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

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Marriage in ancient Rome into Concubinatus. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{ copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa ( talk) 12:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thank you for your clarification. I see that you have already added an attribution in the history. Do you think I have to take any action now in either Marriage in ancient Rome or Concubinatus? -- Grufo ( talk) 15:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Grufo,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Concubinatus for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John B123 ( talk) 19:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Concubinatus. -- Grufo ( talk) 20:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You are once again engaged in edit-warring at Concubinage, despite having been blocked for edit-warring that article less than a week ago. VR _talk 19:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent About what am I edit warring? Please stop leaving such generic statements in my Talk Page. -- Grufo ( talk) 20:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Repeatedly reverting someone's edits is considered edit-warring. VR _talk 20:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Diff please. -- Grufo ( talk) 20:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• You are once again edit warring on the same article you were blocked for edit-warring on. Can you seek consensus for your change? VR _talk 02:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You have started reverting without discussing ( #1 #2), but only "announcing" your reverts. My changes instead emerged from a discussion in which you have also been involved. -- Grufo ( talk) 03:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VR _talk 04:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Concubinage in China requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.followcn.com/women/2018/04/06/concubinage-in-ancient-china/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wiki Macaroons ^Cinnamon? 16:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@ WikiMacaroons: See Talk:Concubinage in China § Contested deletion. -- Grufo ( talk) 16:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Grufo. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Sexual slavery in Islamic terrorism, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 ( talk) 18:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Grufo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Sexual slavery in Islamic terrorism".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:X11/styles.css, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Talk:Islamic views on concubinage, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". This edit you made at 18:13 today made your comments clearer, so it was a good edit to make, but it was not a "minor" edit. Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, sometimes an edit starts as a minor edit, but then I decide to change something and I forget to untick the “Minor edit” checkbox that I had already ticked. -- Grufo ( talk) 12:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I am User:Bookku, I look for help in various topics for article expansion having information and knowledge gap on WP, for an example article Draft:Irrational beliefs.

Requesting your visit to some of following article Drafts and help expand the same whichever you find interest in according to your time and interest. Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 11:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Draft:Women, conflict and conflict zones

• Draft:Expressions of Muslim and Ex-Muslim Women through media ineteractions

• Draft:Women's rights in Muslim societies

• Draft:Criticism of Edward Said's Orientalism

• Draft:Slavery in Mecca and Medina

• Draft:Female slavery in Al-Andalus

• Draft:Comparison of rights and limitations of Muslim wives, female slaves and concubines

• Draft:Sexual politics

• Draft:Humor during the COVID-19 pandemic

@ Bookku:, thank you for your invitation. I don't have much time at the moment, and I would like not to go too far from the concubinage/slavery dispute. -- Grufo ( talk) 04:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Concubinage (legal term). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You literally deleted the definition from a dictionary and answer to your own question that explained how the modern term dates back to the 14th century. Tweak the phrasing if you like, come discuss it, but don't just delete a source that you don't like. Bring it to talk. Iskandar323 ( talk) 20:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I second this caution. You reverted an edit [1] that was supported by three different users and clearly following the policy of WP:LEAD. Your only justification, [2] at the time of revert was "it doesn't have consensus", which sounds like WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING. VR _talk 20:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

And now you're edit warring [3]. Given you were previously warned for editwarring by an admin, and then later blocked for editwarring, I caution against it. VR _talk 20:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Concubinage, you may be blocked from editing. You are now trying to make edits to the lead of this page with absolutely zero consensus - in fact, the consensus is quite clearly, and has been vocally expressed as being, against you. With regards to your attempted copying of large portions of another article into this one, please read up on WP:COPYWITHIN and the process you need to go about before you do this sort of thing - the bare minimum is a clear edit note of what you are doing ... but again, I would advise that you seek consensus first. Iskandar323 ( talk) 20:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Bbb23 ( talk) 23:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Grufo ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

I do not understand this block. All I have done has been pointing out the lack of consensus for Vice regent's lead rewrite, which kept POV-pushing further sexual slavery in a page that is supposed to be about a quasi-marital cohabitation. I have done that in the talk page first, and when I have seen that they kept proceeding their way anyway I have reported my difficulty in dealing with some users at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I would like to ask for links to diffs that show any fault in my behavior. -- Grufo ( talk) 23:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

