Talk:Slavery/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2014

At the end of the first paragraph, it states that Maritania was the last country to outlaw slavery, which was in 2007. This is wrong. The United Kingdom was the last country to outlaw slavery, which was in April 2010. Section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (which came into effect on 6/4/10) Please edit this to include the actual facts. Nh1204 (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The British Slavery Abolition Act 1833 is already mentioned in the article. However I've no idea right now what to make of "Mauritania was the last jurisdiction to officially outlaw slavery (in 1981/2007)" in that sentence. Nortonius (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, it's apparent that the British outlawed slavery in some capacity in 1833. Your request is considered original research, unless you can provide a reliable source stating "England was the last country to outlaw slavery" or something to that effect. What you're doing, is taking a primary source then making your own comparison between the dates of different acts and the interpretation of "outlawing slavery" to deduce that Maritania was not the last country. You may be right, but it's still a violation of WP:OR to make such changes without an actual source making such a declaration. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Slavery was long illegal--that is no one could legally be a slave in Britain. what Section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 did was different. it made it a crime to hold a person as a slave (for example a domestic servant in modern London) Rjensen (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC).

The Slavery Abolition Act states: "An Act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British Colonies; for promoting the Industry of the manumitted Slaves; and for compensating the Persons hitherto entitled to the Services of such Slaves" (soource: http://www.pdavis.nl/Legis_07.htm) it further says that "who may hereafter...be brought, into any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, shall from and after the passing of this Act be absolutely and entirely free" (same source).

It was only ever illegal to bring slaves from other countries, not to make a slave within the United Kingdom. The Act only mentions slaves from Colonies, not any person made a slave within the United Kingdom.

No other part of law preventing the possession or keeping of a slave was enacted until 2009, which came into force in 2010. Until then, it was legal to have a slave within the United Kingdom, as long as it was not brought in from other territories.

You need to familiarize yourself with WP:OR and WP:RELIABLE. Your interpretation of the act is not suitable for adding or removing information from the article. You need a reliable secondary source that makes the argument you are trying to make. If you have a scholarly journal or peer reviewed published journal that says England didn't abolish slavery until 2010, then that's something that can be used as a reliable source for making changes to the entry. From cursory research, it appears other sources say that the Slavery Abolition Act did make slavery illegal in England with the exception of its East India Company or something to that extent. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2014

Hello, could you please delete the following text:

"In modern mechanised societies, there is less need for sheer massive manpower; Norbert Wiener wrote that "mechanical labor has most of the economic properties of slave labor, though ... it does not involve the direct demoralizing effects of human cruelty."[11]"

This text basically promotes slavery by not showing any awareness of its unacceptability. It would seem as though people stopped owning slaves because they didn't need them anymore, whereas a variety of reasons could be presented as to why owning slaves is immoral and against human rights.

Thank you so much, VR

Vricci (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Right now, I've merged that paragraph with the one before it as the two seem to go together. If that sentence is deleted, the whole paragraph should go. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I'm going to say that would be a contentious change to make because I feel you are basically asking for the article to be CENSORED... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 04:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13, I wouldn't say it's a case of censorship. Vricci is right in that it may be a case of balance. The intro states there is now less need for slaves but there is no mention that it is now seen as immoral to have slaves. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• NeilN, the quote seems neutral to me, as it doesn't say that it is moral or right to have slaves either. It only says that slaves have been have been replaced by machines. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 05:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13, the quote is fine but does the lede properly reflect why slavery has diminished in the last century? The quote proposes one reason. I think it should be taken out or text be added about the perceived moral unacceptability of slavery. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think the lede reflects why slavery has diminished just fine. I think that taking that part of the equation out or adding text about the social perception of morality would leave the lede unbalanced towards social and mental opinions instead of being based on physical mechanical fact. Perhaps some further input from some other editors would be useful here. I leave it to your discretion to request assistance from DRN or one of the Village pumps. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 05:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Vricci here. Norbert Weiner doesn't know anything about economics, sociology, or anything that would qualify him to opine on slavery. The quote does in fact take a purely instrumental view of slavery that is certainly amoral (typical for Weiner, in my opinion) and is at least plausibly offensive. Be that as it may, I think anyone wanting to keep the quote ought to make an argument as to why Norbert Weiner's opinion, out of all the zillions of people we could quote, should have so much weight as to be in the lead section of this article. Weiner did a lot of interesting mathematics, but he certainly never learned to shut his mouth when he didn't know what he was talking about.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

. I agree with alf laylah wa laylah. The Weiner statement is historically illiterate and is not a reliable souerce. It suggests that one major reason slavery ended was that mechanical tools replaced sheer physical labor. That was never true for any actual abolition events. For example cotton picking machinery came into use in the 1940s (not the 1840s). Historians are all agreed that the mechanical cotton gin (invented about 1800) INCREASED slavery in the US. Rjensen (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So being bold, I removed the paragraph which included the sentence mentioned in the edit request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Big error in the Rubinstein citation (#45)

The article says approx 6 million slaves were killed by other blacks in tribal war, referencing the Rubinstein book, but this statement is misplaced. According to the book, that number refers to blacks killed over the entirety of slavery in Africa, NOT among those brought to the America's. Post arrival slave warfare was limited to escapees, which the Rubinstein book alludes was never more than 5% of all surviving slave arrivals in the entire America's. Meaning the actual number of slaves killed from tribal warfare in America (escapees and maroons) would have to be some number less than 300,000, which is the total number of escapees post-arrival. Nowhere near 6 million, which would be a 50% rate of all slaves to arrive.

