This is an archive of past discussions about Slavery. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'd like for us to revisit this section, as well as Wikipedia's general recommendation for using the term "slave."
The article currently reads: There is a dispute among historians about whether terms such as "unfree labourer" or "enslaved person", rather than "slave", should be used when describing the victims of slavery. According to those proposing a change in terminology, slave perpetuates the crime of slavery in language by reducing its victims to a nonhuman noun instead of "carry[ing] them forward as people, not the property that they were". Other historians prefer slave because the term is familiar and shorter, or because it accurately reflects the inhumanity of slavery, with person implying a degree of autonomy that slavery does not allow.[15]
The reference is from 2015 (and actually concludes that the magazine will use the term "enslaved person". The discussion has moved forward in the last seven years, particularly in the United States. For example, the US National Park Service addresses the terminology and states "....the use of the term "slave" to describe African Americans indicates that the individual accepted the term as a definition of their own humanity. "Enslaved," meanwhile, demonstrates the condition of the individual within the class and economic system of the dominant society, and less of an internalized, or intellectual condition."
The source you suggest is rather problematic, as it explicitly refers to African American slaves only. What about slaves in other countries or from other ethnic groups? Imposing American values to world history is Americentrism. Dimadick (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, this is less of an issue about "imposing American values to world history" but possibly more an issue about dictating the use of the English language. As authors and readers of the English language, those in the USA can use it how they desire. How other non-english speaking countries choose to refer to "slaves" will not be impacted, they can continue to use whatever nouns they like. I would say if we were trying to alter another countries actual language to fit this model of "humanizing" those who have been enslaved, then yes, we would be imposing our values. Sure they may feel inspired, but it would still need to be adopted (or not) by their scholars. For example, as much as "America" or "Hollywood"[[1]] may want to get the Spanish to refer to a motion picture as a "movie" they will continue to call it a "película". As far as other English speaking countries, the same would be true, they can choose how their particular English speaking, writing, reading society wants to refer to enslaved people. As far as I know, Australians still say "G'day" instead of "good morning". As much as "Americans" may want the rest of the world to use the term "Soccer", English speakers outside of the USA continue to use their equivalent "football" [[2]], in fact there is no entry in Wikipedia for "soccer". Now if a proverbial "better mousetrap"[[3]] is devised, such as "enslaved person" instead of "slave", it may be adopted by all users of English, for example, how people who have short stature have adopted being referred to as "little people" instead of "dwarfs" [[4]]. Ducky008 (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
As somebody finishing off my university studies with a specialisation in Slavery in the United States, I hope I might be able to bring some insight into how this subject is discussed among scholars (not that I consider myself to be one right now). I think many people confuse the discourse surrounding this terminology in academia and the discourse among members of the public. The interpretation of the academic discourse (and in a broad sense the public discourse as well) given in the paragraph quoted by you from the current Wikipedia article, is still accurate. There is no consensus among scholars and many choose to still use the word 'slave' for the reasons mentioned in the Wikipedia article. It is still very much an ongoing debate that is far from being resolved. What you consider the discussion "moving forward" is above all a shift in the terminology used by several non-academic institutions.
This is reflected in your use of the US National Park Service as an example. the US National Park Service is not an academic authority in the area of slavery, but a government entity which follows either political motivations or the personal opinions of members of the boards of the relevant monuments, the majority of which are not necessarily historians specialised in North American slavery. These types of sources should therefore not be used to highlight anything other than the shifting popular opinion, as it is far from a scholarly source. Furthermore, the reference from 2015 you mention in your comment also is not a scholarly source. The fact that it concludes with a preference for "enslaved person" is meaningless for the scholarly debate on the terminology, as I was not able to find any information referring to the author having done any historical research or education.
I would like to conclude by emphasising the fact that the scholarly discourse surrounding this terminology is far from hostile and that both sides tend to agree that the most importance should be placed on the actual content of the work, regardless of word choice. It is important to stress both the agency and the dehumanisation that took place under chattel slavery, without having one detract from the importance of the other. The words you choose to make that point is a matter of debate, but generally amicably left to the author in question.
