User talk:Andrewa/Archive 19

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Thanks for the proposal

Thanks for this proposal. I gave my opinions on the talk page, but if its ok, I'll also give them here. There is a significant overlap between concubinage and sexual slavery, in the context of Islam. Just as there is overlap between military jihad and Islamic terrorism. Yet, ultimately they remain separate topics. WP:RS generally say that the Quran and prophet Muhammad allowed "concubinage", but many Muslims later used that as justification to practice "sexual slavery" (e.g ISIS), while moderate Muslims see that as a distortion. This is similar to how WP:RS agree that the Quran has verses on jihad, but later Muslims use those verses to justify Islamic terrorism, while more moderate Muslims see that as a distortion. Lemme know if this is making any sense and sorry if I'm not being clear.VR _talk 14:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

That is how it seems to me too. I do not read Arabic and am aware that English translations are regarded as not having scriptural status.

There are several competing POVs here.

Some would naturally like to assert that sexual slavery is not compatible with Islam. That seems wrong to me. Some Moslems are practising it to this day, similarly to Jihad (and other "moderate" Moslems known to me personally interpret Jihad as being a striving for personal holiness rather than anything to do with armed conflict). Sexual slavery is compatible with some significant forms of Islam, both past and present.

There is I think an interesting parallel between the Islamic attitude to sexual slavery and the Christian attitude to torture. I think there is now consensus within the Christian community, however right-wing, that torture is not acceptable. But that consensus is a recent development. It seems to me that the Islamic approach to sexual slavery is not yet to that point of consensus, although many Moslems (and all those that I know personally) condemn it. Similarly, slavery itself is condemned by all parts of the Christian church today, but that is recent and raises some interesting questions as to how to interpret some references to it in the Bible. Even human sacrifice is mentioned without condemnation in one scandalous Old Testament passage.

Others would like to assert that sexual slavery is an integral part of Islam. That POV is I think more easily dismissed, but still needs to be dealt with.

The advantages in having two articles seem obvious, and I have yet to hear any coherent objections. But it does not help those of either extreme POV, which is another sign it may be a good idea, but does not help to promote it. Andrewa (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree and I think it is worth attempting to create a separate article. Sometimes folks don't see the advantage of a solution until it materializes and then it makes sense. I'll try to put together something in a sandbox first.VR _talk 15:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

It is worth a try. But we also need to work towards consensus on this on the talk page. Andrewa (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Andrewa: To remain within your parallel about torture, contemporary Christians who condemn it do not try to rename the Wikipedia articles that talk about torture in the past using a more gentle name – despite at the time it was accepted by most contemporaries. This is what we are talking about here. A possible distance between the Quranic verses and contemporary Muslims can be mentioned in the article, but we do not need to use an imprecise term (maybe gentle towards past masters, but ungentle towards past slaves) to mark such distance. --Grufo (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly which imprecise term?

I don't think moderate Moslems see any conflict or possible distance between the Quranic verses and contemporary Muslims. Do they? Andrewa (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

“Exactly which imprecise term?”: Using the term “concubinage” to describe the relationship between sexual slaves and their master. A concubinage with a slave is not best described by the word “concubinage” more than “sex with a slave” is best described by the word “sex”. --Grufo (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a POV. So far as article titles go, we use English. We do not try to correct or improve it. If and only if English sources describe this as concubinage, then that is what we call it too. Andrewa (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

And we are back to the discussion about how “Sexual slavery in Islam” should be called… The English sources use the term concubinage only when talking about early Islam and even there they always accompany the term with a slavery warning. The Wikipedia article is not about early Islam, but simply about Islam, and we do not only follow some sources for article names, we also try to remain internally coherent (see how “concubinage” is used on Wikipedia). But that discussion is finally closed and a decision has been taken. So basically now you want to split the article into two synonyms, or am I wrong? What would the difference between “Sexual slavery in Islam” and “Concubinage in Islam” be? --Grufo (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Except an article on early Islam (and concubinage) is certainly warranted. This is clearly a notable enough topic that has been covered in many WP:RS.VR _talk 17:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