AN3 isn't a way for you to win a content dispute, or to try to bypass consensus. You abused process and the noticeboard to attempt to justify your own edit-warring and abuse of Wikipedia as a battleground for your own POV against consensus. Acroterion (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@ Acroterion: The disputed content was this. I am fine with whatever status quo you can find before that edit, and that was the reason why I came to AN3 (i.e. POV-pushing sexual slavery into Concubinage). What's the matter with my content? It was never the reason why I came to AN3. I made quite a long description of why I came to AN3. This block makes no sense. -- Grufo ( talk) 01:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with your content, I'm concerned with your behavior and abuse of AN3 to bypass consensus. That's why you're blocked. If you can't convince other editors of the validity of your proposed edits, you're not entitled to demand compliance via AN3. AN3 is not a dispute or content resolution forum, it is a conduct noticeboard, and bringing your own misconduct there for review is an extremely bad idea. Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Acroterion: Once more: “my edits” are not what I was searching consensus for (I don't understand why you keep mentioning them). I came to AN3 complaining about the fact that this lead rewrite was done without consensus. -- Grufo ( talk) 01:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The "lead rewrite" you keep mentioning is the rejection of your preferred version, which has not gained consensus.

You came to the wrong place and abused it to try win an argument against people who did not violate policy, and tried to get them blocked for disagreeing with you. That gets you blocked. The next bad-faith report at AN3 or another noticeboard will probably get you blocked indefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Acroterion: I didn't come to AN3 to block people. One of the first things I did today was correcting an imprecision at Concubinage (legal term) (i.e., that “concubinage” is supposedly a 14th juridical revival). Immediately afterwards my edit was reverted and two users filled my Talk page with WP:ASPERSIONS, consisting in advertising as “disruptive editing” my attempt to contradict their unsupported claim that concubinage is a 14th century juridical revival. You do realize that I corrected an imprecision and a “disruptive editing” warning is still in my Talk Page, right? Then I saw that in Concubinage they were ignoring my concerns and proceeding anyway. It was an edit war, so I complained about an edit war. I thought the lack of collaboration spirit was enough to report an edit war. Obviously I was wrong. -- Grufo ( talk) 01:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Acroterion: I forgot to answer these. I did have a “preferred version” of the lead, as probably anyone would, but I as I said I was fine with whatever previous status quo. I did not came to win an argument, I came to report one or more abuses (already WP:ASPERSIONS is one). And please do not assume bad faith in my report. -- Grufo ( talk) 01:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you aware that you edited another editor's comment at Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam on 01:18, 8 November 2021?

• 02:38, 2 November 2021 Vice regent wrote a comment
• 01:18, 8 November 2021 Grufo edited comment by ViceRegent (note the lack of an edit summary explaining the edit)
• 14:33, 8 November 2021 Toddy1 reverted Gufo's edit to Vice regent's comment revert edit of Vice regent's comment of 02:38, 2 November 2021 by Grufo (01:18, 8 November 2021)
• 16:20, 8 November 2021 Grufo reverted Toddy1's edit Do not touch other people's comments without a proper message
• 16:35, 8 November 2021 Toddy1 reverted Gufo's revert you edited another editor's comment!!!!

My reverting your edit to Vice regent's comment is sanctioned by WP:TPO, which says that it is permitted "to restore comments vandalized or accidentally edited or deleted by others." -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Toddy1: I left a comment explaining why I did what I did and I pinged the original author (and they have likely seen my ping, as they have left messages in the discussion afterwards). Now you have two choices: either you self-revert your last edit bringing the Talk Page to my version, or you keep your version and leave a message in the Talk Page. But you cannot change other people's comments without explaining what you are doing and pinging the original authors. This is not the first time you do something similar. -- Grufo ( talk) 16:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Vice regent: It was your comment, what do you want done?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Toddy1: Whatever Vice regent wants to do does not really relieve you from the duty of explaining in a Talk Page your reasons every time you touch other people's comments. Three times so far. -- Grufo ( talk) 17:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, you shouldn't edit others' comments (including mine) even if you don't think it changes the meaning or if you think the edit is harmless. You can always ask them to edit their comment or give an explanation to it. VR _talk 08:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Vice regent: Editing another user's comment is something that must always be carefully weighed, but it can be possible, especially if it takes the form of a request (i.e., with an explanatory comment and a ping to the author). As my words were involved, I assumed your good faith and made my request in that form. My personal rule so far has been the following: try never to edit other users' comments; but if you do, always leave an explanatory comment and use a high dosage of common sense. What I see as a problem is that other users are not accostumed to the same level of courtesy in leaving explanatory messages (I was OK with that particular edit, so I did not mention it earlier). -- Grufo ( talk) 09:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:TPO says "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection"; but you did the same thing for the second time. Also what Toddy did regarding changing your heading level seems to be allowed by WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN. VR _talk 09:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