(I also believe it is important to keep in mind that this debate is mostly being approached from a United States/chattel slavery perspective. This is also the only type of slavery I myself have any level of extensive knowledge on. I therefore do not know how applicable this debate would be to scholarship on other kinds of slavery. Considering this is a Wikipedia article regarding slavery as a whole, this should be taken into consideration.) CatAppreciator29 (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I just came across the term 'enslaved person' in an article and was confused because I thought that something other than 'slave' was meant. Maybe someone who was not born into slavery? But it turns out it means the same thing. That makes the term rather confusing. And more than that, it robs us of the option to use the term in the aforementioned sense, 'a slave not born into slavery', which makes more sense grammatically.
But also, I don't understand the reasoning. For example, I am Dutch. But that is not by my own choice. Furthermore, I am (I think) forced to have a nationality (wichever it is). But I am opposed to that because I regard myself as a human, a world citizen, not inherently Dutch. So am I not Dutch but 'a Dutchised person'? DirkvdM (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
You're seriously saying the state of being enslaved is comparable to the state of being Dutch? Who forced you to be Dutch? Who chased you down and put you in chains if you decided you didn't want to be Dutch? What the change in wording does is shift the agency of enslavement; the unpleasant condition is not "being a slave", the unpleasant condition is "being enslaved by someone". This is actually an entirely neutral change in, or addition to, terminology that Wikipedia can implement without adding any non-neutral POV, other than strengthening "slavery is bad". --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇15:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't understand the reasoning. I interpreted it as that being a slave is not an inherent characteristic of a person. So it's a person, and something has been done to them that was not their choice. In that sense it is similar to me being Dutch. Now, given that I have to have a nationality, I don't mind being Dutch, but what about people who hate their nationality (there can be loads of reasons for this). DirkvdM (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, you speak of being chased down and put into chains. That applies to enslaved people (the way I would understand that word), not people born into slavery, as I was born into being Dutch, so that doesn't apply here.
(On a side note, my father hid in the Biesbosch to escape forced labour in Germany during WWII. And I suppose that was a result of his nationality, although I am not sure how this was for Germans.)
But more importantly, the alternative terminology is about stressing how bad being a slave is. But firstly, some people choose slavery out of their own free will (although the reasons for that may also be bad, but then we'd get into a discussion about for example the downsides of the free market). But also, who decides when to apply this? Does it also apply to the de facto forced labour of 19th century factory workers? Using the alterative terminology for slaves but not for them would suggest that they didn't have it that bad, which would be rather insulting.
Ultimately, it is not up to an encyclopedia to determine these things. Describing slavery already demonstrates how bad it is. It is up to the reader to conclude that. Same goes for 19th century factory work. And some might argue that forced labour by prisoners is entirely justifiable. It is still part of US law. Slavery is such a broad subject that you can not condemn it beforehand, either in the used terminology of otherwise.
To quote the rulebook, it violates the rule of Neutral point of view: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." (My italics.) DirkvdM (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
That is new to me. Well not the 'be bold' bit, but that basically means you are allowed to make mistakes because they can be corrected. But it also states that the rules are not set in concrete, just guidelines. But that really means that you can deviate from them, but you would then have to have a good reason for it. So as long as no consensus has been reached about breaking the guideline, NPOV prevails. Furthermore, if I understand correctly, IAR is just a proposal that is still a matter of debate.
You compare it with murder and nazism, and I agree that those are bad things, but the point here is that how you or I think about them is beside the point. I think death sentences are a bad idea, but many disagree. Same with war. As long as there are people who agree with death sentences (a form of murder) or forced labour for prisoners (a form of slavery), Wikipedia should not take a POV (either way). DirkvdM (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
1) The expression "enslaved people" doesn't imply that slavery is bad. It just implies that slaves are people, something enslavers often denied (in theory and / or in practice). 2) All reasonable human beings agree that slavery is bad. So, even if the term "enslaved people" implied that slavery was bad, that would still not violate NPOV. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Now I am really confused. At first I understood that the new terminology was about stressing that it is something that is forced onto you, wich is not of your own choice, such as nationality. But jpgordon says that is not it, it has more to do with being chased down and put into chains, which I interpreted as it being about slavery being bad. And now you say that it is not about that either.
Of course different people can interpret the terminology in different ways, but that only illustrates that the terminology is confusing, which was my initial problem with it.
