Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Request for comment: "slaves" vs. "enslaved people"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus here, with a particular shift in trajectory after Mathglot's data (in the 'Discussion' sub-section) and broader advertisement, is that 'slaves' is more prominent in reliable sources, and that insufficient evidence was provided to suggest the term was being displaced in new reliable sources across the spectrum. There was also a general sentiment that Wikipedia should not be at the forefront of changes in vocabulary.

Notwithstanding that conclusion, I want to highlight David Fuchs's comment about clarity/wordiness and Whatamidoing's comment about these terms being used 194 times on this page, and a varied vocabulary being a feature of good writing. Since there's not really any actual discussion of particular usages, I don't think this RfC can be used to replace every single instance of the term in this article. There could well be individual cases where a particular phrasing is more suitable, and those should be discussed on a per-usage basis if there is a dispute, rather than forceful standardisation being assumed per this general RfC result. In other words, I see the consensus here as being for a guideline on this article, not a hard rule.

I'll also note Fowler&fowler's suggestion of using "enslaved Africans" on first usage, and "slaves" thereafter. It received some support after it was made, but the proposal was made later in the discussion (and so an insufficient amount of editors participating commented on it), so it's not clear whether there's a consensus for it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the article use the terms "slaves" / "African slaves", or should it use the terms "enslaved people" / "enslaved Africans"? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• In my opinion the article should use "enslaved people" and similar terms, and not "slaves" and similar terms. In books, articles, and other reliable sources about slavery in the United States, both terms have been widely used, but the term "slaves" is now often perceived as outdated and also sometimes disrespectful. Enslavement was something that was done to people, it was not their basic identity, which is why the term "enslaved people" is now the preferable one to use. Although there are many reliable sources that use the term "slaves", we should not use this term ourselves in the voice of Wikipedia. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Completely agree with above by Mudwater. Although I didn't read the wall of text by Stephenamills, I saw the end of his comment, and strongly second his point that calling black enslaved people "slaves" is "dehumanizing passive-voice language". Everyone, especially white people, should respect the points of view of those who are descended from the enslaved concerning this issue, who in my reading and experience prefer the term "enslaved". Carlstak (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• I think we should follow sources and we should not change the language unless it is clear the sources have made the change. Wikipedia should never be an engine for linguistic change. Wikipedia should be at the back of the train when it is clear the change is already well established. Springee (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• (Re-posting my comments from the Village Pump) Pretty sure we handle it the same way we handle the quotation punctuation issue (e.g. punctuation on the inside or outside of quotation marks, "word." "word". BC/AD vs BCE/CE). As long as whichever version is consistent within the article (and in this case, also representative of the sources), then there doesn't need to be a WP-wide standard. In the case of this article, enslaved people/Africans seems to be the way to go. Curbon7 (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Huh? @Curbon7: MOS:LQ is pretty clear. I've not seen that interpretation of how to handle quotes. What is missing? SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  Amended, my mistake. Curbon7 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It's WP:TOOSOON to change; we should follow the sources, which in a number of search experiments in the previous section have found a roughly 100–1 or 50–1 preference for the previous terminology. Echoing Springee: Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. It would be POV-ish to use terminology that we, as Wikipedia editors, decide is "the right way to say it" as opposed to what the majority of reliable sources actually say. The change to "enslaved people" is now at the vanguard of change in reliable sources, and perhaps one day will represent the majority; at that point, we should follow suit and change to reflect that. But we're still a ways away from that. Mathglot (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  I would just expand or slightly amend this in order to support what Springee said here about using "straightforward text", in response to comments by Allreet and two other editors. That comment seems like the best statement of where we should be in this article, or even more generally if it is raised at MOS. Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• I support enslaved instead of slave; enslaver instead of master, owner, or slaveholder. Reliable sources support these changes, and supplemental sources explain why in more detail. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• I hear and read the word "enslaved" almost exclusively today. As @Mudwater: said above "Enslavement was something that was done to people, it was not their basic identity". A review of sources will include older sources that still refer to people as "slaves", but it's rare in modern usage. SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support enslaved to reflect current usage. Many sources on the topic were written when "slave" was the common term, and they're not frequently updated because the history of the CSA is not (let us hope) going to change. The United States Census Bureau isn't going to re-publish the 1860 census using modern language, however I do note that Encyclopedia Britannica (which is cited in the article) added "enslaved" sometime between 2016 and 2022. The sources provided by Markworthen, particularly the AP Style Guide, show that "enslaved" has already become the preferred term and we'll be following, not leading, by adopting it. –dlthewave ☎ 03:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  Can you show your data? The AP Style Guide shows only usage at the AP. A search of recent data shows