After a ping to you and after seeing your interventions in the page that did not revert my edits they should have assumed your approval (in which case they had no right to object). If they were worried that you had not seen my ping they should have left you a message to you asking for confirmation, because if you had approved it they had no right whatsoever to object. And even in the most absurd scenario, that in which they still had some obscure reason to object, they refused to object by not leaving any message in the Talk Page. This kind of action on other users' comments without explanatory messages should never happen. -- Grufo ( talk) 09:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

In this edit you deleted your own edit after two editors had responded to it. This makes a nonsense of their comments. It is not OK. So I have restored your comment, but applied strikethrough with a note and a diff showing that you had deleted your comment.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not delete my comment, I moved it, since your comment was not an answer to it and thus could be positioned anywhere. I am repeatedly trying to leave one paragraph dedicated to the definitions of the current scope according to the editors, despite people keep pushing random things into it ( #1, #2). If you feel like expressing the definition according to you, you are welcome to do so in that paragraph, if you feel like commenting my position on the current scope you are also welcome to do so in the same paragraph, but if your comment has to be about how I wish the page to be renamed, then I would like you to ask me about that outside that paragraph. The reason of a dedicated paragraph is exactly that of splitting the problems, instead of creating infinite discussions that mix everything. That particular paragraph is about definitions and comments (positive or negative) concerning the scope that the current page allows. -- Grufo ( talk) 08:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

So what you are saying was that you moved two other editors talk page comments! WP:TPO says "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." By moving the comments you changed their meaning, which is not OK.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I moved my comment, not theirs. Theirs were answers to the previous discussion concerning sources and had nothing to do with the comment I moved. -- Grufo ( talk) 09:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

​ I have just noticed something from Grufo's diffs. ^{#1, #2} Grufo has done the same thing three times. Grufo asks the question, but does not like the answers other editors give, so Grufo moves his/her question so that other editors' responses are left in the air:

1. 03:15, 8 November 2021
2. 04:09, 8 November 2021
3. 01:25, 9 November 2021

This is all very hard to follow because Grufo did not use edit summaries for these posts.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You did not notice these diffs, Toddy1, I posted them. You might want to have a look at WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. -- Grufo ( talk) 10:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't remove, alter, or move your own comments after others have replied. Discussions initiated by you or to which you have responded are not yours to control. Acroterion (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Acroterion: I often don't understand your interventions. I agree, of course, but they were answering the previous discussion, which is why I put order. The only partial exception might be considered Toddy1's comment. I say partial because Toddy1 probably did intend to answer that particular comment (although it is not really clear, as they talk about something else), but their answer was against my explicit invitation on top of that paragraph of not posting unrelated discussions in that particular place. -- Grufo ( talk) 17:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

In this comment you seem to be using double quotes (like "...") and single quotes ('...') for Islamic state inconsistently. Is that a typo or deliberate? VR _talk 17:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I just realized. I was going to fix it. Thanks! -- Grufo ( talk) 17:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, you might also want to adjust this comment. VR _talk 18:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Done, thanks :) How about you do what I had asked earlier? -- Grufo ( talk) 18:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it ok if I add a note in small like this at the end of my comment? I don't want to modify my comment as so many people have responded to it. VR _talk 18:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course. -- Grufo ( talk) 18:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. VR _talk 18:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

All good. Thanks -- Grufo ( talk) 18:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Twelve years ago, I had edit conflicts with an editor called Ludvikus (contributions). He said some really horrible things about me. (Compared with him, you are an angel.) Eventually, he realised that my edits helped him to produce better articles, and he gave me two barn stars.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Toddy1:, I am always nice, or I try to. Are you? -- Grufo ( talk) 10:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sexuality in ancient Rome into Contubernium. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{ copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa ( talk) 20:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa. My bad. -- Grufo ( talk) 10:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

You asked for Arabic terms. I didn't respond at the talk page because RMs are only based on English sources and other language sources are not considered for RMs. But since you asked, the terms for concubines are many: surriyya, jariya, qiyan, mamluka etc, it all depends on the role and social status of the concubine. The Arabic term for sexual slavery seems to be al-isti'bad jansi. VR _talk 15:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew (a bit) about the diversity of Arabic terms, but I was more asking about how these map English terms. -- Grufo ( talk) 10:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. VR _talk 12:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

surriyya, jariya, qiyan, mamluka are Arabic words (let's remove surriyya, we know even too much about it): how are they translated when an Arabic text is translated into English? Furthermore, do jariya, qiyan and mamluka appear in scriptures? -- Grufo ( talk) 12:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