And yes, an excuse for slavery was that only non-humans were made into slaves, but that is not quite the case anymore. Activists at the time may have used such alternate terminology to stress that that is not true, but there is hardly a need for that anymore, to put it mildly. DirkvdM (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The difference is, you have a voice, you can choose to refer to yourself however you like. In fact, if you want to refer to yourself as "citizen of the world" go right ahead (or continue to). If you want to refer to yourself as "Dutchized person" go right ahead. This scholarly adoption of "enslaved person" by reliable sources (which is taking place) over the word "slave" appears to be rooted in seeking a better way to refer to victims of a serious crime, many who do not have voices, or died in an enslaved status. Where your mother chose to give birth to you, and the legal title assigned to you by the land which you were born (or first arrived, or flagged vessel if born at sea), is not a recognized crime on any countries legal books. While it may seem unfair to be assigned a legal title without your consent, which is a fair point, sorry; the only way you might have escaped such title is if you were born in a raft in the middle of the ocean and were not declared upon returning to land.Ducky008 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Reading the article, I came across the sentence "It is estimated that 25% or more of the population of Ancient Rome was enslaved". Had I not already known about this alternate terminology, my interpretation would have been that Romans captured in battle were made into slaves, wich in antiquity was a common way to acquire slaves (as can be read in the next sentence: "Slaves represented 15–25% of Italy's population, mostly war captives"). At first, that would have baffled me, were so many Roman soldiers captured by other people? But no, it bit further I read "Generally, slaves in Italy were indigenous Italians". Ah, that would explain it. But now I am really confused about that first sentence. Does it mean what I first thought, so slaves elsewhere, or in that last sense, Romans who were enslaved in Rome? (Also, if it is the latter, how can that second quote be correct, but that is more a matter of content than terminology - or is it?)
And again, a bit further down, "In the Senegambia region, between 1300 and 1900, close to one-third of the population was enslaved". Does that mean that one-third of the population were slaves, or that one-third of the population was captured and taken elsewhere, to become slaves, as can be read a bit further; "Africans were sent as slaves to the Arabian Peninsula, [...]"?
And, oh dear, still further I read "Slave-owning people". Does that mean that they were not slave-owners by choice? And shouldn't that then be "enslaved persons owning people"? DirkvdM (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not a native speaker of English, but I can assure you that I have no problems understanding the meaning of the expressions you are making fun of. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Making fun of? Well, maybe that last bit, but I am addressing a serious problem. Had I not known about this alternative terminology I would have misunderstood that fiirst sentence that 25 % of the population were enslaved. I suppose this is a grammatical problem because 'enslaved' can mean two things. What I assume is meant is 'enslaved people' (eg captured elsewhere and taken to Rome), but I would have read it as 'made into slaves' (eg Romans captured and taken away). Those are two radically different things. But then there is also the problem I had when I first encountered the wording and thought it meant 'not born into slavery'. Not as big a difference, but still confusing. DirkvdM (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I have been looking up 'slavery', 'slave', 'enslaved' and 'slave vs enslaved' on the internet and as far as I could see (eg by looking at the address or spelling) only sites from the US mention 'enslaved' in the meaning of 'slave' (so not in the meaning of 'made into a slave'). So is this debate limited to the US? If so, it would be a case of Americentrism (and the USA represents only about 5% of the world population). But more than that, even there it is still a matter of debate. And a fairly recent one at that, I understand.