that it is very far from the preferred term. See #Discussion. Mathglot (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Follow existing usage. Per Mathglot's analysis below, this appears to be an open-and-shut case. --Yair rand (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Stick with slave/slaveowner. as acceptable, (Summoned by bot) in WP terms It's WP:TOOSOON to change, per others. Usage of "enslaved" may be increasing, but it has not yet been established as the primary, and certainly not the only acceptable term. Present terminogy accurately describes the legal and economic status and the relations between people. Of course the term does not fully describe the whole human identity of those who were subjected to this 'state of being', but neither do other basic legal and economic terms. A "worker" may have rich, unexplored human depth or complexity while a "master" may be weak and useless, but, in context, the only relevant info may be either person's economic/legal status. Pincrete (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Stick with what is in the sources, don't rule out any of these terms (invited by the bot) And I think "slaves" is the more common term. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Slaves is a much more common term, while enslaved people is a euphenism. 🐔dat (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Chicdat, what makes you think it's a euphemism? Typical examples of euphemisms include saying passed or lost because it's too scary to say died, or saying adult because you're afraid to say pornographic. If enslaved person is a euphemism for slave, then logically blind people would have to be considered a euphemism for the blind, and autistic people would be a euphemism for autistics. I don't think you've landed on quite the right word there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you; euphemism (which I also misspelled) was the wrong word. Perhaps I can, therefore, elaborate. Using the term slave, is not dehumanizing. Slaves are people, everyone knows that. On the other hand, "enslaved person" is wordy, and rare in usage, as Mathglot says below. 🐔dat (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an inappropriate venue for linguistic activism. Style guides such as the Associated Press's stylebook mentioned above are often at the forefront of language change -- there's nothing wrong with that, the AP does very good work, but that should not be the role of an encyclopedia. Mathglot's analysis has satisfied me that slave is typically used in modern sources, so this article should use it too. Endwise (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Reading the above discussions, I see a lot of wikilawyering about ngram searches and not a lot of proof that 'slaves' is actively being replaced in modern scholarship or modern reference to the point that it is a minority in usage in the preponderance of reliable sources, at which point it would make sense to switch the nomenclature. As Springee notes, our pillars and function as an encyclopedia specifically place us at the back of the pack with regards to verbiage changes. Indeed, a cursory search of the term shows that many style guides haven't taken a firm position (the AP style guide mentioned above specifically allows either since it brings up reasons why people prefer one or the other), and that among academics the debate continues. This is also something that's frankly beyond the scope of this RfC—changing said language should be done at the Manual of Style level, since it's a style issue that would apply project-wide, not one of content specific to the American Confederacy article. Finally, as just an editor talking prose, there's the simple matter of clarity/wordiness; trying to write "enslaved people" and variations instead of slaves means you are going to need more elaborate and verbose sentence constructions in a place where succinctness and clarity should be prioritized. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• As per Mathglot below, it is clear slaves is the current predominant term. We are not here to right great wrongs. We follow reliable sources. And since reliable sources use slaves significantly more than enslaved people, that is the term we should be using. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Allow both, i.e. do not change slave to enslaved. Per Mathglot’s analyses (and especially any from recent years), the “enslaved” phrasing is used far less than “slaves”. Finally, anyone who mentally devalues the personhood of someone referred to as “a slave” should sincerely reconsider the way they think about such matters. — HTGS (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• You can't really have a uniform rule. I would start with "enslaved Africans," and once the context is understood use "slaves." For example, Enslaved Africans had to survive a deadly middle passage before facing indignities as slaves in the United States. I would not invest too much hope in this survey. Wikipedia remains a preserve of males in the IT fields from the Anglosphere; they are a conservative species, and this demographic has not changed in nearly 20 years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Use "slaves": slavery is NOT a topic that we ought to be whitewashing, and "enslaved people" comes across to me as whitewashing (no pun intended, btw), plus it is broken English. Enslave is a verb. Enslave should only be used when some ACTION is being described, e.g., when discussing the the initial enslavement of the people who became slaves. The people in question are called slaves. This brouhaha about it "dehumanising" is, frankly, bullshit, on a number of different angles. First of all SLAVERY IS DEHUMANISING by its very nature! So yes, these people HAVE been dehumanised, but it SURE AS HELL wasn't done by us! Using watered down language covers up that cruel reality, and I think that whoever came up with ideas such as this in the first place very well may have had such intentions, and wokesters buying into it are being played for fools, doing the white supremacists' work for them. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:4461:5D87:AB1A:AA76 (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Hah, calling the use of "enslaved African" *whitewashing" is ironic indeed. Just a note here: the usage is hardly new, and the expression was used by Harriet Beecher Stowe in her Uncle Tom's Cabin, published in 1852. I quote: "It is with the oppressed, enslaved African race that I cast in my lot; and, if I wished anything, I would wish myself two shades darker, rather than one lighter." Whitewashing? Carlstak (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Keep status quo, defer future discussion to MOS (By way of VPM). A look at the sources listed here plus my own review indicate that "enslaved" remains a minority view, though growing (although, I do note, it makes no sense - enslave is a verb that pertains to the initial process, not the ongoing condition). Beyond that, this one should be handled at a MOS level. