Jump to content

Talk:Slavery/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Contemporary Slavery

Hi - the section on slavery today makes no mention of sex slavery which is then mentioned under Abolitionism (under Human Trafficking). I would suggest that a sub-section is included under contemporary slavery to deal with the other forms of contemporary slavery not currently mentioned: i.e. those listed under human trafficking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.118.188 (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not again with the primary sources

Here we go again with the primary sources. Arrian, with all due respect to him, is a primary source, and cannot be used for the bold claim that "there no slavery in India". Only a modern, secondary source is acceptable. And modern sources tell us that there was slavery in India in ancient times [1] [2]. In other words, modern secondary sources flatly contradict Arrian. We have been over this already once already, this is becoming disruptive. Athenean (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I got it. Slavery as by modern times, is all about bonded labor, child trafficking and so on slavery is banned by UN and Govt.s. Anyways, this is far too much contradiction, and if include a remark that 'Slavery in earliest understood forms was absent in India, but in contemporary form, was present in ancient India!' it will be still called disruptive, in spite of the fact that there was no acceptable behavior to invade some land and loot slaves and generally go about hunting slaves etc. It is indeed very confusing. Thanks for pointing that out and as suggested, to avoid being 'disruptive' on this topic..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 19:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand everything you're saying, but the problem is that Arrian, like Menander, is flatly contradicted by the modern literature. Thus, he cannot be used here. The claim should be removed. Second, the modern sources I showed above (did you look at them?) do not say "Slavery in earliest understood forms was absent in India, but in contemporary form, was present in ancient India!", but that slavery was present, period. Athenean (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Could you please point out which sources? I am in India, and in ancient India, since last 2000 years except after invasions I don't think there is a widespread acceptable practices of slavery at all. In fact, a very famous crowned King Shivaji, even during 1750s after all invasions, did not take to slavery..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 20:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I am fine with my changes reverted with giving comments, though where are the links that I requested? If Europeans and Muslims were in India for hundreds of years and still have no records of slavery, where is this claim about slavery in India comes from, I would like to see..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 05:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please explain how 'dasa' mentioned [| here ] is slavery? Just trying to understand how definitions of slavery change with change in location. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Run-on sentence

"There were different types of chattel slavery, those permitted by the Christian and Islamic religions, were introduced into Africa but only the Christian slave trade to the Americas has been studied by archaeologists, but the slavery that is difficult to recognize will be the indigenous forms of slavery which existed in many parts of the continent at the coming of both Christianity and Islam"

This is a run-on sentence and should be re-written to correct the grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.200.200 (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the whole new part in the lede. I think it useful somewhere to include the term "chattel slavery," along with the differentiation between slavery in the Islamic and Christian spheres. A note about Eastern European serfdom might even be relevant. However, there were numerous problems with the removed text:

1. This information does not belong in the lede, unless it were fleshed out thoroughly later on in the page 2. The text should not be boldface. 3. As noted, the text included run-on and unintelligible writing 4. Stating that chattel slavery was "worse" than "regular" slavery is conveying unnecessary emotional baggage, as is a reference to how "terrific" the slavery might have been.

The current lede is a flat, fact-filled exposition of what slavery is and was. I'd ask that any additions to the lede follow the same tone. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A fact remains that Chattel slavery was how slavery was for thousands of years, and in recent decades or centuries, particularly after U.N. declaration banning slavery, the Chattel slavery is unseen (still existing though). So why is the Chattel slavery, that effected slaves across continents, suddenly ignored wholly now is beyond me. It should be mentioned clearly. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 04:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Mauritania

The section "Contemporary slavery" (sub-section "Current Situation") has a couple of references to Mauritania. They (most particularly the first) seem incomplete and misleading. Could these get tightened up? Mauritania is one of the countries with some (possibly the most) systemic abuse of anti-slavery laws. In that initial mention of Mauritania (that they outlawed slavery in 1981), it should probably be re-stated that they "nominally" outlawed slavery three times in recent history, but that slavery remains widespread in the country. 24.130.67.253 (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian Anti-Slavery Society

Who are these guys, do they have a website or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.214.102 (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Mind-Programming

Perhaps the hundreds of millions of mind-programmed slaves should be included in the number of people enslaved today... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.25.81 (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, are you some kind of moron?

Section on films

This section covers more than 100 films. So the number of films should be reduced. Which number might be sensible? Sarcelles (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe create a separate article, and reduce it to only those films with Wikipages.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I suggest to leave those films which currently have a blue link in this article. Sarcelles (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
agreed only notable films which warrant wiki pages. but i think this info is important and should be also moved to a separate page I think it is justified to have a page called films on slavery. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


See also

  1. Origins of the American Civil War
  2. North Carolina v. Mann
  3. George Washington#Washington and slavery
  4. Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream
  5. United States National Slavery Museum
  6. The Slave Community (
  7. History of Bermuda

These should not be linked, there are too many links. Sarcelles (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Grammar correction required

At the end of the Asia subsection, in the History section, there is a sentence that says;

The Siamese military campaigns had been transformed into a slave-hunting raids on a large scale.

it should read;

The Siamese military campaigns had been transformed into slave-hunting raids on a large scale.

but I can't edit as the article is semi protected.

It still doesn't scan but at least it won't sit there like a massive grammar pustule, torturing my eyes.

Can someone do the honors please? Ta 62.255.248.225 (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone already had, but it was still a poor sentence. I refocused to the particulars of its reference, leaving others to grapple with whether it serves the text. — MaxEnt 01:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we need a section 'Consequences' i.e. what happened to the slaves and where have slaves been

Hi,

I don't see the mentioned points in detail on this section in spite of the fact that the page is on Slavery.

Suggesting here that the page should have more info. on what happened to slaves, their religions/class, social structures within slaves, their lineage, effects on others because of slavery such as wars by an army of slaves, etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I guess there are no answers from people. I must add here, 'going tangentially', that when a victor shits all over the place, it smells roses. I guess slaves writing on Slavery would disturb 'social order' on global scale or something along similar lines, but these can be termed as 'my personal ramblings'. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, especially when so much happened to them even today we can see that--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Racism

It seems impossible that such an article can be considered complete without mention of racial or ethnic markers in facilitating the social divide. Clearly in Lincoln's America, the return of escaped slaves from the north to the south was predicated, at least in part, on racial distinction and laws far from colourblind (even in abolitionist northern states) which prevented whites from testifying on behalf of a freed person of black ancestry, so that even free men under American law on American soil were often recaptured by unethical bounty hunters (as per "Team of Rivals" which I just finished reading). I would also find the Economics section more edifying to see a section discussing the effectiveness of falling back to class distinction where ethnic discrimination is difficult or uncertain. — MaxEnt 01:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and create it, but rarely have i seen class come above race when it comes to slavery--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding info to "other uses of term"

Should we add debt slavery as another use of the term under either "Many anarchists,..." section or in the "In Christianity,..." section?

It could go under "Many anarchists,..." section because many have called the [economic coercion] by banks, marketers, and national [central banks] to be a new type of slavery. As Central Banks inflate the economy in order to grow the economy, it forces the poor to take out debt or future earnings to have enough present money to keep pace with inflationary pressures.

Some evidence for this concept are:

Debt is Slavery by Michael Mihalik

"Almighty Debt" by Soledad O'Brien

Money as Debt by Paul Grignon

“Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal, there is no human relation between master and slave.” ~ Leo Tolstoy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric731 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

OR

Debt slavery could go under the "In Christianity,..." section because the Bible says that:

"The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender." - Proverbs 22:7 This implies that the lender can rule over the borrower.

"For the Lord your God will bless you as He has promised you, and you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow; and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you." Deuteronomy 15:6 This implies that the lender can rule over the borrower.

FINALLY,

A citation is needed in the Other use of the term section in the Christianity secion that a person is in slave to sin. That idea comes from John 8:34:

"Jesus answered them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin." - John 8:34

--Eric731 (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

See also Romans 6.

-- Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.121.55 (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

American bias

Most of what is written about the modern era is related to black slavery in USA. There HAD BEEN white slaves in Europe. The article does not sufficiently cover the point when the slavery of non-blacks declined. From what is written here, one may concluded that Europeans did not enslave each other after the late Middle Ages, yet William Blake's 'The Little Chimney-Sweeper' testifies that children had been sold by their parents as late as in the 18th century.188.123.240.127 (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I dont see any bias, I think the representation on this site represents the reality of African-Americans and other African communities who were enslaved. i,e, the overwhelming majority. I dont know how a few white slaves in Europe can have equal space considering the history of African enslavement.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Etymology section needs correction

The English word slave derives through Old French sclave <- Medieval Latin sclavus <- Byzantine Greek σκλάβος.

