This category is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Aciram does this category not overlap with Category:Concubines? If you look at the article concubinage, you will find that in most societies concubines could be slaves (Ancient Greece and Mesopotamia, Muslim world, Colonial United States, Vikings, Korea etc). So it would seem that most pages with Category:Concubines should also have Category:Slave concubines.VRtalk 04:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All concubines were not slaves. In Ancient Rome, for example, a free woman could be a concubine and live with a man without being married to him. She was not a slave. Claudia Acte for example was Neros concubine but not a slave but a freedwoman; other examples are Caenis and Galeria Lysistrate. Neither were the concubines of Vikings always slaves - it was fully acceptable for a free Viking woman to live with a man without marriage and thus being concubine. Concubine is not synonymous with a slave, even though it was in some cultures, such as the Islamic one. It is important to make a distinction between a free concubine and a slave concubine.--Aciram (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aciram I understand that all concubines were not slaves, but in most cultures there existed both free and slave concubines. For example Plaçage includes both free and slave women concubines. So in that case should we add both categories Category:Concubines and Category:Slave concubines?VRtalk 04:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that you mean: "if the category of a certain type of concubines applies to both slaves and free people, should the whole category be placed in both the "concubine"-category as well as the slave concubine-category"? I suppose that could be fine, but completely uneccesary. The Category:Concubines does not say all concubines in it were free: it just don't specifiy if the were or not, so in that case better to just categorize individual concubines to the correct category. If someone is a slave, put them in the slave concubines. If they are not, leave them be among the unspecified concubines. There are no category for free concubines, just for slave concubines and neutral, unspecified concubines. As far as I know placage-concubines were not slaves, they could be former slaves who became placages after they were freed, but an actual slave concubine was not in a placage, she was just a slave mistress, and placage were generally for free women. --Aciram (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aciram sorry I think I meant Pilegesh. Some women in that concept (like Hagar and Bilhah) were slaves. But others were not.
Also is this category only for individuals or also concepts? If its for individuals then its less ambiguous - either a concubine was also a slave at some point in her life, or she was not (though I suppose this could be a matter of disagreement among historians). But concepts are less clear because a single concept, like Pilegesh, can include slave and non-slave concubines.VRtalk 19:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