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Keep "slave". Fowler's suggestion of "start with "enslaved Africans," and once the context is understood use "slaves." "seems to be the best overall wording. Also, using "enslaved person" for an individual seems to me to lessen the hideousness of that status. "Slave" is an ugly word, but it was an ugly practice. No reason to hide that with prettifying verbosity. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Keep status quo, defer future discussion to MOS not just because I think that "enslaved" is still a minority term, but because it's part of a larger discussion about related terms. Slate has an interesting discussion here with some useful links. I don't see the use of making a decision for this article as it wouldn't apply elsewhere. I'd like to see this closed and a new MOS discussion started. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Is there a good way to transfer this discussion to a general location? This is a discussion I had a few months back when an editor was making this type of change across a number of articles. Springee (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Springee: see #Whether to close the Rfc and reopen at a broader venue. Mathglot (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support enslaved people - slaves and even more so, African slaves are dehumanizing, outdated terms. At Monticello this past year, a speaker on the subject made a point of referring to those who performed forced labor on Jefferson's plantation as "enslaved people". His matter-of-fact use of the term gave an otherwise plain-spoken talk significant power. Allreet (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Keep "slaves" for now, the history of slavery (c.f. Slavery#Terminology) is orders of magnitude older than the topic of this article, so opposed to using a special term in only this article unless it is exceptionally support by the reliable sources, which has not be purported. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Use all. Some form of slave/slavery/enslavement currently appears 194 times on the page. There's no compelling reason for absolutely every single one of them to use the same word. Didn't your English teachers tell you that a varied vocabulary, rather than harping on exactly the same word, was a sign of good writing? (I realize that's not true for every language, but it is true for English.) Let's use all the synonyms in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Fowler&fowler's suggestion to "start with "enslaved Africans", and once the context is understood use "slaves." That is the practice I've followed where there were many instances of the word. Carlstak (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Mention African origin, as there is the clear racial connotations even if people justify or support slavery or grounds that are not to do with race. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Stick with "slave". Common usage and what they were. "Enslaved Africans", incidentally, is only accurate if they were born in Africa; otherwise they were Americans, citizenship or no. If we're going to change the common terminology here then we should presumably also not refer to slaves in the context of the many other countries who held slaves over the centuries (including Rome, Greece, the Ottoman Empire, many African nations, Ancient Egypt, etc, as well as the more recent European empires and America). Any of this, however, would be Wikipedia making it up and not going with established terminology. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  • There's no reason we couldn't use "enslaved persons" in that case, and it's not "making it up" if that's the terminology used in a given source (which is occurring more frequently in academia), or even if it weren't, because it's also a common usage. Carlstak (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Whether it is "occurring more frequently in academia" or not is irrelevant to the fact that overwhelmingly in common usage these people are still referred to as slaves. Wikipedia does not implement changes; it follows common usage (that's common usage, not solely academic usage). I see no value in using "enslaved persons" when we have a perfectly good, heavily-used and well-understood single-word term : i.e. slaves. It's not in any way a pejorative term. It's a factual description. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
      • That's your take, and you're entitled to it. I wouldn't vote to arbitrarily try to enforce either usage. Like I said, I prefer to introduce the first instance in a passage as "enslaved Africans" or "enslaved persons", and use "slaves" thereafter if there are numerous other instances for concison's sake, but I wouldn't insist someone else do the same. I see it as a matter of courtesy to the ancestors of my African American friends who prefer "enslaved persons". I think it's good we're all discussing this, but it probably signifies nothing, as BusterD implies, I think.;-) Carlstak (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep status quo, defer future discussion to MOS. This seems a very narrow content space in which to discuss such an enormous issue (and the incorrect space if we're doing this in page talk). I see good points made by several and I'm very interested in having this discussion, but IMHO local consensus here is (at best) a weak indicator of how the broader body of wikipedians might view this. BusterD (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Let's look at some data. In a topic with a huge amount of scholarship available, such as the American Confederacy and the Civil War, it's trivial to come up with sources to support any point of view, including views held by only a tiny fraction. In order to present a neutral point of view in the article, we must avoid cherry-picking sources and instead try to determine what the majority view is, if there is one, and all significant minority views, and represent them in due proportion to their appearance in reliable sources. One way to do this, is by search queries of reliable sources that avoid bias in favor of one result or another.