There are debates on from what the latter word derives. Some etymologists, pointing to similarities in usage of wealh in Old English, originally meaning “Celt” (and origin of Welsh), which was extended to “slave”, argue that the origin of σκλάβος refers to Slavs (словѣнинъ, словѣне), who were often enslaved during the early Middle Ages.[1]

Another angle states that the word σκλάβος is a homonym of the Greek verb skyleúo, meaning «to get the spoils of war», first person singular of which is skyláo.[2]

Barsik (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Slavery Report, need info! please help!

I have a slavery report to do in socail studies class and don't know much about this subject. May you please just tell me any info you may know about slavery from a long time ago... I'd really appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.20.77 (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but wikipedia isn't a homework help site. The article should have more than enough information. Dr. Whooves (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

False Information under heading History- Islamic World

This statement is under the titles 'History' and 'islamic world'

"The great 14th-century scholar Ibn Khaldun, wrote: "the Black nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Blacks) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals".

Having researched I was unable to find any evidence stating that Ibn Khaldun supported slavery or proof of this quote. It appears fabricated. I feel this should be deleted as there seems to be no truth in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.177.18 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

bias

The line "From about the nineteenth century "slavery" has been very closely associated with enslavement of non-white, usually black, people by white people." has no source listed. The article fails to explain that the word "slave" comes from the word Slav because so many Slavs (people of Eastern Europe) were taken into slavery, much like calling a tissue a "Kleenex" even though not all tissues are that brand. The accepted lable for people in bondage did not derive from the words Nubian, African or Negro. It omits the historical sale of caucasian Slavs by European Jews to MiddleEastern Muslims. It also fails to explain the current widespread enslavement in Africa of Muslim Negroids by Muslim Negroids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.48.67.192 (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Types of Slavery section

Currently "Human Trafficking" is listed as a type of slavery. That's like saying drug trafficking is a type of drug abuse. It makes no sense. Human trafficking is a term used to describe the movement of slaves from one location to another; important only because it is the best chance for law enforcement to catch the traffickers and free the slaves. The mere fact that the slaves are being "trafficked" and "traded" means they are personal property or chattels. I move that the "Human Trafficking" subsection be added to the end of the "Chattel slavery" subsection. Objections? Johnathlon (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC) The term Anatu abdi "A Basic Grammer of Ugaritic Language" meaning war goddess slave servant, from lands of Levant would indicate the Armies of certain countries were awarded the status of slave servant of that country. Abdi is also Arab for slave. Clearly the people of the Anatu abdi payed room and board in tales of the apartment "Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. Certainly after waves of Hitites, Egyptians, Jews,Greeks,Romans and Arabs Abdi was modernized to servant without pay or property as in Arabic.It is also obvious that the Anatu Abdi being of orgin of Crete lost his pay to the Greeks long before the Jew and well before Rome was ever born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloo64 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Muddled account of abolitionism

There were few Dutch Quakers in Pensylvania and most of abolitionist pressure was in Britain in Quaker and dissenting circles. Needs a complete we-write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.20.222 (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

The section on medieval Europe speaks of slavery of "Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers" as "race-slavery". The description "race-" is obviously wrong, "religious" might be acceptable, but there is no need for any qualification. 86.45.147.197 (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out. The inline citation was to a source that said nothing of the sort; I've re-written the sentence with reference to a source which quotes the cited papal bull. It looks to me like the whole article needs some tlc, IMHO. Nortonius (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

More slaves today?

The section on present day slavery begins with "There are more slaves today than at any point in history". The source given is a Time magazine article which does not mention how it arrived at this figure. This comparison does not seem to agree with other Wikipedia articles on slavery. There are between 12 and 27 million slaves currently. In the mid 19th century, there were 4 million slaves in the US, 8-9 million in India, between 30-50% of the population of at least a dozen African nations, half the population of Korea. Now, those 4 million in the US were descended from less than half a million of the 12 million slaves transported in the Atlantic trade. I can't find numbers for the rest of the Americas, but we're talking about another 11.5 million and their descendants in Brazil, Haiti and Cuba. We're already over the high figure for modern slavery and we haven't even touched the middle east, the 23 million privately held serfs in Russia who would fit the modern definition of slavery, sex slaves in brothels, in short we get a larger number than the modern estimates as soon as we begin to scratch the surface of the mid 19th century.

Without a more robust citation for the claim that there are more slaves today than at any point in history, it should be removed.--98.217.193.42 (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Extremely bias

This article is very bias, it rarely says any thing about the European slavery most of the pictures focus on Arab slavery. It is without doubt that the European were the worst offenders hence this is not evident on this site. This will led to narrow minded people to believe one sided information like this and therefore would believe as fact while its far from fact. maxman 21:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that a rather eurocentric view? Slavery has existed for thousands of years, whereas isn't "european slavery" largely restricted to a few hundred year period? Can you add some more information or some references to support your suggestion? Also, if there is any truth at all in the article's claim that "There are more slaves today than at any point in history" then surely your claim can't also be true? 86.184.68.196 (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: strike inappropriate advertisement in "Present Day" Section

There's a lengthy advertisement for the International Labor Organization in the article. This content is distracting and inappropriate:

"Thanks to the ILO Special Action Programme to Combat Forced Labour (SAP-FL), the work of the ILO has been spearheaded in this field since early 2002. The Programme has successfully raised global awareness and understanding of modern forced labour; assisted governments to develop and implement new laws, policies and action plans; developed and disseminated guidance and training materials on key aspects of forced labour and human trafficking; implemented innovative programmes which combine policy development, capacity building of law enforcement and labour market institutions, and targeted, field-based projects of direct support for both prevention of forced labour and identification and rehabilitation of its victims." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.76.132 (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That passage was added by Sapfl (talk · contribs) in February 2011, per this diff. That editor was indefinitely blocked in April 2011 because their username did not meet policy, and they remain blocked at this time: "Sapfl" was previously warned over edits to SAP-FL, QED. Apparently SAP-FL is an ILO programme aimed at forced labour; in the above diff, Sapfl also (over)linked occurrences of "forced labor/labour". The passage in question isn't brilliantly written, and it is badly formatted; also, I agree that this passage reads very much like an ad. My guess is that the addition of this passage was well-intentioned, and that perhaps Sapfl could've been better advised: all of their contributions were on similar topics, and, while they may not have understood how WP works, their intentions may have been innocent enough by any other standards. But, this passage is not appropriately worded for WP, and it wildly (IMHO) distorts that section of the article. I'll take it out, and add that it should've been reverted or re-worked at the time: the blocking of Sapfl was a clue... By all means work some of it back in, if you think it's relevant to the article. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I've now done this; I've also "fixed" overlinking of "forced labor/labour", though that inconsistency of spelling remains. Nortonius (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Two many Black images

This article is called Slavery. Each country, region, sub-region or continent has been mentioned where appropriate, and the images used should reflect that. Just because there are more images of Black slaves freely available does not mean we have to plaster the whole article with images of Black slaves. That can be done in the African Slave Trade, etc, not here. A sample of Black images along with other slaves (non-Blacks) should be used to reflect what this article is all about. I have lost count of how many Black images there are in comparison to the number of images used in this article. A POV is a POV and it is contrary to Wiki policy. So fix it. I am somewhat surprised that experienced editors have not picked up on this long ago.Tamsier (talk)

I disagree - there are plenty of pictures of non-black slaves. The first picture is of an african boy - the next five are non-black. I don't think you hae a good case - especially since African slavery is clearly the one kind that has had the highest historical impact.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Slavery Russia images

Forgive Google for my English. ) I have a any questions about Russia "Russian agricultural slaves were formally converted into serfs earlier in 1679?" You know that before this (in 1675) serfs converted into slaves? 200 years of Russian conceal enslave 20 million peasants. It is claimed that the Russian serf - not a slave. But really - what was the difference? Slavery in the United States - the owner could sell a slave or change of any item without restrictions during The serf in Russia - equally, but if the same war, the king will take the necessary number of recruits in the Slavery in the United States - the owner had the right to sell the slave at the market The serf in Russia - the same way (the abolition of 1808). Slavery in the United States - the owner had the right to beat a slave The serf in Russia - the same Slavery in the United States - the owner had the right to close the slaves in his private jail The serf in Russia - the same Slavery in the United States - the owner could kill a slave The serf in Russia - a crime. But slaveholders punished less than 10 for 2 centuries. Slavery in the United States - the owner had a right to separate the relative The serf in Russia - the same way (beginning in 1760 repealed 1833).

Slavery in the United States - the owner had a right to sex with a slave of any woman.