ThujaTsuga

I think most people interpreted the statement correctly despite the awkward physical context placement. Still the line could be moved or annotated to be a comparison of numbers of African shipped to other continents as slaves versus numbers killed outright by tribal warfare during the same time period.

My guess is that the omitted point of the comparison is that with rare exception Europeans did not make Africans into slaves. Slaves were a product of Africa tribal warfare and a long standing continental export going back to pre-Roman times. European direct action being limited primarily to occasional coastal village raids during the peak demand for slaves -- due to practical reasons like small ship crew sizes versus intended slave cargo and the risk of death in combat. Thus the effect of European demand for slaves on Africans was probably a slight increase in warfare near coasts and an offsetting greater chance of capture versus execution during tribal warfare. (I suggest only a slight increase because tribal warfare still kills a million or so today - the inclination to fight cruelly is ingrained in the tribal system.) The most tragic downsides of slavery in the Americas versus staying a slave in Africa (no European interference) was often the shipping process itself and the loss of opportunity to escape or eventually be released to return to your tribe (assuming your tribe survived).

But such institutions as slavery become infamous rather than ordinary conditions of life when societies in later stages of technological-social development exploit the social standards of labor from societies at less developed stages.

So the anthropological perspective is that slavery was seen as a valid and effective economic survival option for societies during stone and bronze age development (much of Africa until relatively recently). Serfdom can be a vital economic option for the larger nations still in late bronze age, iron age and early industrial age because agriculture and technology are still labor intensive and marginally profitable. And we still see some of that today because technological change may require only a few years BUT social traditions will tend to lag sudden jumps in technological levels by 3-5 generations as people in power resist changes to the way they were raised and trained. Thus society updates occur only after the death of most of that last generation who were children under previous technological conditions and often also after the retirement from power of all who were trained by that last generation (after retirement of the final students of that last political professor/practitioner of the prior technological age). 72.182.3.3 (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Abolishment Addition

• It would be appropriate to include a note regarding Cyrus’ Cylinder which decreed the abolishment of slavery in the Persian Empire. It is well known that slavery still existed in parts of Persia, but I do not believe that Cyrus expected all his subjects to comply. However such a directive in that day and age is extraordinary. The abolishment of slavery and freedom of religion, was for example the reason why the Jewish slaves of Babylon were set free by the Persians and enabled to rebuild Jerusalem. Nevertheless, somebody should include a paragraph about the Cylinder. 07:10, 28 September 2012‎ User:155.205.201.45

Its uncertain as to whether this actually enabled the freeing of foreign slaves and practice of foreign religions since the text of the cylinder specifically refers to local regional peoples and religions. historically the sacking of cities quite often resulted in the escape of foreign slaves. While the cylinder certainly did not hurt Jewish prospects for return to home, the cylinder was not written until AFTER the Babylon walls were repaired (referenced in the text). Restoring order and repairing the walls likely took many weeks. Considering how organized the Jewish people were they may have been long gone and almost home. So the original cylinder was probably written solely to add to regional support by freeing local peoples and their religions (owners probably probably already being opponents as members of the previous power structure). However the cylinder probably became de facto policy covering foreign slaves who had already escape due to the expense using ancient armies especially when sent long distances into foreign lands...plus of course the politics of war weariness and needing the army locally to suppress other political opportunists and rebels for a few years. So keep in mind that the Biblical quotation was made many years later and may have been intended as merely a broad political explanation of why Jews decided they could rebuild without fear of an army eventually following their escape. When such tales are written down at the end of life or by a later generation from tales heard...specific details often become blurred or lost. "We escaped without opposition due to the chaos and numerous dead among owners and government members" can easily become "we were released and walked proudly out the gates in peace". Both situations are equally miraculous. But one summary tale seems more complete and dignified in only a few words. The other has a tendency to get bogged down in questions about confusing/disputed/lost details like how groups dashed through streets and snuck out gaps in the walls carrying what food water and liberated valuables that they could -- and how many owners died, who left first, etc. 72.182.3.3 (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Tea pickers sold into slavery

Possible source for modern slavery in India: The tea pickers sold into slavery Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Mostly scam-oriented. Example of why this Wiki article needs to be a bit more precise. Much of the definitions and discussion are soft enough to leave this article open to all sorts of excursions into wage dispute and even municipal bonds as debt slavery. Such are misunderstandings of course more likely among non-native English readers.

So definitions need to include that slavery applies to specific people 100% of their life. If people can swap in and out of filling a labour contract or if they normally have limited working hours -- its not slavery. Of course that does not mean its not a crushingly bad labor contract. In fact the existence of a contract reclassifies even hard cruel labour to indentured servitude as a minimum.

Thus this article is terrible in differentiating true slavery from debt scams, blackmail etc. As compelling as many blackmail and poverty-based scams are -- its not slavery unless you have valid fear of personal execution or physical restraint and corporal punishment. Scam threats against relatives are common but in reality seldom actually carried out. Scams, blackmail and ever increasing debt contracts are their own form of excretable behavior -- but they are not actual slavery. This article is very poor in separately out uses of the word "slavery" when its actually only derogatory slang designed to evoke an immediate emotional reaction however valid that reaction might be after final analysis.

Why is this accuracy important? Because again many people try to quote sloppy incomplete wiki definitions as showing public municipal bonds as being "legally" slavery (debts of fathers passed on to descendants - ignoring that its not sole obligation of personal condition for life) or even standard corporate contracts as slavery (someone has to be there 24 hours per day...but wait many people can share this duty). Unfortunately many rednecks worldwide misunderstand definitions - but once a definition with bad connotations is misunderstood their sense of personal dignity will refuse anyone attempt to correct that definition because "you are tricking them into slavery". There are plenty of redneck criminals out there who act that way because of conflicts between their sense of self-worth and some simple misunderstanding about what something like slavery is. 72.182.3.3 (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Mention of Psychiatric Slavery?