“an article on early Islam (and concubinage) is certainly warranted”: Vice regent, if it is a duplicate it is far from warranted. Editor Andrewa has given you the possibility to raise your points about why you think that what you call “concubinage” is not covered enough by the current “Sexual slavery in Islam” article, but you keep refusing the opportunity to differentiate the two phenomena. --Grufo (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I make the point here because the talkpage there is protected but Grufo's claim that sexual-slavery/sex-slavery is a precise label for comparisons with this phenomenon [1] is simply untrue and he has not demonstrated a single source in favour of this claims. The very word eludes us in the academic RSs talking about Islam (concubinage does not). By now I'm just repeating myself. Until he starts providing academic sources instead of using his personal, masterful familiarity with what English and Quranic terms mean I have nothing more to add. Please do this the hard way and compile a list of sources using the term, as VR did. And that the discussion is closed with NOCON does not mean that the naming issue is resolved. Far from it in fact.

As for the split, it would probably not be a duplicate because we would fork content between the two depending on what the sources focus on, though you'll have to ask VR for the details. 119.152.130.30 (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

you want to split the article into two synonyms, or am I wrong? Wrong. If they are synonyms then of course no split is possible. And some do wish to promote this POV, but the terms appear to be significantly different. See here for a source provided (by U:VR I think) at the article talk page. It describes sexual slavery practised by extreme Moslems.

Surely you would not consider this concubinage? Or would you? Andrewa (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

“If they are synonyms then of course no split is possible. And some do wish to promote this POV, but the terms appear to be significantly different.”

If they are different why is it so hard for the proponents to explain the difference in the appropriate Talk Page? The discussion has never been about few editors POV-pushing that “Concubinage in Islam” and “Sexual slavery in Islam” are the same thing, the previous discussion has been about how to call the same phenomenon. Only after that discussion has been closed and you proposed a split the discussion has now become about being able to differentiate the two things, differentiation that is still missing. --Grufo (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

That evidence has been provided. There seems no point in repeating it. Andrewa (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to any comment that explains the difference between “sexual slave” and “concubine” in Islam? --Grufo (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This, this, this and this (among others).VR _talk 02:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent:

Have you by chance noticed the way I answer? I normally quote the relevant questions verbatim and give an answer just below them. You don't have to follow the same indentation style I use, but I would like that you tried to follow the same approach. Below I ask you seven questions (I counted them). Are you able to quote them and give an answer to each?

The first answer, given by AnandaBliss, talks about how sexual slavery and concubinage are two different things outside of Islam, and provides as further support the fact that Wikipedia has indeed two dedicated pages, concubinage and sexual slavery. I agree with AnandaBliss, normally concubinage and sexual slavery are two very different things. But is this the case also in Islam? In which way would they be two different things within Islam? How have they been different historically within Islam?
The second answer, given by you, shows how the children of Islamic sexual slaves could be recognized as the master's legitimate children. Is there any difference between Islamic sexual slaves and Islamic concubines concerning this topic?
The third answer, given again by you, states that “the Quran and prophet Muhammad allowed "concubinage", but many Muslims later used that as justification to practice "sexual slavery" (e.g ISIS), while moderate Muslims see that as a distortion”. So, if you believe that they are two different things (although you don't explain how), and if concubinage is allowed but sexual slavery is not, could a Muslim today practice a “concubinage”? In what would that be different from the allegedly-forbidden “sexual slavery”?
The fourth answer simply highlights how the term “concubinage” is rejected by the souces when dealing with terrorism and adds that (reply to Andrewa) “They are not the same thing, as you correctly pointed out. There is a world of difference between Islam and ISIS”. The problem with this answer is that the Wikipedia article “Sexual slavery in Islam” is not about ISIS, it is about Islam (so technically you are using a straw man argument). Are you able to differentiate between “Sexual slavery in Islam” and “Concubinage in Islam”?

--Grufo (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Answers to Grufo's questions: [PLEASE FILL THE COMMENT BELOW AND REMOVE THIS TEXT]

“Is this the case also in Islam?”

[WRITE YOUR ANSWER HERE]

“In which way would they be two different things within Islam?”

[WRITE YOUR ANSWER HERE]

“How have they been different historically within Islam?”

[WRITE YOUR ANSWER HERE]

“Is there any difference between Islamic sexual slaves and Islamic concubines concerning this topic?”

[WRITE YOUR ANSWER HERE]

“Could a Muslim today practice a ‘concubinage’?”

[WRITE YOUR ANSWER HERE]

“In what would that be different from the allegedly-forbidden ‘sexual slavery’?”