The serf in Russia - the same

Slavery in the United States - the owner had the right to tell the slave to marry

The serf in Russia - the same

It's like a free man?

What's the difference?

Slavery in the United States - slaves do not pay taxes, and the government has no right to take a slave, he property.


The serf in Russia - the slaves to pay taxes, the government can take away the slave and the war.

Today the Russian saying - Headlines land is not a slave! He pays taxes - then he is not a slave!

Oh yeah! Disgusting hypocrisy!

Ordinance 1675 says - "Russian agricultural slaves were converted into serfs" No! The decree did a double slavery.

The government became the second owner of a slave

Pay taxes and you will be free — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.46.170.244 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Big Error

Why is Ibn Khaldun listed as a scholar when he was a sociologist/economist/evolutionary thinker? That is like stating Oprah is an expert on Christianity. Please remove his quote for the Islamic section. It has nothing to do with Islamic thought. It was simply the opinion of a North African sociologist/economist/evolutionary thinker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.143.247 (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Error in "Present Day" section

  • It says there are somewhere between 12-27 million slaves worldwide. However the following paragraph then states there are 40 million slaves in India alone, the sentence lacking any citation to back up this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.136.73 (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The claim "There are more slaves today than at any point in history" cites a news article that simply makes the claim without any additional support. Accepting the higher estimate of 27 million slaves worldwide today, it would appear that there were more slaves in the early 1860s than there are today. Citation 59 indicates that there were 23 million slaves in Russia in 1861, and citation 110 indicates that there were 4 million slaves in the US in 1860. This being the case, there were almost certainly more slaves in the early 1860s than there are today. Unless the original claim can be backed up with more verifiable references, I believe it should be removed. AusIV (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

South Africa

Weren't Indian people enslaved in South Africa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.197.229 (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
no they were not. see the Gandhi article. Rjensen (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
We're talking ca. 300 years before Gandhi. Indians were enslaved by the Dutch. See Indian_South_Africans#Dutch_slavery_in_the_Cape.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Still wrong. Those people weren't enslaved by the Dutch. The Dutch just purchased the merchandise in India and elsewhere. --41.151.238.82 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
When people are bought and sold as merchandise that is called slavery.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

World War 2

"During the Second World War (1939–1945) Nazi Germany effectively enslaved many people, both those considered undesirable and citizens of countries they conquered." Even, if there was forced labour in concentration camps (which btw. was paid), this isn't slavery unless one uses the word in a polemical sense. Also, when mentioning it, why aren't the Germans mentioned that were subjected to forced labor by the Allies? Or perhaps in pre-war Poland? --41.151.238.82 (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Because wiki doesn't exist to be Nazi apologists. Even if we take as true the "payment" bit, it still falls afoul of the forced labor (inability to refuse work or remove one's self from the situation) aspect, and was an institutionalized, relatively long term and organized system. The incidences in which Germans were put to work were often ad hoc, short term, and not part of a long-standing system. Please prepare and submit any reputable sources you have that make your claims, and which indicate they are notable to be added to the article. Otherwise, please don't soapbox.204.65.34.34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just one line about the 1794 French abolition

That's very Anglocentric.Rich (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is Europe listed first in section 3.4?

It should be in alphabetical order. Just seems like more of the same old "blame the whites" propaganda...

Joanakestlar (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope you you show this sensitivity on all wikipedia topics. The majority of wikipedia articles in English list or mention the cases in europe and us always before the others. There is no "standart" for this among wikipedia authors. Maybe you also noticed the first slave photo on the right talking about purposefully an arab master of slave child punishing him... I hope arabs get also as sensitive as you...


21st Century claim in lead

The claim that there are now more slaves in the 21st century is quite extraordinary, and if it's inclusion in the lead is to be warranted, it should be attributed to the source and not in Wikipedias voice.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

bad grammar

Article says: "Adam Smith made the argument that free labor was economically better than slave labor, and argued further that slavery in Europe ended during the Middle Ages, and then only after both the church and state were separate, independent and strong institutions,[197] that it is nearly impossible to end slavery in a free, democratic and republican forms of governments since many of its legislators or political figures were slave owners, and would not punish themselves, and that slaves would be better able to gain their freedom when there was centralized government, or a central authority like a king or the church." I think grammar and expression are not very clear here - can a user with appropriate knowledge please put this into a form that can be understood? Thanks Aoulou (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Continuing...

"Forced labor occurs when an individual is forced to work against his or her will, under threat of violence or other punishment, with restrictions on their freedom." Here, "their freedom" should be replaced with "his or her freedom." Tdshepard (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Films section

Should that section be there at all? It's pretty jarring, and can't possibly be complete (there were no films about slavery prior to 1960? really?) We do have a category Category:Films about slavery, but it's pretty weak also. It just feels odd, just another misplaced "in popular culture" section. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)



Islamic World 3.3.2

The last line states that One Thousand and one nights is an islamic holy book. That is a wrong statement. Even the citations mentioned do not claim that. Padfootpak9745 (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Slavery Template - Religion (The Bible)

They have stopped calling slavery, slavery on the Bible and Slavery page and started calling it servitude?? I believe the page is being edited by people whom are putting their religious ideology before History. The Bible and Slavery page is 100% OR. I have provided evidence on their talk-page which dispells this OR but the evidence of this is being ignored. I would be grateful for persons who are looking after slavery on wiki to look at recent events on the Bible and Slavery page which this page links into as part of a series.

I believe the current Bible and Slavery page is trying to apologise and wipe from history past attrocities made to Women and Children because of their religious ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.231.94 (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Since it was a very popular movie, I think it deserves to be mentioned. Either that or the whole "movies" section should be removed as Jpgordon suggested. 20:48, 02 February 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.166.166 (talk)

No, Django Unchained should not be added to the movie section, because the entire "Movie" section should be removed. There's no reason to include a [very non-exhaustive] list of films that refer to slavery. If it were part of a separate page of "Slavery in Popular Culture" or something maybe it would make sense, but Wikipedia is not for a list of trivia. It's not like there's a "Books" section which lists "Uncle Tom's Cabin". 68.190.119.92 (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory claims

A BBC article claims there are more slaves now than ever before yet later on in the opening a more sturdy ref claims that three quarters of ppl were slaves in 1800 (a not unreasonable claim) yet the BBC article estimates 27 million slaves right now and yet the world population article says there were 370 million ppl and rising by 1350 so there must have been far more slaves than 27 million in 1800 so I have removed the BBC contradictory claim, I dont think its as reliable as the other ref. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Movies section

I took it out. Here's why: (a) there are no well-defined inclusion criteria and the list was very random. How do we know when a movie is "about slavery"? (b) it's asking for trouble with everyone wanting to add their own favorite slavery movies. Then what do we tell them? "No, we already have 22, so you can't put yours on?" It would make a fine list article on its own (if there isn't one already) but I think it's not good to have it in this article. Thoughts? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to keep it in. Visual representation has been an important topic and scholars have indeed considered slavery in films. see Hernán Vera; Andrew M. Gordon (2003). Screen saviors: Hollywood fictions of whiteness. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 54ff. b) "it's asking for trouble" to make major deletions like this. I think what alf laylah wa laylah means to say is that the section needs footnotes to good sources. so I added an introduction with cites. Rjensen (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Obviously it's not "asking for trouble" to make major deletions, it's following WP:BRD. Also, you're absolutely wrong about what I meant to say. What I meant to say is what I said. Finally, your introduction is good, and takes us a little way towards a solution to the problems I see with this section, but I still think that the section should be forked or deleted. How does your introduction deal with movies that are not about American slavery? After reading your introduction I still don't know why Spartacus is on the list. Also, you make a good case for the obvious and undisputed point that "movies about slavery" is an encyclopedic topic, there are still no inclusion criteria for the list. What sourcing do we need to include a movie? On what grounds may we exclude a movie?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a work in progress and few if any historical articles are "complete." The criterion for Sparticus is that it's about the most famous slave revolt in Roman history and is treated as such im major studies-- it gets a chapter in Slaves on Screen: Film and Historical Vision (2002) by Princeton historian Natalie Zemon Davis, for example. The introduction does need to deal with movies that are not about American slavery, and I plan to add them. Rjensen (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say Spartacus shouldn't be on the list, I just said it wasn't clear why from your introduction. Now it is. Anyway, you've done excellent work and very quickly too, and my major concerns are satisfied. I am still worried about criteria for inclusion (e.g. see discussion above about Django Unchained). Can we put some kind of sentence in about that?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks -- I would add a dozen or so films including Django Unchained and those mentioned in the lede to the section. Rjensen (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Why only movies? to me it would make more sense to have a "Fictional depictions of slavery" or something - many articles have this sort of thing - and then one could list movies, but also books, poetry, etc - at which point the whole thing should be perhaps hived off into a separate article. But I don't see why we only list movies here, for example, and not novels or other literature, plays, etc. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Django Unchained doesn't belong on the list, but I find it hard to say why. It's not historical like e.g. Spartacus or Roots, it doesn't illustrate popular attitudes like Birth of a Nation or Gone with the Wind. It's a Tarantino film that happens to have slaves in it. This is why I think we need well-defined inclusion criteria. Your scholarly sources are good, but I'd be surprised if there are sources of that quality that discuss Django Unchained as somehow illuminative of the nature of slavery. Maybe I'm wrong, though. Anyway, I added Birth of a Nation to the table to show my appreciation of your excellent introduction to the section. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

the film critics have weighed in but not the historians-- Ive seen only one short essay so far, but it stresses that "Django Unchained" was better in its depiction of brutality towards slaves than probably any other major movie. Rjensen (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, like I said, I could be wrong. Maybe the criterion should be that we discuss the movie in the lead paragraph based on RS and then put it in the table? Or maybe add a column to the table so we could describe the relevance of the movie and put a source or two in there?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Present day section