Here are three such searches, in Google Ngrams, Books, and Scholar; all show that the terms slaves or African slaves are used much more often in reliable sources than the term "enslaved Africans" or "enslaved people":

• Ngrams: search 1, search 2 Result: too little data for "enslaved Africans" or "enslaved people" to even show up on the graph.
• Books: search (limited to 2001-2022): Result: no occurrences of "enslaved Africans" in the first one hundred results.
• Scholar: search 1 Result: first occurrence of "enslaved Africans" at result #49 on page four of the results.
• Scholar search 2 (limited to 2001–2022) Result: five occurrences of enslaved in top 50 results (#7, 21, 23, 31, and 35).

Even a cherry-picked search in Books for "enslaved Africans" OR "enslaved people" does not do very well and fails to return many results.

These searches show that expressions like enslaved Africans or enslaved people are only found in a tiny fraction of reliable sources compared to more commonly used terms. Mathglot (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You can substantially simplify your queries; look for ("enslaved" OR "slaves"). If it's picking up "slaves", it will automatically pick up "African slaves". In Google Scholar during the last decade, the snippets show me 23/50 uses of "enslaved" (not counting one in which it was used as a verb), including "enslaved women and men", "enslaved and free people of color", " enslaved women and girls", and "enslaved persons" – all of which are missed when you search only for ("enslaved Africans" OR "African slaves" OR "slaves"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You're right about the reduplication of slaves and African slaves; that's unnecessary. (I retried those searches without the quoted bigram and you won't be surprised to learn that the simpler query gives the same results.) The more complex queries were designed to keep the results grounded in time and place and avoid bias in favor of slaves, which is used for historical topics from Antiquity to the present, whereas enslaved is less so. (And even if not, could swamp the data away from the period and place we're interested in.) You're right about it missing the cases you mentioned, but the query would have to be tweaked a bit to see which proportion of those actually refer to the Confederacy. Using your query (restricted to 2012-2022): I get: 1. (o/t: English slaves), 2. both terms, 3. (o/t: Ancient Greece), 4. slaves, 5. (o/t: Rome), 6. slaves, 7. enslaved, 8. (o/t: ancient civilizations), 9. both terms, 10. (o/t: antiquity). It's not easy to design a query that tells the right story from the data in a truly unbiased way, and it's possible my original queries were biased, and by fiddling with the queries to eliminate your o/t results you'll come up with something that paints a better picture. If it holds up after tweaking, it might lean more to supporting your "use all the words" vote. Mathglot (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Some comments in the #Survey section make an appeal on non policy-based humanistic grounds to support their vote, including that some terms, in their opinion, are "disrespectful" or "dehumanizing". Let's see if that holds up, by looking at what Black genealogy and ancestry sites use:

• Blackpast.org –
  • about 2.5 – 1 preference for slave over enslaved
  • about 2 – 1 preference for African slaves over enslaved Africans
• Ourblackancestry.com – (insufficient data)
• Afrigeneas.com
  • about 8 – 1 preference for slaves over enslaved
  • about 2 to 1 preference for "African slaves" over "enslaved Africans"
• BlackCemeteryNetwork.org (insufficient data)

This shows that while some are basing votes on opinion, these opinions are apparently not shared by some of the major Black genealogy and ancestry sites. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of changing the words "Black genealogy and ancestry sties" to "Black genealogy and ancestry sites". I can't leave that sitting there. Carlstak (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Ironic, to say the least. Carlstak (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

On that Freudian note, and speaking of data, it's surprising that the guy who's supposed to be all about data and the only one here who's mentioned "trends", didn't mention Google Trends. Not that this data will change anything, and it shouldn't, but I found it interesting to compare the results for "enslaved Africans" with those for "African slaves". I find it especially interesting that South Carolina is at the top of results for the "Interest by subregion" data subset covering the last 12 months in the US. That's neither here nor there, but while it's true that scientific researchers use Google trends in assessing various aspects of human behavior, even Google's own engineers don't use Google search for statistical analysis. Carlstak (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Google Trends measures data created by Google users searching for things. It is not a reliable source as anybody can search for anything; in that sense, it's analogous to how Wikipedia is not a reliable source because anybody can add anything to a Wikipedia article. Trends is utterly useless for trying to determine what the majority view of reliable sources is, as the content of reliable sources plays no part in the output of Google Trends. It's useful for determining what Google users are searching for, but cannot be used to support (or oppose) any assertion at Wikipedia (other than assertions about what users search for on Google). Mathglot (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobody said it could, and nobody said it was a reliable source. I even said, "That's neither here nor there." I was expressing surprise that you didn't mention Google Trends, because it is of interest to data-driven people. I must say, you are investing an extraordinary amount of energy in this campaign of yours, almost to the point of bludgeoning the page. You don't seem to be reading very closely. Carlstak (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Carlstak, please keep it civil. The words you chose here are inappropriate, and regarding your later comment I would note that Mathglot is not bludgeoning the discussion; they have replied to only a single comment in opposition to their position, and it was to request that editor provide evidence for their position. BilledMammal (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say he was "bludgeoning the discussion", I said, "*almost* to the point of bludgeoning the page", not quite the same, and it was days ago—I'm working on other articles now. Perhaps some of us get frustrated with extraordinarily long, massive walls of text on this page (not just from one editor) that make the general conversation hard to follow. Carlstak (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

And I didn't say that you said he was; I said that he wasn't. And my main issue was regarding the incivility in the comment I replied to, not the bludgeoning. BilledMammal (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

And that's your point of sail.;-) Carlstak (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• How about simply calling them "freedom-impaired"? Would seem the most modernly politically correct formulation. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Whether to close the Rfc and reopen at a broader venue

Questions or suggestions were raised in the #Survey section about possibly moving the venue of this Rfc to a broader one such as MOS. This first occurred, I believe, in Nosebagbear's !Vote (here: "Keep status quo, defer future discussion to MOS", ), and was subsequently echoed by Doug Weller. Springee then asked about transferring the discussion to a more general location.