If a familiar term (in casu 'slave') is to be changed, there should be some consensus about it, if only to avoid confusion. This holds true in everyday life. But for Wikipedia this is even more true. It should mention the debate, but not take a stand. Only when a majority of sources use 'enslaved' in this alterative meaning should a change on Wikipedia be considered. But even then there remain the problems of grammatical confusion and (possibly) NPOV-violation, as mentioned above. DirkvdM (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Its also increasingly popular in the UK, which imports much of its moral zeitgeist from the US. The change in terminology is somewhat more radical than most people seem to understand. Effectively what is being asked is to not use the term 'slave' any more. This would lead us to say things such as 'The Atlantic Enslaved Person Trade' or 'enslaved person plantations' or 'George Washington was an enslaved person owner'. I don't see why 'slave trade' is acceptable if 'slave' is not. But the fact is this: 'slave' is a useful word. It describes a certain social state in which it is possible to be. To say we should have no specific word for this state is downright odd. LastDodo (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
It's not that much more complex, to fix your examples, it would be "The Trans-Atlantic trade of enslaved people"; scholars are also moving away from plantation, so it would be "labor camp for enslaved people", and "George Washington owned enslaved people". I would agree, if "slave" goes, then so should "slave trade", it will likely become "the trade of enslaved people".Ducky008 (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I wish you luck in getting most people to use the term 'The Trans-Atlantic trade of enslaved people', but regardless, my main point remains. Effectively what is being asked is to not use the term 'slave' any more. And since there is nothing special about that word, really what is being asked is to have no word for a widespread and important state of being which we have common need to refer to. I don't recall any previous sitation in which such a request is made. 'No', you say. 'It is important we have no word for this commonly referred to and important thing!' It is quite extraordinary. LastDodo (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I can't remember anybody having asked not to use the word "slave" any more. What is being asked is to use a language that reminds our readers that enslaved persons were - persons. Washington was an enslaver - even more easy than "slave owner". Rsk6400 (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
'Enslaver' and 'slave owner' are two different things. The former is a person who enslaves people and the latter uses them. And in between are slave traders. The distiction between the three is useful, so using 'enslaver' in all cases is confusing. DirkvdM (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
But that is what is being asked. That is why you [edit: not you, but I assume you agree] suggest replacing the word slave in every context. Why you [same mistake] want people to talk of the 'transatlantic trade in enslaved persons'. If not, then when in your view is it appropriate to use the word 'slave'? LastDodo (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I personally use both "enslaved people / person(s)" and "slave(s)". As a modifier, e.g. in "slave trade", "slave market", I use "slave". Rsk6400 (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
But then how are you not falling foul of your own criteria of needing to 'use a language that reminds our readers that enslaved persons were - persons'? As Ducky writes above 'I would agree, if "slave" goes, then so should "slave trade"'. In other words the word 'slave' should go entirely, and since there is nothing special about that word, there should be no equivalent word. Perhaps this is not your view, but you can see it is clearly some people's. LastDodo (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Although I do not tend to do so myself, there is a broad consensus among scholars that choose to use "enslaved person" rather than "slave" regarding most of the issues raised here. "Trans-Atlantic slave trade" is generally still used as a concept in and of itself, as is the case with other broadly fixed terms like "slave patrols", "runaway slave advertisements" and "slave market/auction". However, as is the case with any set of words, when used regularly in a sentence one might use something like "the Trans-Atlantic trade of these enslaved people/Africans/etc.". This is not new, and has been done for many decades.
Furthermore, a few words beyond "slave" have also been replaced accordingly. "Slavery" is often replaced by "enslavement" where such a choice makes sense in relation to the context. "Slaveholder" and "Master" are replaced by "enslaver". Occasionally "plantation" will be replaced by "forced labour camp", but in my experience this is not as common, as forced labour camps invoke their own associations and nuances which might not be applicable wholesale to North American chattel slavery. When refering to someone who was only enslaved later in life and originated from Africa, they will often say "enslaved African". When they were enslaved later in life, but did not come from Africa, this will simply be clarified in the text itself.
I myself prefer to reserve "enslaved" for those that were not born into slavery and to refer to the forced transformation of a free person into a "slave". However, that does not mean I do not respect the choice of some (respected, knowledgeable and experienced) scholars to have a different opinion. Some of the comments made in this thread seem to forget that these are academics and not schoolchildren they are talking about. You may disagree with them on some complex and nuanced issues, but you should assume they will have taken some of the more obvious issues raised here into consideration long ago, as they indeed have. CatAppreciator29 (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Off topic, but replacing 'plantation' with 'labour camp' is even more confusing because they mean entirely different things. A labour camp is not necessarily a plantation and a plantation doesn't have to be a labour camp. (On a side note, Amsterdam has a neighbourhood called Plantage (the Dutch word for it) because it was the green part of Amsterdam. Hardly a labour camp, it was where the rich people lived.
Back on topic, replacing 'slavery' with 'enslavement' is confusing because the latter is the act of making someone into a slave. So if you do that, how would you express that act? Similarly, like I already mentioned, the grammatical meaning of 'an enslaved person' is someone who has been made into a slave, so not born into slavery (the confusion that led me to look up the terminology here).
In short, it's complicated because of the ambiguity and because it's overly long (harder to read). And it's confusing to those who are not accustomed to this newspeak.