I would like to enhance this section, making it as long as the section on history. Sarcelles (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that'd be great. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


I don't agree with alf laylah wa laylah's reversal of Comfort women in Present day section. The slavery of women by the Japanese Army is itself documented in an article. Reversing the reference to Comfort women is missing a significant present day history and a disgrace to those hundreds of thousands women and some who still survived today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert ip (talk • contribs) 10:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 June 2013

69.201.154.245 (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Slavery was very bad. People were treated very unfairly at that time.

Yep. --ElHef (Meep?) 20:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There should be a much longer section on slavery in the Americas prior to the arrival of Europeans. The Aztecs, Mayans, and other Native Americans tribes practiced slavery as well for hundreds of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refreshing29 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Nazi Germany forced labour camps as penal labour

Including Nazi Germany's forced labour camps as slavery is dishonest if other forms of penal labour are not included.86.26.236.107 (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please suggest some text we can add along with sources that refer to such labor as slavery. --NeilN talk to me 22:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 September 2013

One section has some mangled code:

<ref>Mikhail Kizilov, "Slave Trade in the Early Modern Crimea From the Perspective of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Sources," Journal of Early Modern History (2007) 11#1 pp 1-31. </ref> </ref> It has been estimated that some...

Please remove the extraneous </ref> tag.

2001:18E8:2:1020:A0B7:B544:704A:6325 (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 20:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

New etymology source and "glory"

ZYXW9876 is attempting to add the glory clause again using this source. Assuming we take it at face value, there are two relevant passages:

  1. "The Byzantine Empire used to have continual wars with the Slavs who migrated into the Balkans from around the 6th century. The Greeks borrowed and adapted the Slavs' own name as sklavos (σκλάβος). It became the Greek name for the Slavs, but with considerable numbers of Slavic warriors falling into captivity, the word also became an alternative word for "slave" while doulos (δούλος) remained the standard word for "slave.""
  2. "The Slavs' own name, based on slovo, "word," originally identified a person "capable of (intelligible) words," i.e., someone they understood, a person who spoke the same language. The others, speakers of incomprehensible languages, were "mumblers.""

Again, nothing about glory. --NeilN talk to me 16:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

think about it. In the sixth century, the Slavs warred with the Illyrians, kicked them out and extinguished that race for the most part, then at the same time, warred with the Byzantine Greeks, and kicked them out. Now, how is it that they did this and yet the word 'slave' came from 'Slav'. It was pure and simple bitterness. Propaganda that suits the Anglo's and Greeks and Arabs just fine. I'm here trying to make you see the truth and all you care about is Wiki's rules. Who do you think is fighting a just cause, and who is the bureaucrat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

And cue WP:THETRUTH. --NeilN talk to me 17:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

that doesn't mean anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Don't even start, NeilN. The change is there to put it in context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

And it's gone. That section is not a Slavic history lesson. --NeilN talk to me 17:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

everything with you is a twelve page battle isn't it. why do ten or so words affect you so much? and you didn't have to revert it. you have no rules not to keep it in there, so I will put it back and this time it will be you who has to be blocked for 48hrs. it shows the reasoning behind why the Byzantine Greeks transformed a word the Slavs hold so dear to them. because they lost those wars, so they had to invent negativity - sore losers. the etymology must be clear! I have a question for you that I know you will read, but wont answer because of what you see in the soul mirror: did you know all this before I told you? no you didn't. and you know it is the truth, so why not let the rest of the world know too? u wanna keep it to yourself? does it show something you didn't or refuse to know? do not revert, it has a right to be there. if you want to spar with me, we can do it on chess or something, but don't f";^ with the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

And, as usual, you present no sources for your claims. Wikipedia doesn't care what you believe. It doesn't care what I believe. It cares what reliable published sources write specifically about the topic. --NeilN talk to me 17:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary definition of slave sourced from Slavs of the 9th century is complete Fabrication

Oxford English Dictionary definition of slave sourced from a majority of Slavs of the 9th century being enslaved is complete Fabrication and non-sense! There is no information to back this claim. Furthermore, the Slavs were extremely prosperous in this time of their history. A Slav (King Dmitry Zvonimir) was the first King to outlaw slavery in his Kingdom (of Croatia) approximately around the time mentioned by the Oxford dictionary. Mayhap this is why it may be associated with slavs. This is extremely hurtful and not true! I was proud to be a slav, but now it only reminds me of how others think of us as once-upon-a-time slaves. This has to be changed by Oxford and by Wikipedia. I have eliminated this hurtful sentence, which has no place here, and will get Oxford to change their definition as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You have the cart before the horse. Once you convince the OED to change their definition (and good luck with that), then Wikipedia can follow suit. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

not true. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia of the people. Besides, like I said, the Slavs were extremely prosperous at that time, with armies far bigger than anyone else in most of Europe. Please, Slavs = slaves as much as Germanics = germs. Ignorant! Slavic comes from "slaviti" which means to be happy, to party, exhuberance. Don't turn it into some garbage just because it sounds the same. Other than OED, which will be changed, what other source do you have for this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

One suffices, in the absence of other reliable sources. "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia of the people" -- well, perhaps, but the people of Wikipedia adhere to certain policies, including verifiability; sourced information from reliable sources takes precedence over any one editor's opinion. PS: this edit constitutes disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; please do not repeat it. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
the OED is the standard source for English language terms. It says the "Slavic" origins entered Latin and then German, French and English languages. OED says: " medieval Latin sclavus, identical with the racial name Sclavus, the Slavonic population in parts of central Europe having been reduced to a servile condition by conquest; the transferred sense is clearly evidenced in documents of the 9th century." Webster's 3rd Unabridged Dictionary agrees: it says: "from Medieval Latin Sclavus, Slavic, Slavic held in servitude, slave, from Late Greek Sklabos Slavic, from Sklab*nos of or relating to the Slavs; akin to Old Bulgarian Slovine a Slavic group of people in the area of Thessalonike, Old Russian Slov1ne, an East-Slavic group of people near Novgorod, Slovutich Dnieper river, Serbian." Rjensen (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

by repeating the same thing over and over and over again doesn't make it true. Slavic's invented the word slav. They know what it means. In the Slavic languages, Slavic means happiness, partying, glory. OED may be the standard source for English terms, but not the historical source. It is a dictionary. Dictionaries can be wrong. Find a Slavic dictionary that agrees with that. Who are the Slavonic people the OED speaks of? Everyone is in servitude to someone.

The people of what is now Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia are part of the Slavic ethnic group. The Slavs migrated across the Eastern European plains and settled in Central and Eastern Europe, long before the rise of the Roman Empire, in around the 10th Century BC. THAT'S where modern Slavs come from. Their origins have nothing to do with slavery.

Back then, the Romans didn't know about them, and they never occupied this part of Europe.

These tribes came into trading contact with the Romans from at least the 3rd Century BC. Important goods the Slavs sold the Romans included amber and amber jewelery, furs, honey, timber, tar and slaves. So while the Slavs did sell slaves to the Romans, the Slavic people did not originate in Rome. Slavs who lived in Rome were integrated into the Roman people or were freed to become Roman citizens, so modern Slavs could not have descended from them.

In addition, Slavs were never really enslaved on a massive scale in Roman times. Most slaves were Gauls, Celts, and Saharan (Africans).

The name "Slav" comes from "slava" means "glory" or "slovo" meaning "word" or "people who speak my language", but not "slave". These are names in the Polish, Czech and Russian languages - Slavic languages.