Let's use this section to discuss this. We're less than 48 hours into the Rfc, and if it's moved, sooner is probably better than later. I don't believe that WP:Requests for comment has specific recommendations about how to move an ongoing discussion, but WP:RFCCLOSE (bullet #2) does say that "RfC participants can agree to end it at any time" and there's nothing to stop us from doing that, and then opening another per RFCOPEN. Also, per bullet #1, Mudwater could withdraw it if he chose to, (but if you do, my advice would be to wait a bit for some feedback here, first, to get a sense of how that would be received). Mathglot (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

A discussion at MOS would make more sense if we need to write down a rule about how all articles should be handled (not just US history), and it would likely be a more productive discussion if there have been several discussions at individual articles first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

This change doesn't just impact US history, it impacts the entire span of world history (where slavery was practiced for thousands of years.) Unless somehow the argument is slavery in the US itself was somehow unique (and that's still disregarding the entire African slave trade outside of the US) it makes sense to invite wider participation because it makes no sense to decide this on an article-by-article basis. It's a project-wide MoS issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I !voted for "enslaved" above, but the evidence others have collected shows that "enslaved" is not now the majority. My main source is what I have heard in recent podcasts, but what I've heard does not appear to reflect use in general and I can live with that. I don't think it's worth raising the question again at a broader venue now, but I suspect usage will continue to change, and it may be worth reproposing in a couple of years. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Question: I voted "enslaved" as well and I agree the majority shall rule. My question is, is there any reason not to include "enslaved people" as a synonym at various points, given that a significant number of sources use the term? What we are debating is a matter of "usage", which we know evolves naturally but would be less likely to change on its own if a widely consulted "reference" such as Wikipedia intentionally avoids the term entirely. Lots of questions therein, I guess, but they should be considered. Allreet (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't read the results of the survey above to say that "enslaved" is to be discouraged, but that for now "slave" should not be discouraged. The words have slight but significant differences in meaning and good writing means using the word that fits best in each case. SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @SchreiberBike. Well said. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

My feeling is we should generally follow the sources and what results in straight forward text. So editors shouldn't go around changing long standing text from one to the other. However, as was suggested earlier, introducing the subject with something like "The agricultural economy of the CSA was based on the use of enslaved African labor" vs "... on the use of African slave labor" is fine. It's when the linguistic change is stark. For example, changing something like, "A 20 acre field was worked by up to 15 slaves" to something like "... was worked by up to 15 enslaved people." or as a new addition ("15 people worked this mill", "15 enslaved people worked this mill" if the source doesn't use the term). I think it is, in effect, saying we shouldn't treat either as preferable and when in dispute follow the sources. Springee (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I made just one post somewhere above, and this is the second and final. I have not read any other comments. MOS Talk is characterized by an overall tendency to preserve tradition in both wording and values, often cantankerously so, in some instances bordering on sadistically so. So there is absolutely no point in passing the buck to them. It will go nowhere there, just produce bad blood. It is best to decide it here whichever way it goes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There may be such a tendency at MOS (I have no knowledge of it, pro or con), but it is not at all the case that MOS will not change based on an Rfc. If the consensus here is to move or re-raise the questions at MOS, the history there shows that a cogent argument that gains support will result in significant changes, such as this one, for example, which was remarkable for resulting in instituting a carve-out of a possibly conflicting guideline. Would it be difficult to achieve a change at MOS regarding the topic of this Rfc equivalent to that one? Yes, very difficult, imho. Completely hopeless to try? That's up to volunteer editors, who need to gauge how best to prioritize their time, but the history shows that it is not impossible. Mathglot (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Legobot has closed this Request for Comment, because it's been open for more than 30 days. But, I'm not sure if we have reached any conclusions about what to do. In my opinion, after reading other editors' comments, the article should first say "enslaved people" and then, after that, use either "enslaved people" or "slaves", whichever best suits that part of the prose. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Although this has been quiescent for a month, the discussion should be formally closed, and consensus should be evaluated by an experienced closer. I've added this to the queue for wp:closure requests; please be patient, it may take some weeks. Mathglot (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Notes

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RM

I'm considering opening an RM for this page. IMHO, it should be called "Confederate States", as we've got United States (without the "of America"). GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Confederate States of America is both the correct full name and the commonly used name, so in my opinion the article should keep its current name. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)`

I am a big fan of "United States" being where it is, but the common name of this country is absolutely not "Confederate States". And naming it "Confederacy" would be unprofessional. It's good here. --Golbez (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"Herrenvolk"

Could someone please edit the government section in the infobox to remove reference to a German ideology that didn't even exist at the time the CSA did? Especially without citation, this is pure original research silliness.