[WRITE YOUR ANSWER HERE]

“Are you able to differentiate between ‘Sexual slavery in Islam’ and ‘Concubinage in Islam’?”

[WRITE YOUR ANSWER HERE]

--[YOUR SIGNATURE GOES HERE]

Grufo, this discussion is actually moving a bit fast for me, but I think we cant even agree that "sexual slavery" and sexual slavery are the same thing, and you argue that "concubinage" and concubinage are different as well. We're talking about at least four different concepts which can be discussed in different articles, which in turn can probably be split further depending on your topic focus.

You argue that two of these concepts are the same thing and prefer the inaccurate term "sexual slavery" for referring to normative Islamic concubinage. While I don't disagree your arguments have some merit, the problems you raise with the term concubinage are magnified when we use the term "sexual slavery" which is far more imprecise since it can (and infact mostly does) refer to things like victims of child pornography and prostitution ([2], note: the term sex and slavery in the same sentence in the title). Ultimately, my trump card argument is the sources and the statistical evidence provided by VR which has been thus far unrefuted, which overwhelmingly prefer the term concubinage often without any qualification and often without any reservation for the term. Can you perhaps provide an updated methodology of your preference so we can redo the study?

As a reversal of your earlier proposal a separate article for "sex slavery" could be created as well which focusses on issue like criminal prostitution in the modern world though I wouldn't be sure why we're dividing this issue by the Muslim world. This could include enslavement by Boko Haram and ISIS since that too is criminal sex slavery as defined by the UN. Regardless of whether this proposal is accepted, my position has always been that sexual slavery is simply a grossly inappropriate title for this mostly historical phenomena. Previously I have also argued that some of the issues discussed like communal riots between Hindus and Muslims stray from the topic of Islamic concubinage as well, which this article is mostly about.

As Andrewa pointed out this is a poorly structured article by whatever name. It defines sex-slavery/concubinage in many different and confusing ways. The article needs to be carefully dissected, clarified, improved, split and much more, though I'm not sure where to begin which is why I've floated the idea of an expert review. 119.152.130.30 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your long comment, but I would like that someone answered my questions. --Grufo (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Answers to the questions above

I intend to answer below the questions asked here. Feel free to also do so, and to discuss the answers. Please follow the talk page guidelines, provide a good edit summary and of course sign your posts. TIA Andrewa (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this the case also in Islam? I take this to mean, assuming that concubinage and sexual slavery mean different things in general, do they also mean different things in Islam? The challenge here is to avoid conflating two different issues, which the question does. So the question is itself ambiguous. When English speakers talk of concubinage in the context of Islam, this is not the same thing as what is described as sexual slavery here. On the other hand, there may be an Arabic word that is normally translated as concubinage and which does describe this form of sexual slavery. We are only interested in the English word and its common usage when it comes to article titles and the article scopes they decide. Any esoteric and/or euphemistic use of the term concubinage in translating Arabic if it exists should be noted in the article(s) but it does not influence their titles. Andrewa (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you able to differentiate between ‘Sexual slavery in Islam’ and ‘Concubinage in Islam’? For the purposes of Wikipedia article titles and the article scope those titles describe, yes. See above answer for an example. Andrewa (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Everyone keeps walking around and I still do not understand why is it so hard to answer precise questions point by point, even after I made a template ready to use. I can show a simple example of how I would answer – it took me two minutes to fill this form:

Answers to Grufo's questions according to Grufo

“Is this the case also in Islam?”

No, it is not.

“In which way would they be two different things within Islam?”

The terms “concubinage” and “sexual slavery” are commonly used to express the same Islamic institution.

“How have they been different historically within Islam?”

They have not.

“Is there any difference between Islamic sexual slaves and Islamic concubines concerning this topic?”

No, by being the same Islamic institution, a sexual slave's child and a concubine's child are the same thing, and her master can recognize it as his own child.

“Could a Muslim today practice a ‘concubinage’?”

Most Muslim-majority countries have signed anti-slavery treaties, so no, a Muslim cannot practice concubinage today.

“In what would that be different from the allegedly-forbidden ‘sexual slavery’?”

It would not be different.

“Are you able to differentiate between ‘Sexual slavery in Islam’ and ‘Concubinage in Islam’?”

They are not different institutions.