So this means the Romans didn't give them the name "Slav". Instead, they referred to slaves as "servus". The Roman name for Slavs, "Sclavus" simply referred to the ethnic group, but not slaves.

The Vikings raided Slavic lands and enslaved Slavs on a larger scale, however. They were prized in Europe because of their fair complexion. According to some sources, like Wikipedia, the name "slave" was taken FROM the name "Slav", because the servants were from Slavic lands. The Europeans didn't GIVE the Slavic people their name. To understand the word "Slav", you would have to know the Slovenian language. I am Slovenian and speak 5 other languages. Slovenian is the oldest Slavic language, according to some German linguists. If you knew Slovenian, you would discover that it goes far beyond being the oldest Slavic language. In Slovenian, as in other Slavic languages, the word "Slava" means glory, as in "Glory of Christ or Glory of God". The versions of this word in Slovenian are: Glory-Slava, as mentioned above, but also, proslaviti, proslavljati, slaviti, sloviti, etc. etc. The latter words mean to Celebrate, but in the highest sense of the word. If you read Herodotue, pliny, Tacitus, Prokopius, etc. you would know the Slavs,as, not tolerating any government or king. They live in low houses, grow grains and breed mules. The central place in Slavic life is a "Community". When they have to decide something either good or bad, they gather for a discussion, and decide jointly. When I left my (very remote) village in Slovenia, in 1953, this was still exactly so. So, this brings us to the word Slav, Slava which is not only the Glory, but also "Fame", not to be confuesed with fame in western languages as popularity. Only a being highly evolved in a spiritual sense, can be "Famous". The others are just popular. So, Slavs, like others, would Glorify God, Jesus Christ, great saints, etc. They would also Slaviti, or Proslavljati, that is, celebrate, both in an adjectival sense, their communal life, their harvest, their moon and sun, their beautiful folk dances and songs, their marriage, which was considered sacred. When I left my village in 1953, there was no concept of divorce as yet in anybody's memory. Slavs did these things long before any stupid colonial westerner equated the word Slav with the word slave. It just goes to show the ignorance of western people, that is, their total lack of knowing anything about other people and their languages, which enables them to come to such naive conclusions about Slav and slave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I see a lot of text but no reliable sources cited. --NeilN talk to me 14:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
To understand what the word "slav" means in English knowledge of another language isnt required, that would only be required to understand the historical context. NeilN is also correct. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

what many wars? what years? where is OED getting their info from? sounds like just name calling to me - hey slav sounds like slave, so why not just say that they are the same. many black people were also slaves, so why are they not called slavs? such bull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Call the OED and ask about their research, if you're interested. For Wikipedia purposes, the OED is probably the most reliable source for English terms. If you want to challenge that standing, WP:RSN is probably the place to go. --NeilN talk to me 13:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Why arent black people whose ancestors were enslaved called slavs? What kind of ridiculous question is that? And how does asking it help us with this article? Lets focus on the article and on getting reliably sourced material in it. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

you are not interested? you are just happy to go along with an incorrect terminology section? what use is there of mentioning that slavs were slaves in medieval times? if that was so prevalent, then wouldn't there be an entire section of slavs as slaves? it is the article on slavery isn't it? yet there is mostly no mention of Slavic slaves. There is a section on medieval Europe within this article, yet the article only has one mention of Slavic slaves: in the photo caption. there is mention of African, Portuguese, English (10% of which were enslaved), "Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers", Native Americans, etc. yet no Slavic slaves. How long has the word slave existed? How long has the term Slavic to describe a bunch of people been around? If you find the answers to those questions, you will know that the OED definition is completely false. The fact that there is NO MENTION of slavs within the medieval Europe section of this article should be enough to convince you that the OED definition is a complete fabrication, not based on any fact. Pure fiction. A self-fulfilling slang. A derogatory term. Slave does not equal Slavic just as germ does not equal Germanic, even if OED says it does. When Slavic people say slaviti, they mean to be happy, not to be a slave. The name Miloslav does not mean gentle slave, but gentle glory. The OED does not get to invent meanings for propaganda purposes. Open your eyes. Slavic's own the term that defines them as slav's. If you or the OED want to make it a derogatory term by issueing a negative meaning to it, then you will do as you please, but do not for a moment think that you are fooling anybody. There are no facts. I must delete that entry AGAIN! Stop adding it in! it doesn't add anything to the article except to show people how discriminatory you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia so we need to stick to English language definitions of the word, it know more matters what the word means in other languages on this wikipedia. And if you wish to add material about slavs relating to slavery you need to use reliable sources, otherwise there is no point in continuing this discussion. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
And deliberately introducing factual errors will get you blocked. --NeilN talk to me 17:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

oooh im really scared. is that what you do when someone has a different POV, just threaten them. look at the truth or does it scare you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You have presented us with no reliable sources about the origin of the English word for us to look at. --NeilN talk to me 17:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Who is us? From online oed, oed does not state that the word slave comes from slav, rather they present an example on how to use the word slave i.e. "Origin: Middle English: shortening of Old French esclave, equivalent of medieval Latin sclava (feminine) 'Slavonic (captive)': the Slavonic peoples had been reduced to a servile state by conquest in the 9th century". Let's analyse this. The origin of slave is from the Middle English, which is a shortening of the Old French esclave. Esclave in French means "Slave". Esclave is equivalent to medieval Latin sclava which also means "slave", in the 'feminine' tense. That's fine up to that point. Where it starts to break down is the last part of that sentence, i.e. "... 'Slavonic (captive)': the Slavonic peoples had been reduced to a servile state by conquest in the 9th century". The last part of that sentence is in error. There is no flow. It means that they are trying to give you an example, such as, 'if there is a Slavonic person that is a (captive), then the appropriate use of slave would be the Slavonic peoples had been reduced to a SERVILE state by conquest.... So "slave" turns into "servile" if you are using it in the "captive" sense. OED is simply using an example. They are not literally stating that the slave came from Slav, they just used a confusing example. You give OED too much power. THINK ABOUT IT, DAMMIT. How can all the Slavonic people be conquered? If you did any research, you would find this to be completely ridiculous! Who did the reducing/conquering? Answer: NOBODY. What servile state are they referring to? There is none. When the OED definition is looked at even a little, you see that I am not vandalizing anything. I just make you see the error that is caused from a confusing example of use of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether you are wrong or right is not at issue here. Everything in Wikipedia is based on reliable sources -- and if you will present some (or even one) reliable source asserting the point that you are attempting to assert, then we will have something to work with; then you'll have a chance of gaining consensus for your desired changes. Otherwise, you simply must not keep trying to impose your point of view on the article page; it will not help your cause in the least. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Those sources dont need to even be in English but they do need to be reliable so please can you do YOUR research and come back here with some reliable sources. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Well... I would have a harder time accepting non-English sources over the OED when it comes to the etymology of English words. It's possible, but they would have a higher barrier to jump. --NeilN talk to me 23:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
That is fair enough though of course if we had two contradictory points of view, both reliably sourced, that would not of itself create a problem as in many articles 2 contradictory POVs both get included, and there is no doubt that foreign language sources are okay on wikiepdia as this is an encyclopedia in English and not of the English speaking world, indeed this article is very international in scope. Unless we find good sources that state that OED is wrong we cant even say that some think they are wrong but even if we did obtain such reliably sourced material that would be one more POV to add and would not negate the OED position, and I am not suggesting we do negate the OED position under any circumstances other than them changing their opinion themselves. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
There's an interesting discussion in Slavs about the English etymology of the term "Slav" which bears on this a bit. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
"This sense development arose in the consequence of the wars waged by Otto the Great and his successors against the Slavs, a great number of whom they took captive and sold into slavery". I do think the language in the etymology section could be cleaned up. If I were a Slav, I'd also hate the way the name of my people entered many languages in such an unpleasant way. It's been like a thousand years since the crime was committed, though. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