And it's completely pointless because it is quite clear what is meant by the word 'slave'. Stressing that that is a bad thing is quite unneccesary. Or is it about that? Protagonists seem to disagree amongst themselves (see above, where I'm "really confused"), illustrating how confusing it is. DirkvdM (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@CatAppreciator29: I'm afraid I do not share your high opinion of this part of academia, the source of all this newspeak. Perhaps you can respond to my charge that got my previous interlocutors to go quiet: this campaign effectively amounts not only to removing the word 'slave' from the lexicon, but to have no word for that thing that 'slave' refers to. This, it must surely be admitted, is extremely novel and unusual. No we mustn't have a word for that thing is an argument I've heard nowhere before from anybody, ever. Even Voldermort was called 'He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named'. Also note that the term 'enslaved person' and 'slave' are not synonyms, for example just try substituting the term in this article. All these substitutions are transparently motivated by the desire to condemn various things associated with slavery by using new words that have other associations because they refer to something different. The only reason 'enslaved person' is preferred to 'slave' is because it sounds worse, but it only sounds worse because it refers to a different thing (enslaving a free person). The same goes for the other terms. The second the replacement of the term becomes universally used and accepted, the replacment becomes pointless, creating an imperative for a constant roll-over of terms, which is frankly intolerable to the general population and undermines the very purpose of language (communication). LastDodo (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I came across this opinion piece & thought it relevant.
A bunch of activists appear to be replacing the word 'slave' all over Wikipedia. But let me repeat, it is not up to us to decide these things. Wikipedia should not take a stand. Only when (the majority of) dictionaries omit or condemn the word 'slave' (or 'slave owner' or 'plantation') should Wikipedia do the same. And if they don't universally agree on the usage of the word I'd say Wikipedia should be conservative and not change the wording until there is agreement. However, some appear to be doing that already. I view that as vandalism. DirkvdM (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Universal agreement is probably a bit much to ask for, but if people are going to go round replacing terms, they should at least be able to defend that choice. And yet after my previous comment on 5 July all there has been is the pleasant sound of crickets. Incidentally, since I wrote that I have come across the term Euphemism Treadmill, and it seems the concept of a slave has now stepped on to it. LastDodo (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
History
There are a few concerns about the history section. This is the main article and summary style should count for something but the history section keeps bloating up. It is up to the point that the cuba subsection, for example, has seven paragraphs and if due weight counts for something I do not see how those subsections should be that detailed relative to other sections. If each country was that detailed this would be an unnavigatable article. Additionally, the format only makes it worse. It is first chronological (Early History, Classical Antiquity, Middle Ages, Early Modern Period, Late Modern Period) and then each of those is again divided by geography. The History of Slavery section formats it much cleaner and better with dividing it by geography. As we are considering the world wide history of slavery, there is no reason to break the sections, for example, between classical antiquity and middle ages for the whole world - The way slavery was practiced in the Americas didn't change before and after the Roman Empire fell. JustBeCool (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2023
This edit request to Slavery has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I noticed that the image of shackles appears on the pages of formerly enslaved people but not on the pages of abolitionists. Why is this? It's as if we definite the people who were formerly enslaved as forever tied to this imagery. They may have escaped slavery as young people and spent the rest of their lives pursuing their visions of freedom. Why should they still be identified with shackles when they so passionately wished to leave that identity behind for themselves and others? The shackle imagery doesn't acknowledge the whole arc of their lives and the powerful impacts they had on our societies. 199.204.33.18 (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I think some examples would be useful here, rather than others having to look through the articles of former slaves to see what you are talking about. I just checked the page for Olaudah Equiano and see no shackles. LastDodo (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Image
Since slavery has appeared in vastly different forms over the centuries, I think one lead image alone would not do it justice. Why don't we include a multi-image display of slavery from ancient times to the present day to help inform readers how it has changed over time. Thoughts anyone? The Night Watch(talk)12:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The image should reflect 'slavery' as best as possible. The current image only shows a whipped man. Imagine the image was of some white dude with a whipped back. Would that represent 'slavery'? Not really, even though there no doubt have been many white slaves with whipped backs. Something with people with shackles or neck-rings and doing some work would probably be more appropriate as even though not all slaves wore them, it captures the essence of slavery, which is that one is unfree and forced to do labour of some kind. I think the previous image Relief depicting slaves in chains in the Roman Empire, at Smyrna, 200 CE. captured this a bit better, but its not brilliant and I'm not averse to a photomontage. LastDodo (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Bible
Under the identification section there is original research quoting the bible with no other sources. Can someone remove this please 49.224.126.70 (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2023
This edit request to Slavery has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Add source to "Following the indigenous Taíno's near decimation from forced labour, disease and war, the Spanish, under advisement of the Catholic priest Bartolomeu de las Casas, and with the blessing of the Catholic church began engaging in earnest in the kidnapped and forced labour of African slaves." It can easily be found other places that Bartolomeu de las Casas did not advocate for kidnapping and chattel slavery, and later retracted suggesting using Africans instead. Cite a source for 'with the blessing of the Catholic Church'. Pepper022 (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi where do you get that Spain used natives forced labor to conquest the indigenous peoples in the Americas ?