--Grufo (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Is any of the editors who disagree with me able to fill the same form? Is it so hard? --Grufo (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Not hard, just pointless. And your own answers don't actually seem to answer the questions you asked, while I think my two above do. Feel free to discuss my answers, following the talk page guidelines of course... or are you intending to ignore them? Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, below my comment to your answer then.

“When English speakers talk of concubinage in the context of Islam, this is not the same thing as what is described as sexual slavery here”

A fundamentalistic usage of a religious institution does not redefine the institution, it defines only its usage. Terrorists today and caliphs in the past refer exactly to the same Islamic institution – and this says exactly zero about the institution. Furthermore, if the two things are different, how are they different? English speakers normally do use the word “slave-girls” / “sexually enslaved” / “slaves for pleasure” / etc. exactly to define the “concubines” in Islam (see the sources proposed by Vice regent).

“We are only interested in the English word and its common usage when it comes to article titles and the article scopes they decide.”

The debate concerning which word to use to translate what in Arabic is known as “slavery for sexual intercourse” has been closed in favor of “Sexual slavery in Islam”. We are now deciding about a split, and we do not split on the basis of how the same thing has been translated in different epochs, for splitting we have to demonstrate that “concubinage” refers to something different than “sexual slavery” in Islamic Law (not in countries, not in terroristic groups, not in newspapers).

A little suggestion. I am sure that you have already read the current article, but being involved in a discussion often makes us forget what we are actually talking about. So, if you have five minutes go back and have a look again at the article Sexual slavery in Islam. I am sure it can help clear the mind (I just did it). --Grufo (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The usage in Islamic Law (which would in any case be in Arabic would it not?) does not take any priority here. We seem agreed at what sexual slavery means, and we are now discussing whether English speakers would understand concubinage in Islam to mean, and whether this is a different (and notable) topic. A concubine in English is a woman who is in a sexual relationship similar to marriage but of far less status. The term concubine is most famously used to describe Hagar, Zilpah, Bilhah, and the lesser wives of Solomon (who had three hundred of them according to the books of Kings). There is discussion as to whether or not those first three were slaves, but the English term concubine does not imply that they were. They might have been, they might not have been.

The point is, even if they weren't slaves, they could still be concubines.

The article is a mess. We're not talking about what it is, but about what it should be. Andrewa (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

“we are now discussing whether English speakers would understand concubinage in Islam to mean, and whether this is a different (and notable) topic”: If your position is that of “a listener” – since as I understand it you don't have a strong opinion yet about “whether this is a different (and notable) topic” – maybe instead of proposing a split yourself (which if done without valid reasons can potentially be a destructive thing) you could have better suggested that if someone had valid reasons they could still propose a split. But if instead you do have clear opinions about how to differentiate “sexual slaves” and “concubines” in Islamic law according to English sources, I would ask you to be more explicit about it. --Grufo (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I do think that there are valid reasons for a split, and that I have given them. I'm a bit surprised to have to say that, but I hope that now clears it up for you. I know you don't think the reasons I have given justify a split, but they are there, and up for discussion, and always were.

I don't think that the distinction or otherwise in Islamic law has any relevance to this discussion at all. See here for the details of why not.

If there is insufficient material for an article on Concubinage in Islam, then of course there should not be an article, and I have said that. But it's a big if, and it's an if and only if. The article as it stands suggests that there is lots of material, in my opinion. But I'm very interested in how the draft of the split turns out. Andrewa (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Move this discussion to Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam

@Andrewa:
@Vice regent:

I believe that this discussion has begun to be quite relevant to the discussion under Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam and I would like to involve also other editors. If you both agree I would like to move it under Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam using the wiki templates Template:Moved discussion to and Template:Moved discussion from (so it will be clear that it is a discussion that comes from a User Talk Page). --Grufo (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

As this is the only place the IP can respond (the article is protected) I don't think that's a good idea.VR _talk 00:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The IP address can make an account or, even easier, you could try to answer my questions. --Grufo (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editing. Allowing people to participate without creating an account is one founding principles of this project.VR _talk 00:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Since I am actually interested in understanding if we can differentiate the two institutions if you do not answer my questions I will have to re-post them in the Talk Page copying part of this discussion. Or feel free to give your answer here – it is a bit your task, since they are a response to one of your comments. --Grufo (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose moving the discussion. It was started here and looks likely to continue here. Feel free to link to diffs of this page if you wish to comment on them at other talk pages, and/or to ping me if you wish me to respond there. And all please read the talk page guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Break