there are so many sources to dispute that claim by the OED that just the prospect of it almost seems ludicrous. Just start at the beginning I suppose. Look at the article on Slavic People, first paragraph, "The Slavs are an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group living in Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Southeast Europe, North Asia and Central Asia, who speak the Indo-European Slavic languages, and share, to varying degrees, certain cultural traits and historical backgrounds. From the early 6th century they spread to inhabit most of Central and Eastern Europe and Southeast Europe.[23] In addition to their main population centre in Europe, some East Slavs (Russians) also settled later in Siberia[24] and Central Asia.[25] Part of all Slavic ethnicities emigrated to other parts of the world.[26][27] Over half of Europe's territory is inhabited by Slavic-speaking communities.[28] The worldwide population of people of Slavic descent is close to 350 million, making Slavs among the largest panethnicities in the world." If the slavs were so enslaved then how could they be one of the largest panethnicities in the world. in the 6th to the 9th centuries, the slavs conquered all the lands that they inhabit to this day. if they were so enslaved, they would not still hold the lands that they conquered well before the medieval times that the oed talks about. its common sense people. I will stop reverting, but there is so much to dispute that claim by oed that I cant believe that someone still wants to keep that up. I have given tonnes of examples in my previous paragraphs. the first paragraph of the slav article should be enough to at least show that the claim is absurd. King Tomislav is on the photo bar of the "Slav" article. First lets agree that that should show you that the word slav does not mean slavery, and that it means something positive, that should be self evident since nobody in their right mind would name their son to be a slave. the latin word for slave also came around that time or before, since their had to have been a word in latin for slave that did not rely on the slavs, before the medieval times. Since the word slave comes from the latin word for slave, how can you not see that it has nothing to do with the slavs, it just doesn't stand to reason. it is complete propaganda.ZYXW9876 (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to provide a single reliable source -- or even unreliable source -- for your position, which at any rate seems to be missing the point. Nobody is saying that "Slav" comes from "slave". All English dictionaries are saying the English word "slave" comes ultimately from from "Slav". Nobody is saying Slavs called themselves "slaves". One reliable source will carry far more weight than your extended comments. It's incumbent on you to find and present those sources -- not your opinion, not what you consider the truth or common sense -- to get what you consider correct information into Wikipedia. Otherwise, this discussion will go nowhere. --jpgordon::==( o ) 13:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

One reliable source for what exactly? That slave didn't come from the word slav? I don't think there is an article about that. Why would there be an article about something that isn't true. Is there an article about why the speed of light isn't equal to 1 m/s? No, because it isn't true. If I'm mistaken, then tell me? What am I supposed to be proving to get rid of this ridiculousness?ZYXW9876 (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That the English word slave has other etymological roots. --NeilN talk to me 14:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
it shouldn't be hard, if its as clear as you say; you can't be the first scholar to question the etymology. -jpgordon::==( o ) 01:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please put this into the article for me, I don't want to for fear of 'vandalism'. From http://wordinfo.info/unit/2770/ip:6/il:S, the etymology is disputed as, " From Latin servire, to be a slave, to serve; from servus, slave, which is an Etruscan loan word. Of course, the modern use of "serve" has gone beyond the "slavery" aspect, but we are considering the etymology of the words which apparently came from the original idea of "slavery".

This Latin serv- is not related to another serv-, -serve which means "to save, to preserve"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

that would be useful were the word in question "servant", "serve", or something like that, but this says nothing about the etymology of the English word "slave". --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Understood. So this is about how the English, Germanic, Romantic speaking world views how the word slave came into the English language, since it is proposed (which is arguable) that many Slavs were slaves at the time. So now the neutral term Slav has a negative connotation to it. Isn't that defamatory? Basically a curse word equal to other curse words about other peoples, like Indian for Native's, Black for African American's, Spiks for Hispanics. The English speaking world, (and Germanic, etc., et. al.) has taken a Slavic word id est slav, which to the slavs has always meant something holy, and turned it into something brutal, something embarrassing, something to giggle at. Something has to be written about this Negative Connotation. Please help me clean it up and find references for Slavs disliking the word Slav. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

NeilN - do not revert my inputs while I am in the process of adding more information. It is making it difficult for me to add info. Give me a little space, I am new to Wikipedia, but am trying to abide by the rules. All sources will be added once I learn how to add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add text without adding a proper source at the same time. There is no reason to add one without the other. After ten minutes, there was no indication you were going to do anything further. --NeilN talk to me 18:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I will try to obtain consensus before modifying, does that sound acceptable? From the Wikipedia article "Slavic Peoples" comes the sentence: "The English word Slav is derived from the Middle English word sclave, which was borrowed from Medieval Latin sclavus "slave,"[38][not in citation given] itself a borrowing and Byzantine Greek σκλάβος sklábos "slave," which was in turn apparently derived from a misunderstanding of the Slavic autonym (denoting a speaker of their own languages). " This contradicts the etymology as stated in this article. To explain, this article claims that the word slave comes from the word "Slav", whereas the Wikipedia article for Slavic people basically states that the word Slav comes from the word slave. I would like to add this to the article. Is that ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry, Wikipedia articles cannot be sources for each other. You cannot say "From the Wikipedia article..." --NeilN talk to me 18:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I won't say that, I will say something to the effect of, "...another source claims that..." and use that source that the other article uses. This will aid in my debate that slave coming from slav or the other way around is complete nonsense. I can use the other articles sources right?ZYXW9876 (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. I'm still confused as to what you're actually going to write, though. --NeilN talk to me 00:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I feel this (edit) section needs to be purged. The primary contender here should write an article regarding the origin of the word Slave. This section has become an indirect (and not truly required) vindication of Slavic Peoples versus a perceived slight found in the Oxford.
The contender himself(herself ?) cites the Viking influence along the seacoast throughout seafaring history. 'English' is a composite language heavily founded with historical contact between seafaring and migratory peoples. There is a high degree of probability that the Vikings had much to do with the word 'Slave' becoming a defacto identifier for slaves abducted from among the slavic peoples, which most probably morphed by popular usage to include any 'Slave' traded along the atlantic and pacific routes.
Many seafaring terms to this day are descendant of the 'Viking' languages, so again, I will go with the probabilities. No, I'm not citing references here, this is the talk page, though I do sincerely hope the contender can dispel any inaccuracies in an appropriate, factual (or even most probable, subject to a BIT of contention) article, with the understanding that the author may face the Red Pen Of Doom.
... 'complete fabrication and non-sense' ... is an example of rhetoric stated in absolute terms.
Also, to the contender I would say, that in my mind, hearing the word 'Slav' does not invoke images of a substandard people or culture. Truly, it invokes images of a group targeted by 1940's era eugenics. Victims. 50.72.157.124 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

ok, I've been researching it, and I want to add right after the sentence, "The word σκλάβος, in turn, comes from the ethnonym Slav, because in some wars in early mediaeval times many Slavs were captured and enslaved.[12][13] An older theory connected it to the Greek verb skyleúo 'to strip a slain enemy'.[14]" the following (or something to the effect of), "It must be noted that at the time this definition was added to the Greek word for Slav to the Greek language, the Great Migration of the Slavs (I will add reference here, lets call this reference number 1) was occurring, and the Slavs were at war with the Byzantine Greeks (I will add ref 2). At times of war, both sides will take prisoners, and the Byzantine Greek prisoners were the Slavs, just as the Slav prisoners were the Greeks. However, the Byzantine Greeks, either due to the fact that they were losing their most beautiful lands (I will add ref 3) or due to the spite of losing the war at all, and since they were at war with the Slavs, they took some Slavs as slaves, and the words morphed together, as often does to language, such as Kleenex and Band-aid." I will add the references numbered hopefully today, or maybe tomorrow. Sorry I don't have much time to update - I wish I did, but alas, I am a slave to the grind, pun intended. I hope someone can help clean it up! I guess I can start my own page with this, but one thing at a time. So, that's my first crack at it for now - how does it sound? Can I add it to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Way too wordy and full of synthesis. --NeilN talk to me 12:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

How about this then, "This is racism"? Do I have to ask before I edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You may not like where the word came from, but describing its etymology is not racism. --NeilN talk to me 13:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

By definition, it is racism. You do not deny it. Is Wikileaks a soapbox too? NeilN, you have a rule for everything. Even if its a fact, you call it a soapbox. Your beloved oem can do no wrong can it, as long as its in your favour. This is a perfect case of anti-slavism, and of racism. You sound like someone from Alabama in the 1950's. Do you allow slavs in the bus with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss neutrally worded and sourced changes to the section I will gladly give my 2 cents. If you wish to engage in hyperbole, then I think we're done here. --NeilN talk to me 14:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Dude (dudette), I totally want your two-cents, but I cant get anywhere. what do you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you honestly not see the use of peacock terms and synthesis in your last suggestion? Pare it down, lose the essay-like rationalizations, and don't state or explain anything the sources don't say. --NeilN talk to me 16:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Look I realize that I am getting frustrated, so how about you help out instead of telling me how I cant say something, how im breaking the rules. You have to see that the OED etymology is biased, unfounded and racist. Sure, I can see how some Slavs were enslaved, but not that many that the word slave comes from slav, or they would have ceased to exist, and wouldn't own most of europe, or be the most populace race. it is not reasonable, it just does not make any sense. it is WRONG on so many levels. just because OED says so, does not mean that it is correct. Anyways.... How about "Others question the reliability of this etymology, because there is no proof for this in other records" or something to that effect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't see how OED is "biased, unfounded and racist." It is describing the unpleasant nature of the origin of the word. And, again, you need sources for "Others question the reliability of this etymology, because there is no proof for this in other records." If you just want to write your opinion or what you "know" is true in articles, then you're not going to get very far. --NeilN talk to me 17:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

ok, how about something like, just to give some perspective, i.e. balance it out "...In stark contrast, many Slavic languages however, define Slav as Glory, Party, etc..." while adding a reference to a Slavic dictionary meaning of the word???ZYXW9876 (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the English article for Slavery. Why would Slavic meanings for slav be relevant? It would be helpful of other editors shared their thoughts. SqueakBox, jpgordon? --NeilN talk to me 19:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Its extremely relevant. You claim that the word comes from a Slavic word, well why not add the Slavic definition as well. like I said, it balances the article and there's no Wikipedia almighty law that must not under any circumstances be broken against it. you are very happy to show that sooo many slavs were enslaved that we just called slave a slav or slav a slave, slave, slav, slav slave slave slave slav slave slav slav. anyways, it belongs on the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