Thomas Szasz wrote a book called Psychiatric Slavery and references the term psychiatric slavery which I think that he likely coined. Some of his books have their own articles even (Liberation by Oppression and The Myth of Mental Illness at least). Might it be appropriate to mention his coining of the term and the idea in at least one sentence in the article if not a whole sub-section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Ten (talk • contribs) 19:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.98.170 (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency intro/text

Hi,

The final sentence in the intro states: "Human trafficking is primarily used for forcing women and children into sex industries.[9]" The final sentence in the section "Present Day" states: "Another research effort revealed that between 1.5 million and 1.8 million individuals are trafficked either internally or internationally each year, 500,000 to 600,000 of whom are sex trafficking victims.[165]" Even comparing lowest total to highest proportion (1,5 mill minus 600k =), 900k people are more than the proportion that are sex trafficking victims.

T

85.166.162.202 (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

When someone says "primarily used for" it can simply refer to the single most prevalent cause. There may be many forms of slavery but the most prevalent one and the primary one is sex trafficking. Also, if these are directly quoted from different sources, then it really doesn't matter if the sources may be ambiguous or slightly contradict. Just properly attribute each quote to its source and this is not an issue, but you can't change the wording in something that's directly quoted.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi,when you say "There may be many forms of slavery but the most prevalent one and the primary one is sex trafficking", I guess that's a more or less unsourced statement/prvate opinion/OR which is not relevant in the discussion.

I don't know if the statements in the article are direct quotes; I couldn't manage to call up the first one, since the link is dead. I don't know if you have that info?

And if it turns out that these are not direct quotes, would it improve the article (or not) if this was made explicit, in order for the article not to _appear_ inconsistent? If I may be so bold as to appropriate your words, how about "Sex trafficking is the single most prevalent cause..." something?

T 85.166.162.202 (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the statement I made is not a personal opinion, it's an explanation of how the two parts of the article you quoted are not necessarily at odds with each other and it IS completely relevant to the point you're trying to make. "Primarily used for" can be used to express the single most prevalent cause. Without turning this into a debate about dictionary definitions of terms and what you believe is/isn't accurate, it's all of our responsibilities to assume good faith and not raise conflict where conflict is not necessarily warranted. That being said, I do take another issue with the quote you singled out in the lead.

The link is dead, but the article is posted on many sites. I believe the statement stems from "In a recent report on modern slavery, the UN says that about 79 percent of people enslaved each year are coerced into prostitution." This doesn't necessarily mean "sex trafficking" but only speaks to that people in slavery, regardless of what type of slavery it is, are forced into prostitution. They may not be specifically listed or categorized as a "sex slave" but are still coerced to perform acts of a sexual nature. [1] So if you want to replace "sex trafficking" with "forced into prostitution" that may actually be the best way to represent both articles. The words you appropriated would reflect the latter article, but doesn't address what the point being made by the first article. Does that help? Scoobydunk (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, oh, got it. I thought you were trying to establish some kind of fact when you were just educating me on semantics :-). And I see the point.

Concentrating on essentials, the question is whether or not any change would improve the article. Perhaps it wouldn't. But allow me to make my point, so that I can be satisfied that if we disagree, we disagree on something that I mean, and not on something that I don't mean.

It's a famous tenet of rhetoric that "you should speak, not so that the audience can understand it if they will, but so that they understand, whether they will or not" - the clarity criterion. On first reading, I thought the article was inconsistent. You say it isn't inconsistent; I defer to that, me not being a native English speaker. However, perhaps it is still ambiguous, allowing the same misreading (largest number vs largest single group), and some small amendment - the formulation of which I gladly leave to others - would go some way towards preventing this kind of misreading. C'est tout.

However, I'll agree up front that there is no need to fix what isn't broken.

Should the need arise, btw, there is a newer report than the one from 2009, i.e. the 2012 report:

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/glotip/Trafficking_in_Persons_2012_web.pdf

And this is not to say that there's anything wrong with the 2009 report. However, as long as it is given as a reference, and the question may arise, as it did here, whether or not the statement in the intro is a direct quote or not, I, for one, would consider it better, articlewise, if the reader could simply find the source under the link as long as the reference is supplied in the _form_ of a link. But again, perhaps this is no big problem.

T

85.166.162.202 (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Remnants of Slavery

This whole section is really bad. The implication that other forms of social stratification are equivalent to slavery and that slavery is natural or inevitable is hardly free of POV and is a messed up sentiment. The whole section is just a disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.51.134 (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. It's unsourced POV and basically a little essay; I've removed it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Issues with Chattel slavery section

"Chattel slavery, also called traditional slavery, is so named because people are treated as the personal property (chattel) of an owner and are bought and sold as if they were commodities. It is the original form of slavery and the least prevalent form of slavery today.[8]"

Two points:

-Chattel slavery was most pervasive in the American colonies. It was not the "original" form of slavery; slavery has taken on dozens of different forms and variations over the millenia (I.E. Roman era slaves could often earn their freedom, or were granted it by their owners, and join the ranks of Roman society). The concept of permanent slavery where the slave has no rights and is little more than a piece of property is a (thankfully) rare concept.

-The source for this sections citation is of questionable relevance as the term "chattel slavery" is not used on the linked page.