Furthermore please note that the references for "It was argued by some contemporary writers to be intrinsically immoral" this statement has nothing to do with what is expressed in the previous paragraph and has nothing to do with the references provided JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
No reference for this: The Spanish colonies were the first Europeans to use African slaves in the New World on islands such as Cuba and Hispaniola
No reference for this: The Spanish colonies were the first Europeans to use African slaves in the New World on islands such as Cuba and Hispaniola. As long as there is not a reference this statement should not be marked JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
It says here that the triangular slave trade was pioneered by Francis Drake. This is clearly incorrect. It might have been Francis Drake's, employer John Hawkins who was behind England's first 4 slaving expeditions to Africa, as is shown on the Wikepedia's
web pages on John Hawkins and Francis Drake. ClayJohn7 (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023
This edit request to Slavery has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Etymoligy is removed. And current context + etymoligy begins at 1669 in "Middle English". Im assured historically, logically and by all accounts, in about 237 peer reviewed studies of the practice of "Slavery". In all forms, are much older. Much more sinister. And much more prevalent. Please cease to be a probaganda platform. Please document "History" Not whatever the CIA or any other "Secret state police" agencies Decrees. You have just pursuaded me to keep ALL of my books... Wikipedia is now a "NON VALID" source of information for my university. Good day... Yours Truly 176.22.192.180 (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
How am I supposed to change this very obvious incorrect statement? Frederick II was from the 13th century. Hell, he gave five black slaves to the king of Norway in the 1240s. That's more than a little before 1300.
The text cited in the article says the Radhanites indeed traded in slaves but there's nothing in the source that says the slaves were destined to China, even if Radhadnite merchants had a presence there. The article on slavery in China notes that slaves were from Asia, not Europe. Most slaves from the West were destined to go to the Middle East, where they served as soldiers etc (e.g. Mamluks). It looks like there's information with a citation on this topic under the heading of Medieval Europe. Ehgarrick (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I find it odd that the introduction has three references to Islam.
Hello. I'm not disputing the content but find it odd that Islam - or groups associated with Islam, whether correctly or not - have been implicated in the introduction regarding slavery. It appears to be an oddly prejudiced choice. Thanks. 95.146.181.117 (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. I have taken a look and I agree there is an imbalance here. The fact that the Islamic Republic of Mauritania has Islam in its name can't really be helped (although we could just call it Mauritania) when it is also the last country to ban slavery, but there is more said in the lead about this than necessary for a summary. That was added to the lead on 15 February 2023, but expanded when the information about IS was added in this edit: [6]. This later edit is not a summary of anything in the main, so I will back that out per MOS:LEAD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I also add that the picture relates to an Arab sultanate, which, again, I'm not disputing factually. It's just that, I would argue that the most commonly understood historical cases of slavery would be the transatlantic slave trade, and so it seems a niche choice when taken in the context of the whole. I think the Islamic Republic of Mauritiana is fine and legitimate though would probably say that, where possible, if we name the country that was last to criminalize slavery, we ought to also list where, where correctly sourced, we have the origins / beginnings or initial legalisation documented too. 92.40.197.87 (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
This section should clearly describe the following:
1. By the time Byzantine Greeks got aquainted with Slavs, the latter were not a single proto-Slavic community sharing a common name Словѣне (Slověne). They were ogranised in gens / tribes, which had their particular names (in Latin transcription): Veneti, Antes, Sclaveni etc. Hence Byzantine Greek Σκλάβινοι, Έσκλαβηνοί refers to a particular gen / tribe name, but not a reconstructed proto-Slavic Словѣне.
2. Moving to the Balkans, Slavs were conquerers, not prisoners of war. The 18th century hypothesis, which attributed the word 'slave' (Sklave) to Slavs, presumes they started to became prisoners of war quite often by the 8/9th century.