Andrewa I have some procedural comments. The split would involve two steps, creation of a "Concubinage in Islam" article and then modifying the "sexual slavery in Islam" article accordingly. As you mentioned, the sexual slavery article mentions concubines dozens of times, so it probably has at least some content related to concubinage which would no longer be needed if its covered at "Concubinage in Islam" article. I also have a feeling that someone would try to bring the article to AfD, so the discussion we'll be having will need to be had there. But at least then the discussion will be open to the wider community.VR _talk 14:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It's possible that AfD will be invoked, maybe even likely, and it's possible that the result would be to merge the Concubinage article as a section of the Sexual slavery one... that would depend on the length and quality of the articles. But even that outcome would hopefully result in a much better article than we have now. The current article seems to say (in a rather confused and confusing way) that concubinage and sexual slavery are the same thing in Islam, which is a POV in my opinion. Concubinage is not just a euphemism for sexual slavery. Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm committed to writing a high-quality on the topic. Consider also another user's opinion on splitting this.VR _talk 02:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that makes some good points. Perhaps concubinage in Islamic law would indeed be a better title... I can think of pros and cons. Does it avoid the confusion between the concept in Islamic law and the rather different concept of concubinage as more generally understood? My immediate reaction is it may seem to but may not. Andrewa (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Concubinage in Islam and Concubinage in Islamic law/Islamic views of concubinage would be the same concept, except the scope of the latter articles would be reduced and not include much about history of concubines. (Personally, I think the historical role played by concubines in Islamic history is fascinating.) Karaeng's other suggestions seems to be that Sexual slavery in Islam become Sexual slavery in Islamism is also a good suggestion IMO. The sexual slavery practiced by certain Islamist groups (ISIL, Boko Haram) seems to have common characteristics, yet other forms of sexual slavery practiced in various Muslim countries (sex-trafficking etc) seems to be similar to sexual slavery practiced in elsewhere.VR _talk 11:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Andrewa, this is the IP from above who has created an account now. You've pointed out that the term concubine is confusing but isn't the term sexual slavery rather confusing as well considering its eclectic use and no clear definition? What does it mean? We should be able to find a definition. As I said we seem to be talking about at least three different topics. I see the term slave concubinage as being precise rather than redundant though as pointed out many sources use the term concubinage in their titles when discussing the issue within Islam. Your proposal to purge the Sexual slavery article of the term concubine/concubinage altogether seems too radical because we have sources that do use the term, though you've claimed that they're difficult to find. If your proposal is taken up we will probably need to split some of the sources from there to the multiple articles being worked upon but before that we'll need to get our definitions in order. Ronakhtalk (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcone!

Mostly, we use the language used in those of the reliable secondary sources that we cite that are written in English.

If you have such sources, cite them by all means. Andrewa (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

See this edit I recently made. This source distinguishes concubine "surriyya" in Islam from other female slaves and says things like Muslim scholars frequently understood concubines (al-sarārī) as a distinct subcategory of slave women. Or concubinage (as understood by some scholars) occupied an intermediate space between ordinary slavery and marriage. Or Other distinctions as well served to separate the concubine from the broader category of female slaves. And so on.

It seems one major historical difference between concubinage and sexual slavery across most (if not all) cultures is that (1) the concubine is expected to be monogamous to her man, and (2) is often integrated into the family (especially if she gives birth). Whether it is the Chinese emperor's concubine, or Abraham's Hagar, they were expected to be faithful to their man (the man could have many wives, though). By contrast sex slaves are often destined for prostitution where they serve many "customers". Concubinage is also a multi-dimensional relationship with social and political consequences (in China and the Muslim world a concubine's son can become the next king), whereas sexual slaves are only used for sex.VR _talk 02:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

All true and helpful IMO.

But perhaps there's an important difference between concubinage in Islam and elsewhere. In modern Islam, at least some "concubines" are sexual slaves. That may have been true once of all Abrahamic religions, but it has not been true outside of Islam for some time. Esther was not asked, and nor were at least some of the wives of Henry VIII. It was simply not part of the culture to do so. But outside of ISIL and such, rape is now rape.