Recommendation: A new citation is needed and the sub-section itself must be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.225.90 (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've stuck in a citation request. If you propose some better language here we can incorporate it; we should have some history of chattel slavery in the article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Present day section

This section should have subsections on India, China and Pakistan, which, according to The Economist are the countries with the highest number of slaves. Sarcelles (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

etymology addition

in the etymology section, can we add:

which was in turn apparently derived from a misunderstanding of the Slavic autonym (denoting a speaker of their own languages). The Byzantine term Sklavinoi was loaned into Arabic as Saqaliba صقالبة (sing.Saqlabi صقلبي) by medieval Arab historiographers. However, the origin of this word is disputed.[47][48]

I got it from the "slave" article thanks! Butcher73 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butcher73 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2014

Please include forced military service as a modern form of slavery. Note that military conscription is the most wide spread and perhaps the worst kind of slavery in the modern world as it corresponds to involuntary servitude. As, the philosopher Ayn Rand sayed: "Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle."

Thanks for the time and attention,

The text-code would be:

Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation. Historically, slavery was institutionally recognized by most societies; in more recent times, slavery has been outlawed in all countries, but it continues through the practices of debt bondage, indentured servitude, serfdom, domestic servants kept in captivity, certain adoptions in which children are forced to work as slaves, forced military service, child soldiers, and forced marriage. Slavery is officially illegal in all countries, but there are still an estimated 20 million to 30 million slaves worldwide. Maybe add a section about Marriage and Family as a slave.

 Not done Please provide several sources that indicate conscription is generally regarded as slavery. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done (edit-conflicted) A single author's views on the subject do not dictate a rewrite to include military conscription: while there are certainly situations where conscription becomes a form of slavery, there is no consensus in the world at large that it is or has been in general an equivalent of slavery. You would need to indicate that the equivalence is a generally-held view. Acroterion (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Bible about slavery

44 And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. Levitus, 25:44-46 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.90.60.166 (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Troll much? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2014

slavery is now illegal and it is a violation of human rights

Sheep20000 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The article already discusses legality and human rights. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015

Rst214 82.6.95.50 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How widespread is Ritual servitude

Hi. The page Ritual servitude does not enjoy much visibility, so I discussing here a concern that I have with it. The way the opening goes and throughout, it creates the impression that this is a widespread phenomenon, whereas I don't think it is. The only reference to numbers is in this section, which speaks of 2000 freed/ rescued in Ghana. I almost deleted the section, as it is 80% a duplication of materail aready used in the lede and elesewhere, then I saw the figure and so for now it is useful. Could I hear from others who are familiar with the terrain? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

To to go with s

Wikipedia has a social science/empathy problem with slaves in fiction; although being a slave is considered defining enough, owning or trading in slaves is not. Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Slavery - economic

There should be mention in this article that slavery was an economic / financial institution and most slaves were sold and bought by the ruling class including african kings. Basically the ruling class needs checks and balances in place or they will use other classes in manufactured conflicts like it is the case now in many modern kingdoms like the UK/Netherlands , etc. Many government positions and even positions in the private sector are appointed by the same family who pretend that there is competition for these jobs but there is not. Even media is now controlled by the same families and they have begun other means to suppress freedom by using the medical sector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2015

The designation of Chattel Slavery as "traditional slavery" without further elaboration is potentially confusing, as the form of slavery practiced in the Southern U.S. was so vastly different from the forms of slavery found in the Classical world. Often when people compare the two in support of an argument concerning slavery they are engaging in a fallacy of equivocation. Anybody who relied on this article to help form their understanding of slavery would be seemingly confirmed in their ignorance which in turn justifies the worst criticisms of wikipedia's unreliability as a source of correct information. Additionally the reference given to support such a designation is questionable as its source is from an agenda driven group. Surely if such a designation is credible a more neutral and trustworthy source could be found.

In fact what would even be better if there were further elaboration on the profound distinctions between the chattel slavery of the American South and forms of slavery in the classical world. For example over much of Rome's history slavery was the source for the capital city's population as Romans first entered the city as slaves, learned the trade of their Master (often a former slave themselves) and after a period of a decade or so were given their freedom and their Roman citizenship. Here slavery was a period of indentured servitude where one was not only learning a trade but also what it meant to be a Roman citizen. The city was literally supported by such an institutional process. Yet Hollywood often depicts slaves in Rome in the same way it depicts slaves in the American south. Someone whose idea of slavery has been so formed by popular entertainment wouldn't have their ignorance alleviated by reading this Wiki article, and while there were differences between slavery in Rome and the other parts of the Mediterranean world the same could be said for that person and their understanding of the forms of slavery of the Classical world in general.

I think this is important because at the end of the day it leaves someone with the false impression that what happened in the first few centuries of the U.S's history was that those Americans were just carrying on as usual when really there was no precedent for the brutality and level of objectification of the chattel slavery of the American South. It does not fairly represent the suffering and dehumanization of those people who lived under that system. In a way it belittles the experience of African slaves in the U.S. because people have the false impression this kind of slavery was practiced by human beings for most of the history of the world--after all the wikipedia article calls it "traditional" slavery--when nothing could be further from the truth.

The slavery that Aristotle advocated in his Politics was not the Chattel slavery of the American South. 70.112.46.198 (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2015 (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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Keeping slavable, enslaved, free populations straight

The article does nothing to explain how societies kept people who weren't slaves yet but vulnerable to it, the enslaved population, and the population immune to it straight. What was to prevent slavers from picking off people on one side of the country and selling them on the other side and then repeating the process only the other way round, and what stopped them from "stealing" slaves as well? Or the same with city denizens and rural? Hackwrench (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Devşirme system and slavery

Devşirme system is a forced assimilation system, as explained in the wikipedia article. They are two different concepts, the people who were undergone devşirme process could be the architects or army generals. They are not same thing. Please try to give some other examples for Ottomans if you are willing to mention the slavery in Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I dream of horses (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Types

Forced Marriage

The second last sentence in this section has a minor typo where 'place' should appear as 'places'. Since I'm not a registered user and since the article is locked, I cannot do this edit myself. But if someone comes along who has the proper permissions, it would be much appreciated if you could make this minor edit.