3. Contemporary hypothesis derives 'slave' from Byzantine σκυλάω, σκυλεύω ("to make booty, to extract spoils of war").
P.S. There are no disagreements that the English word 'slave' derives from the Late Latin Sclāvus. The controversions start from which Byzantine Greek word the Sclāvus itself should be derived. Therefore the Etymology section should be logically divided into three passages:
- the first passage presents the derivation chain up (or down) to Sclāvus;
- the second one presents the 18th century hypothesis and related objections;
- the third one presents the contemporary hypothesis and related objections.
@Fuzzy Barsik, the nitty-gritty stuff about "gens" and "tribes" is not relevant here. It's not relevant for an etymology section about the English word "slave". It should explain the main theories about the etymology and that's it. For the minutiae of you can refer to Slavs (ethnonym).
Also, you've reverted a bunch of tweaks to capitalization, clarified prose and the non-standard use of square brackets. For example, the term "contemporary" is ambiguous here and l unnecessarily vague as per WP:OBVIOUS.
@Peter Isotalo, I'm actually surprised that one of the key detail on the word origin is called irrelevant to its etymology. Sorry, but this detail is inseparable from the word etymology, partly responsible for the explanation why the 18th century hypothesis is incorrect and prevents from wrong assumptions like ones on borrowing the word Σκλάβινοι from a common proto-Slavic self-name.
Regard to the word 'contemporary' I can't also go along with you on that, sorry. The word 'contemporary' implies belonging to the present time, which is correct and much less ambiguous than 'more recent' from your proposal. 'More recent' possesses comparative flavour, but tells nothing particular. More recent than the 18th century - that's OK, but at which time exactly: in the first half of the 19th century, in the last half of the 19th century or in the first half of the 20th century? Meanwhile, the contemporary hypothesys was spoken for the first time in 1970 and accepted by F. Kluge's Etymologisches Wörterbuch in 1989 only (and as far as I'm aware of, there are no newer hypotheses on the word origin).
On the rest changes. You proposed to contract the derivation chain in the first passage, and I'm OK with that - that was a legacy and should belong to the Wiktionary. You changed the last sentence in the section from Present Indefinite to Present Perfect. I doubt that is correct for something 'contemporary', but am OK with that, 'cos I'm not aware of any other newer examples of academic criticism on the hypothesis so as to say it happens on a regular basis.
To capitalisations and use of square brackets, please explain what is wrong with spelling names in capital and which use of square brackets is non-standard. I would appreciate for appropriate links to Wiki rules.
Demanding talkpage agreement for edits like this smacks of WP:OWN. Please don't go there by reverting stuff wholesale. Adjust the things you believe are important and make an effort to understand other users' intentions. That's exactly what I've tried to do with the text.
Regarding capitalization of proper nouns, it depends on the language used. Medieval Greek and Latin did not have the same rules as modern English. If you write out an explicitly non-English word, you follow the rules for writing that language. For example, if someone writes out an English proper noun in French or Russian Wikipedia, it should be capitalized even though that's not the rule in either French or Russian.
Also, I just want to stress that I'm pretty familiar with linguistics, etymology and ancient history, but even I found the etymology info dense and difficult to parse. Especially the non-existent and unexplained word "gen" (rather than gens) was very confusing and even when you explained it here, keeping it makes no sense. PeterIsotalo11:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
It would be much better to communicate in a more friendly manner. It was quite clear from my intentions that I do my best to understand what you're trying to achive with your edits. That's why I created this subsection and invited you to join the discussion here instead of falling into some consequal unjustified adversarial text changes. Similarly we discussed changes here and in the Wiktionary when I initiated them some time ago and needed to explain myself to other contributors.
Regard to what I beleive is important, I hope I already explained that earlier. The Etymology section should be logically divided into three passages:
- the first passage presents the derivation chain up (or down) to Sclāvus;
- the second one presents the 18th century hypothesis and related objections;
- the third one presents the contemporary hypothesis and related objections.
It is also important to properly describe the source of borrowing the word Σκλάβινοι, Έσκλαβηνοί. I eventually got your point on the word 'gen'. Guess it should be replaced with the 'tribe'.
I already also explained why the word 'contemporary' better suits the description of the second hypothesis than 'more recent'.