I am trying hard not to push a POV here. I confess I have some serious questions for modern "moderate" Moslems. This is not the only issue on which they need to stand up and be counted. The other big one IMO stems from the whole idea of "forced conversion". I think that is a nonsense, and would only be possible in a sham religion. But see how to reveal yourself without really trying. Those who consider a "forced conversion" to be logically possible are revealing something about their own world picture, and in Christian terms are perhaps agnostics. Which again would explain their actions... they may talk of eternity and judgement but their actions do not reveal any such beliefs.

But that is by way of disclosure. I am not wishing to push this POV here, in fact I strongly believe that to do so would be counterproductive. I do have faith both in Wikipedia (see wp:creed) and God, and if in the articles we simply present the information as Wikipedia policy sees it, I believe that is a step in the right direction. Andrewa (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You're correct that a woman's consent wasn't considered in pre-modern times in most cultures (unfortunately), including Muslim cultures. For example, marital rape wasn't criminalized in most places until after 1970s. But since then more countries are recognizing the need for consent. Pakistan finally criminalized marital rape in 2006[3]. Ultra-conservative Saudis have condemned forced marriage[4]. And of course, Muslims throughout the world have very strongly condemned ISIL and slavery in general (as we noted all Muslim countries have signed anti-slavery legislation). Most Muslims also condemn forced conversion. So both in Islam and in other cultures consent was not important in the past but later became important. And it is not the case that sexual slavery only exists among Muslims. Wartime_sexual_violence#Recent_occurrences happens all over. Sex_trafficking#Around_the_world is a global issue.

Anyway, I've written a draft that narrowly considers Islamic theological and juridical views on concubinage (as opposed to the practice of concubinage by Muslims): User:Vice regent/sandbox/Islamic views on concubinage. This is similar to how we have Islamic views on slavery separate from History of slavery in the Muslim world. Feedback would be appreciated.VR _talk 14:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:English_Bazar_Municipality,_Malda

Hi Andrewa, your help would be very welcome at Talk:English_Bazar_Municipality,_Malda. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

OK... happy to do it if no other admin steps up meantime. Might not be today. Andrewa (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Hand cymbal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hand cymbal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hand cymbal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

List of drummer jokes

I'm tempted .... let me have a look for sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Help if you can please

Some years ago you helped do a peer review of Biblical criticism. I then nominated it for FA but left WP and failed to follow through. I recently returned and put it up for FA review again about a month ago, and now it is getting little response. I am putting out a call to everyone I know because the coordinator has said if it doesn't get more interest he will archive it. It needs a source review - someone willing to randomly check sources to be sure they actually say what the text says. There are too many for anyone to do alone, but doing any at all, even just one, would be deeply appreciated. Post it here. If it fails again I'm afraid that will be the end of it. Please help if you can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, I'm a bit confused. The page to which you linked is an archive page according to its name, but it's being regularly updated with fresh comments. The procedures seem a bit unusual! I confess I have little experience in GA/FA matters. I'd like to help. But I need to do a bit of homework on what the procedures are... it may even be that practice and guidelines don't quite line up, and I'm happy to follow the established practice if so. Any help appreciated! Andrewa (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You are awesome! Thank you! It is an archive page, but that's just what they call them. I don't know why. It is the active review page. On an FA review you can do any part of it you wish. You are not obligated to review the entire article. You review what you can, and leave your comments about what you did, and whether or not you think the part you looked at passes muster. If you were to review ten references then you would just post about those ten references. You might say something along the lines of "I reviewed reference 15, 25, 35, etc. to 105. There is a problem with reference 95. I could not find the reference to redaction there, but did find it on another page, so I think the page numbers must be wrong." Then I would read that, go and figure out what the heck I did, and fix it, and come back and tell you what had happened and if it was fixed, or if I had to change the source, or whatever. Then you would go back and strike out what was done, or just post that these ten references were correct to your satisfaction. It's tedious because it requires comparing the reference and the content of the article to be sure the reference actually says what is claimed. There are simply too many for any one person to do, but any you would be willing to do would be deeply appreciated. I would be in your debt. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Luo Bao Bei Timmy and Faye.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Luo Bao Bei Timmy and Faye.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2021 #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.

The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.

Research notes:

As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[5]
The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[6] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
A large A/B test will start soon.[7] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.

New discussion tool

The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[8] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.