Current sentence: Marriage by abduction occurs in many place in the world today, with a national average of 69% of marriages in Ethiopia being through abduction.

Revised sentence: Marriage by abduction occurs in many places in the world today, with a national average of 69% of marriages in Ethiopia being through abduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acroterion (talk • contribs) 18:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100106045847/http://in.today.reuters.com:80/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-11-16T163442Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-276537-1.xml&archived=False to http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-11-16T163442Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-276537-1.xml&archived=False
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140225121342/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iyMeHvk7WyJys7iAyehSzik11Yqg to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iyMeHvk7WyJys7iAyehSzik11Yqg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2015

210.55.200.176 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC) hello i ams a cowן

Not done: - you must provide a reliable source that you are a cow, assuming that's what you meant. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2015

Regarding the "economic" section of the contemporary slavery section: contemporary slavery generates 40 billion us dollars into the world economy every year. Source: Kevin Bales' TED Talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_bales_how_to_combat_modern_slavery/transcript?language=en) (±10:50 minutes in) Evh97 (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The section you're referring to already says that contemporary slavery generates $35 billion/year. I don't think changing that number based on what someone said in a TED Talk is justified. Perhaps try figuring out how the speaker arrived at $40 billion and cite that source. But a TED Talk alone fails WP:VERIFY. Best, Mww113 (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Owen 'Alik Shahadah

A discussion thread about the reliability and notability of this author and his pages is taking place at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Owen 'Alik Shahadah, please comment there so we can get a final consensus. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Gerry Spence "Give Me Liberty" 1998

Gerry Spence says in this book we Americans should question whether we are today free or slaves. Do you need 2 quotes & page numbers? Page xi he says we're all slaves. "What if we have been born in a cage like the polar bear at the San Diego Zoo, and having known nothing else, we accept the cage as freedom?" "What if we are taught in school the state religion called capitalism, a religion that condemns as heresy all that interferes with the monied class extracting yet more money from those least able to protect themselves?" "What if a form of subtle slavery has been taught to us, made acceptable to us, made to appear as freedom itself?" All on page 7. Pepper9798 (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

St. Martin's Press, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY, 10010 Pepper9798 (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ancient slavery

The artcile says:"Slavery was known in almost every ancient civilization and society including Sumer, Ancient Egypt, Ancient China, the Akkadian Empire, Assyria, Ancient India, Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Islamic Caliphate, the Hebrew kingdoms in Palestine, and the pre-Columbian civilizations of the Americas".The problem here is that the Islamic Caliphate wasn't an ancient civilization,it belongs to the Middle Ages period.NobleFrog (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Did some cursory research on the source provided and information found elsewhere on Wikipedia and Britannica. It seems the Islamic Caliphate is a general term to reference Islamic government, the earliest starting in 600-800AD. The middle ages time period is the 13th-15th centuries and ancient history is considered to exist up until the early middle ages. So it appears that the reference to Islamic Calphite in the Ancient slavery section is supported. The original source discusses how slaves were owned in all Islamic societies including the Ottoman Empire and the Sokoto Caliphate.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Post-classical history is the period of time that immediately followed ancient history. So the earliest Islamic government belongs to a period after ancient history. Now it is clear that Islamic Caliphate wasn't an ancient civilization.NobleFrog (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. And Ancient history says " Although the ending date of ancient history is disputed, some Western scholars use the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD (the most used),[3][4] the closure of the Platonic Academy in 529 AD,[5] the death of the emperor Justinian I in 565 AD,[6] the coming of Islam[7] or the rise of Charlemagne[8]as the end of ancient and Classical European history." Doug Weller (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2015

The text "around $40,000 (in non inflation adjusted dollars)" does not match what the cited source describes.

The cited source says "For example, slaves in the U.S. Antebellum South cost, in real terms, around $40,000;", clearly referring to inflation-adjusted dollars and not non-inflation-adjusted dollars.

$40,000 in 1850 would be the inflation-adjusted equivalent to over $1,000,000 today. This is misleading, and clearly not what the original author nor the cited source intended to communicate.

I recommend deleting the word "non" to clarify that the price of a slave in the antebellum south was equivalent to $40,000 in today's dollars.

Anschauung (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Done --Cerebellum (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Stalin

Stalin owned millions of slaves. This should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by5g7k9 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Dolgun called the prisoners slaves in his book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5g7k9 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

See if the way they're described in that book, or other sources, matches the definition of slavery given at the beginning of this article. Ratemonth (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"The underlying victims of a Crime Against Humanity need not always be civilians". (ICTY Tolimir Appeals) as did Nuremberg. While this is a modern interrpretation of illegal behavior which may have been legal in the past...it is a philosophical wrench, and does support a contention that enslavement of POW's is against International Law...or in past instances still qualifies as enslavement. Political prisoners, enslaved are also covered by modern International Law. So, ye that element or events should be adressed, and likely concluded to be enslavement. It however is utilized for different purposes which historically has always been the case with slavery.

-Ac220404

Add link Blackbirding?

Could you add a link in "See also" to Blackbirding which many descendants are trying to get it recognized as the Pacific slave trade? Pepper9798 (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It was kidnapping, same thing, but courts didn't want to say it was slavery: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/08/17/south-sea-islanders-mark-sugar-slave-days and this http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/08/17/south-sea-islanders-mark-sugar-slave-days Pepper9798 (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

slavery

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.93.25.28 (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

International Law

  In my opinion, in order to draw the best comparisons to modern day events and modern law and standard.