I'm totally missing your point on brackets and parentheses. I utilise double square brackets to highlight languages and refer to their respective pages in Wiki, which is a standard tool. I use parentheses to provide subsidiary information, including transliteration.
Similarly regard to spelling nouns in capital. There is nothing unusual in spelling Byzantine Greek or Latin words in capital in other Wikipedia articles. Please be more specific, what you're suggesting to change and why. Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Improvement needed
The section “Dependents” lacks proper context, specially the sentence referring to “Persia” seems to be out of place and not providing and proper information. The picture included in this section also seems irrelevant. Marjmandi (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
"enslave*" vs "slave*"
(I'm using * to mean "all the varieties" like *.txt) It's clear that across wikipedia there has been a coordinated replacement of slave* words with enslave* words. Was this a grassroots effort, or is there a policy discussion/decision that took place which I could read someplace? This article says that there are several POVs on the subject, but it does not explain why wikipedia has chosen one POV. 207.237.14.175 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I believe it to be grassroots. It seems to me to be similar to the shifting terms over the last 125 years for respectfully referring to African-Americans or indigenous peoples. Peaceray (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Why is the picture of a Black man used for the GENERAL topic of slavery?
African Americans are constantly reminded that "everyone has been slaves before - and they should just get over it. So why is the picture of a Black man used as the main picture under the topic of Slavery".
Does this not lead to further stigmatization?
What is the rationale for using this picture for the GENERAL topic of Slavery (not enslavement of Africans in the US specifically?). 89.243.98.112 (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I'd suggest the reason is twofold. Firstly, there probably aren't too many photos available of those earlier slave populations. And secondly, Wikipedia has a systemic bias towards things American. Neither of these reasons make it an ideal pic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I am not entirely convinced that what you posit, is an entirely good faith argument for WHY this picture is being used as the placeholder for slavery - and has hitherto gone unchallenged.
I was made aware of this picture as a result of an altercation between pupils in a school I teach. There had been disagreement between one group and another, and as things escalated the other group "white" children started making skin color based disparaging remarks to the other children (African heritage).
The group of "white" children then started referring to the other group as "slaves" - and then made the remark that "everybody knows that you are slaves" - just look on the internet for the world "Slave" - even Wikipedia has a photo of a guy who looks just like "your" Dad (pointing to one of the children in the other group)" - of course, at this point, things turned physical, and I and some of the other teachers stepped in to diffuse the situation.
The children from the group that was assaulted (verbally, then physically), were understandably, very upset - and asked me why they (as African descended people) are always being told that everyone was a slave before, and yet still they are always the "poster boy" for slavery, and yet are told to "forget the past and move on" - when they are constantly being stigmatized in the media and by society at large, due to the "momentum of history".
I had no answer for them. The fact is that whether intentional or not, this picture DOES CAUSE HARM - and perpetuates negative stereotypes and stigmas. I can see no reason why this picture is being used in the GENERAL topic of Slavery. It would be more appropriate to use such a picture in the specific case of Trans-Atlantic Slavery, or Slavery in the Americas.
My entire class are watching the communication on here - as it provides a real-time pulse of underlying sentiments, empathy (or lack thereof) and bias in society.
I can assure you my comment WAS made in good faith, including the bit where I said "Neither of these reasons make it an ideal pic". I would support any sensible proposal for a better pic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Suggesting a different first image is fine, but there are many images in this article, images of African people and of African descent. Maybe it won't be the first image, but probably the second, third or fourth. Nothing in the article suggests people descended from enslaved Africans "should just get over it" and that an image "leads to further stigmatization". It's a reflection of historical accuracy, of the sources available. For what it's worth, I moved the infobox up, which generally goes before any image, for readability and navigation sake. I don't know how to answer your question otherwise. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK08:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment : Perhaps an additional picture of an ancient representation of slavery could suffice? This the oldest and precise ancient representation of slavery that I found in commons, dating to ancient Rome.
The picture you suggested, is a good neutral one (doesn't target a demographic CURRENTLY stigmatised by the topic of Slavery).
The picture however, that has replaced the original, is very telling. It is quite telling that your (presumably from your name) African voice is being silenced, and the opinion of the African descended children in my school, are similarly being silenced.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Would you please be more specific? It appears that you are not making a "please change X to Y" request for this article. Peaceray (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Right to be free from slavery has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 14 § Right to be free from slavery until a consensus is reached. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