Next: Notifications

During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Pretty exhaustive list of Wikipedia benefits. Guswen (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"Non-English speakers" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Non-English speakers. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 6#Non-English speakers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 16:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Muddy waters

I have left a question for you here. Khiikiat (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Concubinage within slavery

Hello, Andrewa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Concubinage within slavery, 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. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Gentle editor

Hi Andrew, Would you mind moving that page to Category:Gentle editors, since most categories are pluralised, or would you like me to do it for you? And I promise I'll try not to mess up the move like the one that led to me finding your user page. :-) Graham87 06:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

No objection at all. I've never moved a category so might be better if you do it. Andrewa (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Just got this ... all done. I've also tweaked the categories on your talk page so the sortkey is the same as your username ... and removed the admins category as it was redundant with the admin icon template you have. Graham87 13:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Now that I have discovered you I will probably ask for help with other things.. you obviously know a lot more about page histories than I do. I sometimes run across some strange puzzles. Andrewa (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Vineyard Wind

Have created stub of your re-direct Vineyard Wind. Needs work (haven't got time), if you feel inclined. Djflem (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks for the heads-up. Andrewa (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi

HI JUST TESTING

The above was posted by IP 49.195.149.247 and is harmless, but unfortunately they currently have no other contributions... or hopefully, perhaps they created a user id. A pity I missed it at the time. Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ugly duckling theorem

Dear Andrew, Could I kindly ask you to help us resolve the issue of countable sets in the ugly duckling theorem? I've got involved in an edit war with two gentlemen, who claim that this theorem applies to ordinal numbers, which is simply contradicting with the Satosi Watanabe original derivations. You shall find the fragments of this discussion at 1, 2, 3, and finally here. In my opinion, my only two adversaries have no convincing arguments. Guswen (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Re:Please revert out of process move

Dear User:Andrewa, I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests per your suggestion. I have shown from the beginning that I was willing to cooperate with your suggestion, but I thank you anyways for your repeated clarification. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you follow the instructions there? What was the result of your attempt to revert the move yourself? Andrewa (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't revert the move myself, as I don't feel comfortable doing that in light of the disagreement on the talk page about the article title. Until your arrival, all of the users commenting after User:Doug Weller's post disagreed with the title, which doesn't reflect the scope of the article. I placed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (only per your request) so that a neutral administrator who is not involved in the discussion will make the call after examining the evidence. You are free to move the article back, if you wish, or, what I think might be a good idea is to wait and see what others have to say on the talk page as you initiated a thread there about this very topic. I apologize if you don't feel that this is suitable. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It is IMO a great shame that you felt comfortable in boldly reverting a closed RM, contrary to all procedures, but then not in attempting to undo the damage, which you could easily have done as it turns out. But that is water under the bridge now. We move on. See wp:creed#bold. Andrewa (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I can appreciate where you are coming from. However, I felt that with three comments that were in agreement (my own comment, that of User:Dougweller and that of User:User:Vincentvikram), there was consensus for my move. In my opinion, I was not being WP:BOLD. Rather, I was only acting according to a consensus. However, as you have said, the move has been made and we can move on. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 00:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You were not acting according to consensus. Consensus can be a subtle thing, and it is not just a matter of counting heads.

If it was not intended as a bold move, than that is an even worse error IMO. There was no justification for your move whatsoever. It just wasted time, and made a resolution more difficult. Get over it.

Yes, we need to move on. But if you can't see that you made a mistake on this occasion, then you're just going to make more of them. Andrewa (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Civility? Good faith? What happened to them? And yet you didn't respond to my suggestion that the source didn't back the move? And although I rarely invoke IAR, if I'm right about the source not backing the move this was one time when policy justifies User:Anupam's actions. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you see my posts as infringing civility and AGF. But I'm afraid I think these are both baseless allegations. I have at all times been respectful of other views, and of those who hold them. This does not prevent me from disagreeing with them, any more than it prevents you from doing so. Andrewa (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Fluidic Triode / 1964 World's Fair

Hello Andrew! It's great to get to write you! I went on a long "goose chase" to track down the origin of some information in the Fluidics article; it looks like the following textcomes from your 2003-09-16 (!!) Fluidic triode article creation (merged with Fluidics in 2006).

Fluidic triodes were used as the final stage in the main Public Address system at the 1964 New York World's Fair.