None of these terms (including surriyya) appear in the Quran. The usage for all of these words are rather fluid. Meaning two different medieval Arabic texts will use the same word in different ways. For example, the common definition of surriyya, jariya and mamluka would be a "slave concubine" (a slave who becomes a man's sexual partner without formal marriage). But I have encountered these terms also be applied to cases in which the concubine would be "free". This is, of course, forbidden in Islamic law, but anyone whose read Islamic history knows that even the greatest Islamic empires (eg Ottoman) openly flouted Islamic law when it suited their needs. One situation of free concubines was when a powerful man already had 4 wives but wanted to marry a freewoman. He'd take her as his "concubine" though she wasn't a slave, instead of taking a "5th wife". Similarly qiyan is normally used to mean a female slave entertainer (which could include sex) of high class. But many qiyan would be free women, not slaves. Their clients didn't really care, as long as the qayna (singular of qiyan) was good at what she did. The theologians probably strongly disapproved, but like I said, Muslims do not always strictly practice Islam. VR _talk 12:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the excursus. I know that the Quran uses ma malakat aymanukum, but what about Hadith? Does there appear any term other than surriyya? The main questions is whether this variety is reflected in 1) English translations 2) Religion laws. -- Grufo ( talk) 12:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert on the hadith but this hadith uses the term jariya, which the translator simply translates as "female slave"/"slave woman". This other one uses the term ama, which is also translated to "female slave". The variety of usage seems to only be reflected in English sources that dive really deep into the topic. And as I said, "religion laws" don't permit this variety. But this is similar to Europe, isn't it? The Church didn't permit certain relationships, but they happened practiced anyway, right? VR _talk 13:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess it would be really out scope to dive deep into translations here. Yes, you can say something similar about Europe, of course. But the need to distinguish comes only when religion distinguishes. For example, if the Church allowed prostitution but forbad concubinage we would say that; but since it simply forbids sex everywhere outside marriage there is no need to distinguish unless you are already talking about a particular context. That is why I was asking about differences in the religion. -- Grufo ( talk) 13:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

But what I'm trying to emphasize here is the difference between what religion teaches and what its adherents practice. VR _talk 13:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree on that. But we are focusing on what religion teaches. Or, better, religions, as we are dealing with different interpretations/schools. -- Grufo ( talk) 13:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

No we are not. The article sexual slavery in Islam is replete with examples of practice from the Muslim world. Clearly it moves beyond religion into actual practice. An example of an article that limits itself to religious teachings would be Islamic views on concubinage. VR _talk 13:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

If Sexual slavery in Islam contains practices that are not justified within religion, then they might possibly be out of scope. What practice in particular are you referring to? -- Grufo ( talk) 13:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Addition. If you have concrete examples in mind you should create a section in Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam – I am only one of the editors involved, my talk page is not the appropriate place for that. -- Grufo ( talk) 13:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I have, many times. But to clarify, the onus of showing a particular practice is in accordance with Islam is for the one who makes that claim. For example, suppose two Muslims in the middle of nowhere are doing something silly. It will be extremely hard for me, if not impossible, to find RS which say these Muslims are acting contrary to Islam. VR _talk 13:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• May I ask you to put this into a separate section or something? It really isn't a response to my comment and it distracts from my discussion. I'm even happy to point out the logical flaw in that argument, but please keep that discussion separate. VR _talk 13:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's a bad sign if you think that your argument is at risk of distractions, that usually reveals logical flaws. Do you really think your question cannot afford a little “distraction” like mine? -- Grufo ( talk) 13:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'm trying to be polite with you and asking for courtesy in return. Simply putting == will not hurt you and make discussions easier to follow. Thanks, VR _talk 13:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  Fine. Done. -- Grufo ( talk) 13:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. VR _talk 13:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Arabic sources

Hey Grufo,

Seeing this comment I'm curious: can you read Arabic sources? VR _talk 19:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I was waiting for that question. No, but I saw the page number in an English source that had a footnote about surriyya (Black Morocco: A History of Slavery, Race, and Islam, note 28 p. 24), then I went to the Arabic-English Lexicon and searched for the page number (not the term), and the page was indeed talking about surriyya (I guess!). -- Grufo ( talk) 19:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That's still impressive! I've been recently trying to do the same with Chinese characters. Its relatively easier because Chinese characters are graphic. By contrast Arabic letters can be difficult to read. VR _talk 21:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Plain and simple luck! :) -- Grufo ( talk) 21:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Section headings