NeilN said that it would be helpful if other editors shared their thoughts: ZYXW9876, I can assure you that, as a native speaker of British English, for me there is absolutely no connection between the words "slave" and "Slav". They are pronounced differently, they refer to fundamentally different things, and I feel confident in saying that there is no link in either the modern English language or the modern English mind between slaves and Slavs: not in popular conceptions, not in politics, not in propaganda. You talk of "nonsense" and "racism" – do you not think people would have dealt with those issues, even promptly, if they thought you had a point? Do you really think that the resistance you've encountered here is because only you know the "truth"? I really think that you need to re-evaluate your position on this. Why not do what you suggested earlier, and contact the OED about the etymology of "slave"? Better still, since it is something you clearly feel strongly about, I strongly recommend you do something which has already been suggested, in so many words: do some serious reading for yourself, focused on the etymology of the English word "slave", and its apparent origin as a by-product of historical developments. Then let us know what you have found. Whatever you find, though, you can be sure that the Slavic meaning of "Slav" has nothing to do with the English word "slave". Nortonius (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a sec here. You put in the French, Latin and Byzantine Greek definition, but you won't put in the Slavic definition? Seems like everybody is allowed to define Slav except the Slavs. That is not complete. This is an encyclopedia, why would you omit the Slavic definition of Slav? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Because those terms were ancestors of the English word. --NeilN talk to me 13:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
…and because this English-language article is about slavery, not Slavs. Nortonius (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no reason that it cannot be thereZYXW9876 (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Nor any reason it should be there, as we've been saying all along. I suggest you find something else to edit; you're not going to get your way on this article. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

hm, it's not my way, it's the actual origin of the word, since the section is in regards to the etymology. Have you turned this into a personal battle? It is not. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It should be there because it is a fact, and most people don't know that its origin is actually the opposite of its intention, i.e. glory, happiness, etc. This should be in Wikipedia. Now when someone talks to someone else about the etymology of the word slave, they can have the full story, not just that it comes from 'Slav'. Thank you for your audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The OED uses the original language translation for the word being defined if it is relavant, e.g. for the word "Croat", the OED writes, "Origin: from modern Latin Croatae (plural), from Serbian and Croatian Hrvat". It is relevant for slave in this case since it shows how words can be completely altered in meaning from one language to another, and for the reason given above. Does anyone mind if I add the Slavic definition for "Slav" behind the other languages defining Slav? ZYXW9876 (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I mind. This isn't the article for "Slav". --NeilN talk to me 19:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. If you wish to have this discussion at Talk:Slav, feel free, but this has no bearing on the English word "Slave". --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That's just POV. There is no reason other than your POV not to put it on, and that isn't good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

So, you ask if anyone minds, and if anyone minds, you say "that isn't good enough." You really should go spend the next several months -- or at least five minutes -- studying WP:CONSENSUS, and learn why your approach isn't succeeding. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Slav is a Slavic word. Greeks did not use it before the Slavs used it. The Byzantine Greek neighbours obviously got it from the Slavs. This article references Slav. How can you not see that. All I did was include "From Slavic glory". This sentence should be included because IT IS TRUE. I thought you would see that. You removed it, but why? You constantly make this personal, when it is not. Speak to the facts, and if you know why the aforementioned sentence is not fact and therefore does not belong, I will gladly move on. Otherwise stop warring. By the way, if there were so many Slavs enslaved, enough to warrant the word slave to come from Slav, then why is there no mention of this in the article other than in the terminology section. Think about it.ZYXW9876 (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"...and Byzantine Greek σκλάβος sklábos "slave," which was in turn apparently derived from a misunderstanding of the Slavic autonym (denoting a speaker of their own languages)." Nothing about glory. --NeilN talk to me 13:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
As to your second question, see the daughter article Slavery in medieval Europe. Do you really want more content about Slavs being slaves in this article? --NeilN talk to me 13:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

the Slavs called themselves Slavs before the Greeks called us Slavs, and our meaning is the origin of the word. Instead of trying to prove I'm wrong, why don't you do as the OED is doing at this present time and investigate if there is any merit to what I'm saying. If you put any thought into it whatsoever, you would find that for the benefit of Wikipedia, the Slavs were the first to use the word and it meant something positive, i.e. glory, etc. Just because the rest of the world twisted it around, to insult the Slavs, or whatever retarded reason, I guess like calling the Africans the N word, doesn't mean that what I'm saying is not correct. If the OED can investigate, why can't you? Are you so set in your own way now? I can't wait until the OED changes their definition! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC) OOOOhhh that's funny. I just looked at "On this day..." on the opening page of Wikipedia, and it was about the Russian ship Slava, i.e. "Slava (Russian: Слава "Glory") was a pre-dreadnought battleship of the Imperial Russian Navy, the last of the five Borodino-class battleships..." Fitting!ZYXW9876 (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Glory 12:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to make this clearer: If you want to add something then it's up to YOU to source it. Not anybody else. --NeilN talk to me 13:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Also please don't copy-paste contents of sources into articles. --NeilN talk to me 13:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I did source it. Slav does not mean a lot of Slavs were enslaved. it means glory.Glory 13:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs)

Your edit, "σκλάβος, from Slavic glory." could be taken two ways:
  1. The Greek σκλάβος has its roots from Slavic glory -> no sources provided
  2. The English slave has its roots from Slavic glory -> no sources provided
Remember your observations are not reliable sources. --NeilN talk to me 13:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Theres no sources for that entire first sentence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Check the sources in the subsequent paragraph. They source the content. --NeilN talk to me 14:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

and Slav means Glory — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources do not say that. Even Slavs#Ethnonym does not say that. --NeilN talk to me 14:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You are completely ridiculous! Exactly when did the English call themselves Anglo's? That is what you are asking me to define. That is ridiculous! Slava meant glory since BCE times. That is what they would do in their festivals to their gods. Then at contact from the Greeks, onto Latins, etc etc, they turned it, the Slavs most important ritual, into SLAVERY. They should be ashamed of themselves, and you too for trying to restrict this truth.ZX9RGlory (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You have received absolutely no support from any other editor and at least a half dozen editors have reverted you. Do you just plan on going on forever with the same arguments that nobody is accepting? I am not sure why other editors are even responding to you -- it is well past the point where AGF applies. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Lemmings. Do you believe the world is flat too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Earth#Shape. Notice all the sources? --NeilN talk to me 15:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha Ha — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The town of Preslav of the 9th century is based on the Slavic language. What do you think that word means - big slavery? No, it means much glory. Slav means glory. This use of the word slav comes way before the Greek or Latin use. They couldn't understand the difference between slava, meaning worship / glory, and slave. So slave it was. Slavs weren't enslaved, they took the most beautiful lands of the world for themselves. Slaves - ya, rightZX9RGlory (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, you're not fooling anybody. So what if you have three or four different emails, and three or four different nicknames. You do not own Wikipedia. You know the truth and its killing you that you are wrong. You're not fooling anyone.ZX9RGlory (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry are taken very seriously on Wikipedia. From WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." I suggest you immediately retract your accusation. --NeilN talk to me 17:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I imagine I'm one of the proposed sockpuppets. Shall I checkuser myself to find out? --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Heh. Knew you were an admin. Didn't realize you were a checkuser as well. Anyways, we'll have peace and quiet for at least 48 hours. --NeilN talk to me 18:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"we'll have peace and quiet for at least 48hrs" - neiln: you don't have to reply, no one is making you reply. also, that sentence proves this is personal to you. "Slav means glory". This will be added to balance this part of the article. The writing on this article, namely "because in some wars in early mediaeval times many Slavs were captured and enslaved" is not the same thing as the OED origin which states, "the Slavonic peoples had been reduced to a servile state by conquest in the 9th century". This has to be changed as wellZYXW9876 (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"Slav means glory" - unsourced and irrelevant. Edit warring to add it back in will likely get you blocked, this time for a longer time.
"because in some wars in early mediaeval times many Slavs were captured and enslaved" - how is it substantially different? Remember we cannot copy sources word for word. --NeilN talk to me 12:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Can someone with access to the OED verify the claim that it states that "the Slavonic peoples had been reduced to a servile state by conquest in the 9th century"? Earlier in this discussion, Rjenson posted what appears to be a long quote from the OED, which does not contain this statement. For clarity I'll requote what Rjenson posted from the OED: medieval Latin sclavus, identical with the racial name Sclavus, the Slavonic population in parts of central Europe having been reduced to a servile condition by conquest; the transferred sense is clearly evidenced in documents of the 9th century. Note that time frame of the servile condition is not specified, only that the transferred sense is evidenced in documents of the 9th century. The condition of the Slavonic peoples in the 9th century may be irrelevant to how the meaning of the term evolved in earlier times. older ≠ wiser 13:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This has the wording. --NeilN talk to me 13:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, yes. That is the online Oxford Dictionary of English, which is separate from the Oxford English Dictionary. Of course, it is still a reputable source, just not quite the same as the gold standard of the OED, especially with regards to etymology and historical usage. Also of interest may be Saqaliba and Volga Bulgaria, which relates much the same information. older ≠ wiser 13:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Who are these Slavonic peoples that the OED refers to? Do you expect anyone with any brains at all to believe that all the Slavonic peoples were reduced to a servile state, just because the OED says so? That is ridiculous! If the OED said the world was flat would you put that into ikipedia? Wikipedia used to be a source of knowledge, all see now what it really is, a propaganda machine. If enough people support a thought, no matter how ridiculous, it will be added as an entry. Especially if it is a racist thought against a peoples half a world away that do not care to speak English and have their own propaganda against the Anglo-Saxons and Arabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Why is the Dinka picture labeled 'Myths-Slavery'? Is someone implying slavery is a myth?69.14.86.168 (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