The text still exists, unaltered, in Fluidics#Triodes - with a [citation needed] tag, and I'd love to find out how you heard about this, and to get it properly cited! I realize this was almost EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO, but I'm actually pretty optimistic! Thanks so much for your time, and your long-time contributions! --Overand (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

My own source was my father who was a scientist and engineer and electronics tragic (built his own first TV using war surplus stuff, so it was a black and green set) and who was in New York on business when the fair was on. Not RS in Wikipedian terms! So I'm pretty sure it is accurate but of course that is not enough. Thanks for your interest. Andrewa (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Persian campaign/links

Hi, I saw your closing comment. I'm already working on the links. There's no automated way to do this, but there's a pretty good semi-automated way using the User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist script. Hope that helps! Lennart97 (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing news 2021 #2

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.

The key results were:

Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.

These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.

Looking ahead

The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.

The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.

You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring on Patrick Moore (consultant)

I think you might be interested in the current edit war on Patrick Moore (consultant) and discussing at Talk:Patrick Moore (consultant) -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

4 August 2021

Hello, Andrewa. You have new messages at Elli's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Colonestarrice (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Slant engines

As a non-expert, I assumed this was a duplicate of Category:Slanted engines, but looking at Special:Diff/963185514, this is not the case, do I understand it correctly? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled myself. I have never heard the term slanted engine applied to east-west front-wheel drive vehicles outside of Wikipedia. Many of these engines are on a slight slant, and it's not terribly relevant to their operation. But they seem to be included in Category:Slanted engines.

However the term and concept of a slant engine is I think well established, and applied to such vehicles as the Valiant Slant Six once owned by a business of which I was part and the Toyota Town Ace which I now drive. These engines have a pronounced slant and it influences the engineering a great deal.

So no, it's not a duplicate. But whether the slanted d engine category should even exist I'm not at all sure. We should perhaps ask its creators of they are still active.

But IMO they should not be simply merged. The VW Golf for example has a slanted engine (or so it appears) but it does not have a slant engine. Andrewa (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Pining @Regushee, the creator of Category:Slanted engines. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

When engine technology in the 1930 progressed to where straight four and straight sixes were large enough to add considerable height to the front of the car, and automakers attempted to accommodate the exterior sheet metal to enclose the engine, automakers discovered that the car would handle better if the car was lower to the ground, by lowering the center of gravity combined with replacing front solid axles with a cradle with independent front suspensions. Straight eights were replaced by V8 engines which accomplished this goal but were still more expensive than straight six and straight fours. Straight sixes are much more smoother running because of the design but to bring the weight of the car closer to the ground, automakers installed their straight six on a slant, which improved outward visibility as well.

Any engine where the engine block isn't vertical to the ground is a slanted engine, whether installed transversely or longitudinally with a reverse flow cylinder head or crossflow cylinder head. Whether the engine has a market reputation for being a slanted engine is the failure of the automakers marketing department. The engine is installed in the engine bay on a slant to make better use of space and to lower the center of gravity.(Regushee (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC))

Thanks, Regushee, all that seems true and understood. I don't think there is any doubt about what a slanted engine is.

But it doesn't help in deciding what a slant engine is. I get a third of a million ghits for "slant 6" engine and almost 100,000 for "slant 4" engine. So it's quite a common term, not restricted to marketing departments.

See Slant-4 engine and particularly Triumph slant-four engine and Vauxhall Slant-4 engine, or Chrysler Slant-6 engine. These are all slant engines. Agreed?

But I don't think the term slant engine is commonly applied to east-west installations. Do you? Andrewa (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I remember reading a translated version of a Japanese language Celica brochure for the 1985 Toyota Celica and the English translation referred to the engine as slanted due to space and engineering challenges. So while FWD cars with slanted four cylinder engines with a transmission on the other side may not be called by consumers and enthusiasts as slanted engines, they technically are.

There are editors who will remove engines from engine categories for slanted installation, like the BMW straight six, because they aren't commonly called slanted engines, or the Mercedes-Benz straight six which are slanted in certain models.(Regushee (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC))

Just because some editors have a particular view does not make that view correct.

But why do you persist in talking about slanted engines? I don't think there is any question that all of these engines are slanted. The question is, does this make them all slant engines?

It's a technical term, and I am very dubious that it includes all slanted engines. Do you think it does? Why? Andrewa (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)