The ICC statute defines "enslavement" as a Crime against Humanity. (Widespread systematic attacks against a civilian population, not isolated or sporadic bystanders systematic and a policy or complicit acts by a de facto organization and government.") The modern views and legal terms of slavery should be addressed.Article 7(1)c

Ac2204 (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ac2204: Greetings. Why and in what ways would you suggest? Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 23:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

thanks for considering my ideas, On second review it seems that that might not be appropriate regarding specific events PRIOR to intl. laws modern definition. The article, should similar to "extermination" or "deportation", for purpose of education and wide coverage of slavery in modern times should identify individuals who have by the ICC be indicted or convicted for slavery, to draw the clear difference of slaveries perceptions through history. This or briefly specify the current perception (and fact) of slavery as a criminal act if possible to insert, such as compelling foreign nationals to serve as slaves, sexual slavery, and modern enslavement. Enslavement is a broad spectrum and various types should be addressed including slavery in war, past perception of slavery and modern should be addressed, but clearly and considers to avoid excessive or cumulative information with a very brief comparison of today in law as to the past.A lot of this is, but it should be of note as many indtctments for slavery have been issued by the ICC.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100704094653/http://www.tibetwrites.org/?Acme-of-Obscenity to http://www.tibetwrites.org/?Acme-of-Obscenity
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120309142353/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA24/001/2011/en/2671e54f-1cd1-46c1-96f1-6a463efa6f65/asa240012011en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA24/001/2011/en/2671e54f-1cd1-46c1-96f1-6a463efa6f65/asa240012011en.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120604123334/http://amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=19434 to http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=19434
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141018222114/http://au.ibtimes.com:80/articles/569402/20141013/islamic-state-dabiq-magazine-isis-slavery.htm to http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/569402/20141013/islamic-state-dabiq-magazine-isis-slavery.htm#.VD7r9EnD_Gg
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140504115538/http://therainbow.com.ng:80/tabloid/boko-haram-kidnapped-the-230-school-girls-as-wives-for-its-insurgents/ to http://therainbow.com.ng/tabloid/boko-haram-kidnapped-the-230-school-girls-as-wives-for-its-insurgents/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110515192003/http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/cbss/Miers.pdf to http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/cbss/Miers.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100207213406/http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=200351 to http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=200351
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151001130717/http://www.yale.edu/agrarianstudies/colloqpapers/16peterson.pdf to http://www.yale.edu/agrarianstudies/colloqpapers/16peterson.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080317062732/http://www.davidkopel.com:80/NRO/2001/Nationalized-Slavery.htm to http://www.davidkopel.com/NRO/2001/Nationalized-Slavery.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222004847/http://wspus.org/2010/04/are-you-a-wage-slave/ to http://wspus.org/2010/04/are-you-a-wage-slave/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070614012656/http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2016-contemporary-slavery-UK.pdf to http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2016-contemporary-slavery-UK.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718224733/http://www.marial.emory.edu/exhibitions/dream/intro.html to http://www.marial.emory.edu/exhibitions/dream/intro.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121101011115/http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/8337,news-comment, to http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/8337,news-comment,

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140225121342/https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iyMeHvk7WyJys7iAyehSzik11Yqg to https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iyMeHvk7WyJys7iAyehSzik11Yqg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2016

Please add to this history that Ancient Athens was the 1st state of the humans history, that forbids the slavery with the Solon's laws at 594 BC, (Sisahthea Laws). Also add that a very big part of the taxes in Ancient Athens, was used for the exchange of freedom, for the slaves of other states... 94.64.92.143 (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Could slave-owners always kill their slaves?

Has there ever been a society with large-scale slavery where slave owners did not have the right to kill their slaves? I don’t count societies like Victorian Britain were large-scale slavery was only possible due to loopholes in legislation. In such societies there would be no legislation to regulate slavery at all.

2015-12-31 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.144.9 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

owners did not have the legal right to kill slaves in the US (except in cases of revolt or self defense). that was legally murder. see Thomas D. Morris (2004). Southern Slavery and the Law, 1619-1860. pp. 172–73. Patterson on Europe says "From the seventh century on, the murder of slaves was a legal offense, although the penalty was much less severe ... In Rome it was not until the first century A.D. that some restraint was placed on the power of the master to kill his slave." Orlando Patterson (1985). Slavery and Social Death. p. 153.

So, slave owners in the U.S. did have the right to kill slaves. Also, it wasn't for "revolts" it was for any resistance, with some colonial laws allowing the punishment of slaves to result in death.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No--only in case of organized insurrection. otherwise it was legally murder. Rjensen (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