Grufo, section headings should not be one-sided as per WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN. Instead of presuming a pov fork was created can we change it to something more neutral and informative like "Are "concubinage" and "sexual slavery" the same thing in an Islamic context?" VR _talk 18:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC) Changed it to "Should there be separate articles on "concubinage" and "sexual slavery" in the Islamic context?" VR _talk 18:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Grufo. If you think that a new article is an inappropriate POV fork, the best thing to do would be to nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It is always hard to demonstrate that something is a WP:POVFORK and usually who created it will hardly accept it. However you and Iskandar323 make things incredibly easy. You try to rename a page and then as soon as your will is not met straight away you create a clone, without trying to involve other editors in a discussion. It is quite hard to argue in front of something like this that we are not dealing with a WP:POVFORK, we are really in front of textbook examples and a discussion should have happened before. Now, going back to WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN, exactly because your change is controversial, you should have discussed with me first, not leave a message on my talk page and proceed with it anyway:

Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible

—  WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN

And finally, regarding the specific heading, section headings must reflect the content, and the question that opens the section asks about the proliferation of POV-forks, it does not ask “Should there be separate articles on "concubinage" and "sexual slavery" in the Islamic context?”, as you have renamed it. If the POV-fork nature of these pages is in doubt, that section in the Talk Page is definitely the perfect place to point that out.

-- Grufo ( talk) 19:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Grufo. I disagree with you about "the perfect place to point that out". The perfect place is WP:AFD. See Wikipedia:Put up or shut up.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Quoting from Wikipedia:Content forking (emphasis mine):

If you suspect a content fork, check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was justified

-- Grufo ( talk) 19:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This comment is blatant canvassing. You've pinged only those voted on the same side as you during the discussion, neglecting to ping everyone else. You've done this before. If you do this again, I will report you. VR _talk 19:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent, I don't know from which planet this came, but it is not canvassing to ask people who have expressed already a vote to confirm their identical vote in front of a disputed decision. You might want to read again the WP:CANVASS guideline. -- Grufo ( talk) 19:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

But you selected only those who voted in your favor, ignoring the rest. VR _talk 19:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Because the rest does not need to confirm their vote. I am assuming that the page mover has at least seen who voted in favor of their decision. -- Grufo ( talk) 19:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You can mention votes without pinging. Your pinging is clear canvassing. VR _talk 19:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I can mention votes without pinging if I want to mention votes. But I do not want to mention votes, I want to confirm votes, where possible (editors might still have a life outside of Wikipedia), as the discussion was in part chaotic and involved various title proposals. And if I want to ask a selected group of editors to confirm their vote focusing on one particular title I need to ping them, and this absolutely does not constitute WP:CANVASS. I invite you again to read the WP:CANVASS guideline, and I would like to remind you that “inappropriate WP:CANVASS notification is generally considered to be disruptive”. -- Grufo ( talk) 19:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• The last admin to comment on your talk page was @ Acroterion: so lets ask them if this constitutes canvassing. If my notification is inappropriate, I'll apologize. VR _talk 19:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Grufo pinged only the opposes. That's canvassing. That's not permissible; either ping everybody or nobody. This "confirm" business makes no sense, why would anybody need to confirm their own obvious comment, unless you're just trying to round up participants to overturn the move? Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
    • @ Acroterion: For a simple reason: The rename proposal was “Female slavery and concubinage in the Muslim world” (let's call it “proposal A”), but the article got renamed to “History of concubinage in the Muslim world” (let's call it “proposal B”). Eight editors have commented with !oppose. Their !oppose was officially against proposal A (because that was the topic of the discussion), although it was quite clearly against proposal B too. Either the mover could not count or the mover did not interpret these !oppose votes as being against proposal B too. This is the reason why it is useful that these votes express clearly that they are against proposal B too. Still convinced this canvassing, Acroterion? -- Grufo ( talk) 12:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes. You’re still required to notify everybody if you want that additional clarification, not just the people whose additional views you think are important. Acroterion (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
      • That makes no sense. I do not want to call all users to express their opinion, I want to call a selected group of editors to clarify their position, as that might be the non-clear point of the discussion. What contribution can the editors who explicitly favored the current title possibly give to such clarification? -- Grufo ( talk) 12:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Grufo, you have made your intentions to take this to WP:MR very clear [4]. And this looks like an attempt to votestack to overturn the close (which you obviously want). VR _talk 12:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• @ Vice regent: Votestacking is about involving editors in a discussion on the basis of how we guess that they will likely vote based on their previous positions on similar topics. Here I called a selected group of editors already involved in the discussion to clarify their position. I currently pinged all editors who did not explicitly favor or oppose “History of concubinage in the Muslim world” (since it was not the main topic of the dispute). Do you know other editors whose position about “History of concubinage in the Muslim world” is not clear, so that we can ping them too? -- Grufo ( talk) 13:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)