In the 'Present days' section, we can read: "In Mauritania, the last country to abolish slavery (in 1981) [...]" and " Niger officially abolished slavery in 2003." That doesn't make sense... Amqui (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is a bit ambiguous. Mauritania abolished/banned slavery in 1981 by a presidential decree but it was still widespread. It wasn't until 2007 that they criminalized the act through legal statutes. So maybe these details should be clarified in the article, and here's the source they used. [3]Scoobydunk (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

So Mauritania is not the last country to "abolish" slavery, it is the last country to "criminalize" it (maybe), according to what you say (I didn't read the reference yet). Thanks, Amqui (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 October 2013

Massachusetts was the first slave-holding colony in New England, though the exact beginning of black slavery in what became Massachusetts cannot be dated exactly. Slavery there is said to have predated the settlement of Massachusetts Bay colony in 1629, and circumstantial evidence gives a date of 1624-1629 for the first slaves. "Samuel Maverick, apparently New England's first slaveholder, arrived in Massachusetts in 1624 and, according to [John Gorham] Palfrey, owned two Negroes before John Winthrop, who later became governor of the colony, arrived in 1630."[1]

The first certain reference to African slavery is in connection with the bloody Pequot War in 1637. The Pequot Indians of central Connecticut, pressed hard by encroaching European settlements, struck back and attacked the town of Wetherfield. A few months later, Massachusetts and Connecticut militias joined forces and raided the Pequot village near Mystic, Connecticut. Of the few Indians who escaped slaughter, the women and children were enslaved in New England, and Roger Williams of Rhode Island wrote to Winthrop congratulating him on God's having placed in his hands "another drove of Adams' degenerate seed." But most of the men and boys, deemed too dangerous to keep in the colony, were transported to the West Indies aboard the ship Desire, to be exchanged for African slaves. The Desire arrived back in Massachusetts in 1638, after exchanging its cargo, according to Winthrop, loaded with "Salt, cotton, tobacco and Negroes."

"Such exchanges became routine during subsequent Indian wars, for the danger of keeping revengeful warriors in the colony far outweighed the value of their labor."[2] In 1646, this became the official policy of the New England Confederation. As elsewhere in the New World, the shortage and expense of free, white labor motivated the quest for slaves. In 1645, Emanuel Downing, brother-in-law of John Winthrop, wrote to him longing for a "juste warre" with the Pequots, so the colonists might capture enough Indian men, women, and children to exchange in Barbados for black slaves, because the colony would never thrive "untill we gett ... a stock of slaves sufficient to doe all our business."[3] Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). 1. Lorenzo Johnston Greene, The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776. N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1942, p.16. 2. Edgar J. McManus, Black Bondage in the North, p.6. 3. Greene, p.62.

205.166.218.70 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think your information is well worded and well researched, but is too focused/specific to be included "as is" within this particular article. This article is about slavery in general and what you want to contribute belongs in an article more specific to slavery in the English colonies or slavery in New England, or slavery in Massachusetts. The only logical place where I could insert this information is into the "Americas" section, but if you look, you'll notice that it is made up of key statements that together define slavery in America. So if you want to boil this down to 1 or 2 statements about slavery, then I'll be happy to insert it. Maybe something that says that the first recorded account of Negro slavery in the English colonies occurred in 1638 when Governor Winthrop stated that Pequot men were traded for "...salt, cotton, tobacco, and Negroes...". Three years later Massachusetts passed the Body of Liberties which is the first set of legal statutes legalizing slavery in the English Colonies. <--Whatever you want to include should be kept short and concise and only mention the key points. The majority of your information is too in depth for the purposes of this article. Also, you statement about Mass. being the first slave holding colony is a contested opinion, as some historians think slavery existed from the onset of Negroes being brought to Jamestown in 1619. So if that statement is specifically said in your source, then make sure you quote it but still use language that demonstrates a controversy as to when slavery actually began in the English colonies. You can read more about that here: [4] Scoobydunk (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Not done:. I agree with what Scoobydunk wrote above. But also, this is a straight copy of text that is to be found at several places on the web -- see this Google search. I don't know its copyright status, but in the above raw form it's inadequately sourced. It needs paraphrasing, proper citation, and the right level of detail. --Stfg (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 October 2013

Some proofreading:

Search for "Christians slaves". Should be "Christian slaves" losing an "s".

Search for ".Domination". Should be ". Domination" with a space.

Search for "Compensating". Should be "compensating" uncapitalized.

Search for "In Film". Should be "In film", uncapitalized F. 98.247.55.21 (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. William Avery (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A single word for freer of slaves

Abolitionist is a 19th century term that applies to political activism in general. Is there a better word to describe the liberators of slaves? CensoredScribe (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hm, where is it used for political activism in general? Certainly in the US it exclusively refers to slavery; what's the international connotation if otherwise? --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, the freeing of individual slaves is known as manumission. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the issue is that you can be an abolitionist without actually freeing any slaves. John Brown and Lincoln actually freed slaves and were called "liberators." I think Jpgordon is right for the *legal* freeing of individual slaves, in which case the person who did it would be a "manumitter" (a word which, much to my surprise, is actually in the OED, first attested in 1774).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Slave owner does not exist!!!

I created Category Fictional slave owner however Ryulong and others are opposing my creation of a category for historical slave owners. There is a discussion on the administrators noticeboard bout this. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#CensoredScribe's categories on discussion on how CensoredScribe is inappropriately making dozens of categories of questionable quality. CensoredScribe, this is not the page to make this sort of discussion, either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Failed verification

As of 06:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC), the article is semi-protected and says: "In 2010 in Brazil more than 5,000 slaves were rescued by authorities as part of a government initiative to eradicate slavery." But the source given in the article does not support this.

I suggest somebody change the source to http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/03/brazil-slavery-poverty-farm-workers#box and the article sentence to "In 2010 in Brazil, 4,634 slaves were rescued by authorities as part of a government initiative to eradicate slavery." --82.83.81.195 (talk)

There is some inaccuracy here. Both the indicated sources say that these slaves were freed in 2008; and this is a slightly cleaner link to the Guardian article. In this edit I've kept the BBC source, added the Guardian source, changed "In 2010" to "In 2008", changed the number of slaves to "about 5,000" to reflect the conflict between the sources and re-worked the rest of the sentence for sense and accuracy. Thanks for reporting that something was up. Nortonius (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Encyclopedia Britannica, History of Europe - Middle Ages - Growth and innovation - Demographic and agricultural growth
  2. ^ F. Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 2002, siehe «Sklave».
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slavery/Archive_4&oldid=1144183182"