2601:405:4400:9420:CC83:2896:A95F:31DA (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The term Herrenvolk is not original research injected into the article. It's cited to James M. McPherson, an eminent American Civil War historian, and Enrico dal Lago, established Chair of History at NUI Galway. McPherson's book is published by Oxford University Press and dal Lago's is published by Cambridge University Press. I've added cites of these to the infobox. Carlstak (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That is a very unusual term in general and certainly not in common use in describing the CSA. It could be used elsewhere, but I think it should be moved out of the opening sentence. Ironmatic1 (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

"Herrenvolk" is not unusual in scholarly discourse in this context, as can be seen, for example in Roediger & Babcock's 1999 book, The Wages of Whiteness. I agree that it doesn't need to be in the very first sentence of the lede; still, I think it's appropriate to use somewhere in the article as you say, especially as it's acquired new currency with the master race ideology of political figures like Ron DeSantis and his antidemocratic movement on the ascendancy in the US. Carlstak (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a very unusual term that isn't going to be recognized by 99.9% of readers. It should not be used in the first sentence of the article, save it for later when it can be properly described. 74.98.225.102 (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

As the concept didn't even exist when the CSA was around, it seems disingenuous to assign anything about it to them, unanalyzed. It should be removed from the infobox and header. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Disingenuous? We have scholarly sources that use the word in this context, I would not call them "disingenuous"; and besides there is a note that gives the meaning, and Herrenvolk democracy is linked. I agree "Herrenvolk" shouldn't be in the lede or the infobox, but your take is a novel one, to say the least; it's also a nihilistic approach to history—if historians were limited to using only terminology and concepts that existed at the time of the subject being discussed, be it the Roman Empire or the US Civil War, most modern historiography would not exist. Carlstak (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You agree with me that it shouldn't be in the infobox and header and then, after ignoring the word "unanalyzed" (as in, we shouldn't simply assign modern concepts to a past entity without explaining why, and that kind of in-depth study isn't possible in an infobox or header), spend several sentences railing against how I'm nihilist. Cool. You seem cool. --Golbez (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you're full of it. I saw the "unanalyzed" (not the best choice of words), that's why I mentioned the fact that there was a note that explained the meaning, and a link to the article that informs about it, so that would be your "analysis". I said your take was "a nihilistic approach to history", which isn't remotely railing (!) for "several sentences" that you are nihilist. That's not what I said, and you know it. You're just making stuff up. Carlstak (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I previously intended to raise this topic, but got snowed under in other things. My opinion is also that it should be moved out of the opening sentence. This is principally for two reasons:

• WP:UNDUE, that is, the majority of sources do not use this term in defining the Confederacy; I would guess only a tiny minority do, but that remains to be seen. A good test, would be to check tertiary sources, Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Historical dictionaries, and so on, and see how many of them use the term. If few, or none of them do, that is strong evidence that it is not used by the preponderance of reliable, secondary sources, which would make it inappropriate for the WP:LEAD
• The recommendation about the lead sentence. Section § First sentence of WP:LEAD has this to say:

  The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English."

In my opinion, the first sentence fails both parts of this guideline: first, it doesn't help the nonspecialist reader; and secondly, it is not in plain English.

It's not that the word herrenvolk is somehow "wrong" as a description; it's not. It's just that it isn't appropriate in this position. I see no reason it couldn't be added to the body at an appropriate location. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, this section has been up for almost two weeks, and we seem to be developing a consensus that herrenvolk should not be in the lede, and no one has appeared here to defend the usage, so I've boldly removed it from the lede and the infobox. The more I look at it, the more jarring it looks right there in the very first sentence. Carlstak (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Despite my intentions, I can't find an appropriate place to insert the herrenvolk mention in the article; it's a non sequitur to the rest of the content. There's not much there, really, just the word and the reference; it would need to be filled out and put into context, at least a paragraph's worth; although it's an interesting comparison, I don't think it's that important to the article. Carlstak (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the term "herrenvolk" being used to describe the Confederacy. Firstly, it wasn't a commonly used term during the time period. Secondly, there were Native American Confederates. Namely Stand Watie, the last Confederate States Army general to surrender to Union Forces. "Herrenvolk republic" is not an accurate descriptive term in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbovia (talk • contribs) 05:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Um… so why does the page use an outdated flag again?

Shouldn’t it be using the latest flag? (The Blood-Stained Banner) [Flag will go under this text]

Kxeon (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

There's an editorial consensus that the infobox should use the stars and bars as the Confederate flag. There's a comment in the infobox, above the flag, referring to this discussion: Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 10#RFC Infobox flag choice. I'm not sure I can summarize the discussion in a few words, but I think the basic idea was to use the most widely adopted official flag, as opposed to the last one. (They're all "outdated" now anyway.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The infobox should display both the "Stars and Bars" (1861-1863) and the "Stainless Banner" (1863-1865) since they were both heavily used. The "Blood Stained Banner" was an official national flag, but was adopted so late in the Confederacy's existence that it was never widely produced. Orbovia (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Rump State

Please create a Wikilink to explain the concept of a rump state (third paragraph(. It's useful for understanding Missouri & Kentucky participation in the Confederacy. 143.147.174.90 (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Why don't we display all three flags?