From your own source by Morris: "Owners could punish to the point of killing a slave even if the punishment was for picking trash tobacco rather than resisting authority." That's on page 164. Also from Higginbotham "In 1669, the Virginia legislature, by passing the following statute, notified slave owners that they would not be criminally prosecuted for the 'casuall killing of slaves.'...Virginians revealed that they were prepared to beat, mutilate, and even kill slaves in order to extract profits from their plantations." Both of these sources discuss the laws regarding slavery and both acknowledge the multiple ways these societies supported the killing the slaves and the lack of punishment for people who killed slaves. So not only could they "legally" kill slaves and that was acceptable, but the OP's question wasn't about legislation, it was about societal acceptance. Both of the aforementioned sources discuss how killing slaves was acceptable in many U.S. and colonial societies.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That was before the U.S. was formed in 1776. Colonial laws were then changed to make killing a slave = murder. Rjensen (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It continued after the U.S. was formed in 1776, especially since the pages you referenced talk about laws passed in 1788 and onward. Not only that, after talking about these changes in some(fourish) states, Morris says "Whatever the variations the trend was clear. Unless slaves resisted or died under a moderate correction for some misconduct, their killing usually would be placed on a level with the homicide of whites." The "moderate correction for some misconduct" part is the "killing through punishment" part, and that both authors discussed before. Again, still, both sources discuss how easily justifiable killing a slave was in these states, and how unlikely it was for a person to be convicted of murdering a slave. Again, the question wasn't about legislation, but about societal acceptance. So referencing laws is mostly moot, especially when those laws were rarely enforced in many states and people knew a jury of their peers wouldn't convict them for killing a slave. Morris explains this by referencing a quote from a jury foreman saying "(I) would not convict the defendant, or any other white person, of murdering a slave."Scoobydunk (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

the original question was "Could slave-owners always kill their slaves?" the evidence shows that after 1776 the US slave states declared the killing of a slave to be murder, albeit with a possible defense. (Today there is a self-defense against a murder charge.) Scoobydunk sees that several men are known to have said they would never vote to convict and assumes all jurymen had that position. Rjensen (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No, the question is "Has there ever been a society with large-scale slavery where slave owners did not have the right to kill their slaves?" What you quoted was the title to the section, but the actual question elaborates on the title and is very clear. The U.S. and many of its states were not societies that forbid the killing of slaves. The multiple quotes from peer reviewed sources show that slave owners did have the right to kill slaves for a variety of reasons, even as punishment for some "moderate misconduct" which you incorrectly claimed was false. Also, it's the peer reviewed authors that made the point about lack of prosecution and the failures of these laws, not me. They speak at length about how these slave societies killed slaves, therefore the U.S. was not a slave society where owners "did not have the right to kill their slaves", they could kill them for any number of reasons with impunity.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Scoobydunk, you are the person who wrote "Could slave-owners always kill their slaves?" and now you deny that you meant that. As for "right to kill" that has to do with the U.S. state laws and they made killing a slave murder. Rjensen (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

What? I never wrote that. A simple ctrl-F shows that phrase 4 times, twice by the person who made the title and twice by you, quoting the title. So I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe your simply distorting what you're reading, which would explain your misinterpretation of slavery in the U.S. Also, the laws that you've referenced did not make "killing a slave murder" and I've supplied multiple quotes where peer reviewed sources explicitly explain when slaves could be killed, which included behavioral discipline. Again, I've supplied direct quotes for this, I don't know why you continue to ignore them, even when they come from your own source.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

So it appears, it can be confirmed that it was De Facto procedure, in several US states, that killing Slaves for minimally justified reason was practiced. The scale in which it occurred, is debatable but it's unreasonable to state it DIDNT happen or was not at any period permitted, as it occurred with legal authorities knowing, and taking no action to prevent or punish it, It was de facto acceptable. This is where legal determinations ARE important. There is no consensus of the De Jure(official) laws in ALL states, but it CAN be confirmed That it DID occur. The amount of slaves, slave owners makes it somewhat statistically unreasonable that no slaves would be severely abused and killed by their owners, there ARE instances of Slave Owners treating (I mean as much as you can a slave) somewhat decently and knowing the historical view the future would hold for slavery. This should ALSO be included. However, since multiple sources that are reasonable have differing opinions on the official decree, when, where and if it was enforced...the fact that it DID occur on multiple occasions and was not punished, similar to Laws regarding slavery or superior responsibility, indicates, up to a certain point in the US, in SOME states these actions were permitted and legal authorities were fairly complicit in it. The scale of slavery in the US now, does for historical purposes (comparison, and historic views), be compared to the much, much more massive and brutal slave operations conducted by the Spaniards and Portugese in South, Central America and the Carribean. These areas (I will find sources)...held MUCH more slaves and were SIGNIFICANTLY more brutal in its implementation. However it does not discard the fact that slavery was permitted to a scale that today would constitute "Crimes Against Humanity", in the United States, and during early periods many slave owners killed slaves due to minimally restrictive measures that were not appropriately enforced. It's incorrect to cite it as policy in the US as a whole because clearly it wasn't, but in some states it was... again regardless of official decree or not...permitted. The article should only include what this debate in my opinion and other people who look at that debate and have their own OBJECTIVE conclusions. Mine is that slavery in the US, while not on the scale of other nations in the Americas WAS substantially implemented, and in SOME states was restricted by laws that prohibited cruel treatment and murder, but at times was not enforced and was ignored in states obviously based on this conversation...it's confirmed and should remain states in the article that, many states held de facto traditions in which killings occurred and many laws that DID exist weren't heavily enforced. Does that sound like a reasonable, objective analysis of the views of the people who are debating this? Wikipedia can't appear to take sides COMPLETELY. It is obvious it cannot justify or attempt to justify slavery, the factual behavior of slave owners though can be addressed and the one thing the people before me DO agree (or appear to) on...is that in some states it was illegal, but it's yet to be determined to a standard appropriate for a professional encyclopedia enough to include other states after 1789 where the regulations were ambiguous at best, and ignored a significant number of times, and others which DID enforce those laws should be addressed. It's statistically...nieve to dismiss ANY multiple instances of slave murders, however it is also nnot objective to state that ALL states failed to enforce the laws and that none really existed. They did it appears, but we're not enforced as a matter of fact.

