prophet 's wives as a model of decorum for all women.[...]The ultimate expression of female seclusion is the ḥarīm (harem) system {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help); hair space character in |quote= at position 602 (help)
  2. ^ Schi̇ck, İrvi̇n Cemi̇l (2009). "Space: Harem: Overview". In Suad Joseph (ed.). Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures. Brill. Though "harem" does not denote women or women's quarters in the Qur±àn, there is a verse that has been taken as laying the foundation for the separation of men and women. It reads, in part: "And when you ask them [feminine] for something, ask from behind a veil (hijàb); that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs" (33:53). Although commentators agree that "them" in this verse refers specifically to the Prophet's wives, they have usually generalized it to include all Muslim women, and have taken this verse as ordaining that men and women must be spatially separated {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Siddiqui, Mona (2006). "Veil". In Jane Dammen McAuliffe (ed.). Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān. Brill. Conversely, the verse ordering the believers to speak to the wives of the Prophet from behind a curtain also prohibits them from marrying the Prophet's widows after his death (q 33:53; see veil; widow), a limitation unique to the Prophet's wives. In this case, separating women from male visitors by a curtain, a hijāb, would logically apply only to the Prophet's wives. [...] In qurānic exegesis (see exegesis of the qurAn: classical and medieval), the circumstances upon which the verse was revealed (asbāb al-nuzūl) indicated that some visitors bothered the Prophet's wives to the point of sexual harassment. These accretions would dictate a more stringent approach to the separation of the women of the household from men who are not their kin, both for the Prophet's wives and, by extension, for other Muslim women as well {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
Eperoton I don't know if you reviewed the last revisions I made to the content. I did remove some content that would be a WP:PLAGIARISM violation (from Patel) and I added some context to clarify hijab's relevance in the context of harem - what is your objection to the current wording? It has been through so many revisions, it would help if you were more specific then saying "an earlier state" - I don't think I removed anything significant, and I used the sources you suggested. Seraphim System (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System Well, it's a good example of why I think we need admin intervention. The content you removed with reference to plagiarism matched the source on the phrase "shifting interplay of religion, culture, and politics". Leaving aside the strange assumption that this phrase falls under the legal category of creative expression, are we supposed to seriously discuss this as a valid rationale for removal when a non-disruptive way to address that concern would have been to add quotation marks or paraphrase the expression? It's just one among the specious rationales you've used to get rid of properly sourced text, and I don't think we can move forward until we establish that they're invalid. Eperoton (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I would really prefer you clean up your own edits, or make sure they are suitable for posting before adding them. I think it is the plagiarism policy that says significant language must have quotation marks. I know you are working on other articles, but you are an experienced editor, and I don't think other editors are responsible for cleaning up your edits. I have removed your content because it has been badly written, confusing, it has not used quotation marks when needed. I have had to clean up your citations. I am not maliciously removing your edits, they have a lot of problems. If you are overextended on other articles, maybe you should come back to this one when you have time to develop it. Seraphim System (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Eperoton You have my full support in putting this article back into any condition you want, I will be working on other articles. Religion is not my subject area, and I think this article is overly broad for what I wanted to write about. I apologize for any difficulty this may have caused. So you can close the RfC whenever you want, and restore your version. Seraphim System (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Seraphim System. It is frankly a big relief to be able to stop pondering how to address the wide-ranging disagreements we've had here. That said, if you change your mind, you're welcome to resume your work and raise any objections you may have. Eperoton (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Close

I'm closing the RFC per suggestion by Seraphim System, who has been a principal party in the dispute. Two other contributors have expressed concerns, but they didn't respond to my clarification or request for clarification. Hence, I'm concluding that there are no outstanding objections to the passage in question. Thanks to everyone who has participated, and if I'm wrong about outstanding objections, we can resume the discussion Eperoton (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harem/Archive_1&oldid=1160827697"