Looking at the Transnistria article, I noticed that it can be done. Why not put all the 3 flags with the corresponding period? 93.45.229.98 (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

In the "Incursions: 1862" section, there is a mistake

In this section the New Orleans link leads to the article about the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812 instead of the Capture of New Orleans. Could someone please fix this? The Path to Talmor (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2023

In the opening paragraph it says "they states" this should read "the state's" 82.7.191.251 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done I changed it to "The states" because state's is not correct. RudolfRed (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Confederate Naval Jack Error

The Confederate Naval Jack as shown on this page was only such from the adoption of the 2nd National Flag in 1863 until the end of the war. Jacks are an adaptaion of the Naval Ensign, usually using the canton of the flag as their inspiration. In essence the X flag is the "Second Naval Jack". The First Naval Jack would be an interpretation of the canton of the provisional First National Flag of the CSA, the Stars and Bars and as such would be a blue flag with white stars in a circle. Jacks are minor flags flown from the bow of a Naval vessel usually only when anchored or when fully "dressed" for events and such. 66.69.211.54 (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Why I reverted the "self-determining" sentence

The sentence read: The Confederate States were fairly "self-determining" and regional or specific state identities often prevailed in government and society over views of a truly unified nation.

I think that it is trying to say something to the effect that the states of the Confederacy had a significant degree of independence from the Confederacy. But here are the problems I see: (1) Capitalizing "states" results in "The Confederate States" meaning the Confederacy, not the individual states of the Confederacy. (2) "Self-determining" has no meaning, which is probably why it is in scare quotes. How do states determine themselves? I suspect that "independent" is meant. (3) "regional or specific state identities" has no meaning. If the sentence is discussing the states' independence, where does "regional" come in? And what are "state identities," specific or otherwise? (4) If "regional or specific state identities" had any meaning, what would it mean for them to "prevail in government" or "prevail in society"? (5) What views of a truly unified nation are meant? How can "identities" (whatever they are) prevail over "views"? I do not have access to the cited source, but, as an editor (not just of Wikipedia) I find that some writers mistakenly think that quoting is somehow cheating, and therefore they paraphrase is a manner that is less clear than the quotation. Perhaps that's what occurred here. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You forgot to ping @GoutComplex:. :) — Smuckola(talk) 05:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The language use in this article is pretty atrocious and PoV

"During the four years of its existence under trial by war, the Confederate States of America asserted its independence and appointed dozens of diplomatic agents abroad."

"trial by war"; this reads like admiration, not a statement of fact.

"A string of eloquent and sometimes well-educated Negro abolitionist speakers crisscrossed England, Scotland, and Ireland. In addition to exposing the reality of America's shameful and sinful chattel slavery—some were fugitive slaves—they rebutted the Confederate position that negroes were "unintellectual, timid, and dependent""

"Negro speakers"? Am I missing something, or is this just highly inappropriate? This is not a quote or citation; this is flat out using "Negro" instead of "black"; similar, "negroes were "unintellectual, timid, and dependent"" would excuse the use of negroes if it as a quote, but it isn't - again, it feels inappropriate to not use "black" or whatever other modern term is deemed appropriate.

In general, this just reads *weird* - "eloquent and sometimes well-educated Negro(s)" does not read like an impartial statement of fact, even though it might very well be, technically, but like something somebody living in the Confederacy would say; expressing surprise that negroes can be eloquent, and indeed, sometimes even well educated. "Shameful and sinful chattel slavery" is just about as PoV as it gets; use a quote if you want to use loaded language like this. And it goes on like this. This article needs a revision badly, I'd argue. 2A04:6EC0:20F:A9D0:B53B:C48:1540:E06C (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Quite right. This ridiculous content was added by an editor who has done a lot of good work on WP, but he's also known for adding such grossly point of view material to articles related to slavery, and he's been doing it for years. I recognized his style immediately when I looked, and checked to make sure it was him; it was added 25 May 2020 11:36 AM. Somehow this had escaped my attention, but I don't have time to attend to it just now. The "sinful" really gets me, even more so than the inappropriate use of "Negro" as if it were an acceptable modern-day usage. Would you possibly have time to address these concerns in a bold edit? These flagrant anachronisms should be fixed right away. Carlstak (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The misty-eyed "trial by war" phrasing was removed by another editor. I've removed the "Shameful and sinful" preacher talk and the anachronistic usage of "Negro". Why is it that whenever I ask editors who have complaints about an article's content to please fix it themselves because I am engaged IRL, I never hear from them again? Hmmm.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2023

Request to add {{Confederate states in the American Civil War}}.

223.25.74.34 (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

 Question: why? M.Bitton (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.  Spintendo  22:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The Confederacy end date is WRONG.

The Confederacy ended on June 23,1865 when the last Confederate General surrendered his Army. The claim that the confederacy ended on May 9,1965 is ridiculous as nearly 100,000 rebel troops were still fighting at that time. 75.244.119.96 (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

That was when the war may have ended, but the confederate government declared itself out of existence in May. That people kept fighting doesn't change that fact. Fighting for a ghost doesn't make the ghost alive. --Golbez (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Uuum, actually, thats exactly what that means. The fact that there were STILL men fighting. Men who considered themselves to be and who were, the Confederacy. So, you're wrong.

Just because certain people declared the fact that they gave up, does not mean that which they were once apart of is gone.

They simply weren't apart of it anymore.

And clearly, there was still a rather large contingency that was still fighting the good fight and who were all members of the confederacy who had yet to admit defeat.

Just because a no good, weak minded political fool aka a Politician, decides to abandon his principles, his morals, and his constitutes and just leaves one day doesn't mean the entire system he was elected to serve also goes away with him. 172.56.105.98 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, not a chance. By that logic, the Confederation never died, because there were always people who believed in "The Cause". So why end it in June 1865? I support the May 1865 date. Place Clichy (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The clear answer to this would be to also include the fact that rebels were still fighting after the war, and not change the end date from when the organization of the Confederacy stated their own end. This way, readers learn the nuanced end. 104.148.215.149 (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Condense there is insane amount of words 19,000!

Remove text and condense through more subeheadingd. 64.189.18.30 (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"Northern" slave states is wrong

the term depicting the border states as "Northern" is wrong and should be redacted. At no point were the border states considered Northern. They were by all means still Southern, in Kentucky's case in particular which had both a Unionist and Confederate state governments and was by all respects no different than North Carolina or Tennessee culturally, geographically, or demographically, and having a Southern plantation economy, and was considered an equal member state by the CSA, multiple sources confirm KY as Southern throughout. Missouri is also another case of having a Unionist and Confederate state government and still considered Southern as done so in Lloyd's map. At the very worst they were the Border South. RIII98 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2024

Regarding the sentence "The Modern display of the Confederate battle flag primarily started during the 1948 presidential election, when the battle flag was used by the Dixiecrats."

Change "Modern" to "modern". It should not be capitalized. HertzDonuts (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Good catch, thanks. Plus a few other common nouns. — Smuckola(talk) 05:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2024

Regarding the paragraph:

Confederate conscription was not universal; it was a selective service. The First Conscription Act of April 1862 exempted occupations related to transportation, communication, industry, ministers, teaching and physical fitness. The Second Conscription Act of October 1862 expanded exemptions in industry, agriculture and conscientious objection. Exemption fraud proliferated in medical examinations, army furloughs, churches, schools, apothecaries and newspapers.

Add links to Confederate Conscription Acts 1862–1864.

I suggest changing it to this:

Confederate conscription was not universal; it was a selective service. The [[Confederate Conscription Acts 1862–1864|First Conscription Act]] of April 1862 exempted occupations related to transportation, communication, industry, ministers, teaching and physical fitness. The [[Confederate Conscription Acts 1862–1864|Second Conscription Act]] of October 1862 expanded exemptions in industry, agriculture and conscientious objection. Exemption fraud proliferated in medical examinations, army furloughs, churches, schools, apothecaries and newspapers.

HertzDonuts (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Done, except that I don't see the need for the second piped link, since it links to the same article. Readers will get the idea if they click on the first, which, sadly, statistics show most seldom do. Carlstak (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2024

The top infobox image for the CSA uses incorrect terminology in its caption and all in all seems pointless, remove it. At least change the caption to read something like "Map of the United States with states that joined the C.S.A. shaded." 50.205.215.149 (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2024

In the map labels, make the ‘West Virginia’ lead to the page of said state. Hiyabud (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: It seems there are already multiple instances of "West Virginia" that have wikilinks. Shadow311 (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Please condense and add subheadings to apre down the word count of 19.000 words.

Remove words and divide up the text so it is readable. 64.189.18.34 (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Lede cites a children's book for early argumentation

"The 1860 United States presidential election served as the catalyst for economic discussion; the North was a heavily populated, industrialized society fed by immigration, while the South was a traditional agricultural society, economically laissez-faire, and dependent on plantations. Mississippi senator Jefferson Davis argued every state had the right to resist Federal regulation, and could choose the economic system it wanted. Illinois representative Abraham Lincoln opposed this, arguing the Federal government had the right to intervene economically. "

This doesn't reflect any contemporary scholarly consensus; it obfuscates what is clearly stated later in the lede about causes of the war; identifying Lincoln and Davis by their positions prior to 1861 is inappropriate; and it cites a children's history book from the 1950s as its only source. 12.172.251.101 (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the lede text you've quoted because it's not mentioned in the body of the article as far as I can see, and the lede is supposed to summarize the contents of the body. We really shouldn't be citing children's books to support the content of an encyclopedia anyway. Thanks for pointing this out. Carlstak (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Confederacy existed to at least May 26,1865

Your claim the confederacy ended on May 9,1865 excluding the battle of palmetto in Texas and the continuous slavery in Texas and elsewhere until June 19, 1865. Also, a Confederate general with an active army group was fighting until June 23, 1865. The end date of May 9 is ludicrous. The true end date should be June 23, 1865 as that is the last day a commissioned general surrendered his command. After that date only scattered forces were fighting without unified commands or without orders from any commanding general. 72.105.174.146 (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)