Chattel Slavery

Chattel slavery is a particular form well-divorced from ancient concepts. Generations of slaves were born into servitude under the english/american slave trade. Why is this section not it's own article? 96.42.56.141 (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2016

Please change "e. g." to "e.g." 155.143.144.97 (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2016

Slavery is the illegal economic system

62.69.52.249 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Slavery amongst other species

When reading this article I was surprised to find absolutely no mention that slavery is not a practice limited to humans, and that other species, most notably ants, practice slavery as well. This is an extremely well sourced fact. For example see here [[2]], regarding slave rebellions in ant colonies. I feel for the article to be complete and neutral, there should be at least some mention of it in the article. For example, the article on warfare mentions that warfare is not limited to humans and is also found in animal species, see War#Evolutionary.XavierGreen (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC) I think a simple sentence stating "slavery is also found amongst several insect species, most notably ants" would suffice to resolve this issue.XavierGreen (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

let's not go there. people can read Slave-making ant -- which notes that "piracy" is a better comparison. Rjensen (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Practically all reliable sources on such ants call it slavery, see for examples here [[3]] and here [[4]]. In fact, there are souces which directly compare and relate ant-slavery to human-slavery as in the latter source I just mentioned. For a neutral article, this source should at least mention the existence of slavery amongst insects.XavierGreen (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

it's morally repulsive to systematically compare the moral status of humans & insects. Rjensen (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Morality is meaningless in terms of neutrality, the vast majority of reliable sources on insect slavery directly relate it as a concept to human slavery, in the same ware that warfare amongst insects and chimpanzees is equated to warfare among humans. The concept of slavery is not limited to the human species, just as tool use, warfare, and countless other cross-species concepts are.XavierGreen (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The "morality" of a fact should have no bearing on its inclusion in a neutral encyclopedia. Facts have no morality. To suggest otherwise is absurd. Given that other subjectively deplorable human behavior is indeed compared to that of other species within Wikipedia, I have seen no good reason to not include this fact here. It doesn't need to be anything more than a single sentence or two, but as of now there sounds like no legitimate justification to not include it beyond personal ethical codes, which have absolutely no place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B074:1B7F:7466:444D:86C1:79F4 (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

" Facts have no morality" is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not about "facts" it's about reporting what the reliable secondary sources say. Morality is a major component of the coverage of slavery --it infuses every RS without exception. There is no Wiki rule whatever requiring editors to drop their moral sensibility when dealing with this issue. Rjensen (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

If the content is framed properly, such as a section called "Alleged slavery in other species", I do not see any problem in including it considering there is considerable citation from reliable sources. So go for it. JustBeCool (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's best framed as WP:BADIDEA. It isn't even a question of morality. Read the very first line of the lead: "Slavery is a legal or economic system in which principles of property law are applied to humans allowing them to be classified as property..." (my emphasis). Other species are WP:OFFTOPIC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Slave owners is being considered for deletion

Just to let you know Category:Slave owners is being considered for deletion. This nomination is part of a discussion of several related categories. You can share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Eartha78 (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

England

This article claims slave trade was made illegal in England in 1102 CE. I question the relevance of this statement. I know *nothing* about the facts "on the ground" in 1102. In 1772, when Somerset vs Steuart was decided there were an estimated 15,000 black slaves living in England. So the facts are that slavery continued in England and that England was deeply involved in the global slave trade. I think the fact that slavery existed in England until the 1800's is far more pertinent here that some claim that "slave trade" (what does that even mean in this context??) was "made illegal" 670 years earlier. Obviously, whether or not the law was enforced in 1102, there were "a couple" of government changes between then and 1772; the 1102 law is largely irrelevant and sheds no light on the practice of slavery in England in the 1700's.71.31.88.157 (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It's dealt with in the "Abolitionism" section, which is a WP:DUE summary of the main article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

18th century slaves of the Atlantic

The Atlantic working class of the 18th century has been omitted from the list of significant slave groups. Linebaugh and Rediker make a reasonable argument that a subculture of apprentices, servants, Irish and slaves were the driving force behind a break with the colonial ruling classes. The groups, referred to by colonists as a “Hydra” met in taverns and at street parties along east coast ports and found themselves united in discontent at the oppression that they endured. It was this pressure that forged them into the political mobs that were willing to go to war in order to free themselves from the colonialist oppression.Mbrennan00 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mbrennan00: Thanks for your comment, and kudos for reading Linebaugh and Rediker. I suggest you boldly WP:BOLD find a way to include the Atlantic working class in the article, but the whole of it should not be classified as slavery. In other words, the hydra includes slaves, but it is not slavery. So, if you are to include the idea of the hydra (or the Atlantic working class) do so as part of the Atlantic history section, but making a distinction between the two (hydra not equal to slavery). If you prefer, we can use this space to rehearse the wording. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 20:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Slavery in Africa: Tuareg Image

The Tuareg image in the section on Africa has a caption that reads "Tuareg society is traditionally feudal, ranging from nobles, through vassals, to dark-skinned slaves." This seems to mischaracterize the source that it cites (Fortin, Jacey (16 January 2013). "Mali's Other Crisis: Slavery Still Plagues Mali, And Insurgency Could Make It Worse". International Business Times) by suggesting that this source explains "dark-skinned slaves" as part of the feudal classes. The exact quote in Fortin's article is from Sarah Mathewson who states, "We’re mainly working with ethnic Tuaregs, who have a very strong hierarchy including nobles, warriors and slave classes." Earlier in the article Fortin writes that slaves and masters are described as "black" and "white" for historical reasons that are no longer as true as they were in the past. Fortin seems concerned with showing that these terms of "black" and "white" don't necessarily match reality; thus, Fortin makes a point of stating that "members of both groups have varying skin tones."

As another note, unlike the other images in this wikipedia page that clearly show something related to slavery, I cannot find any indication outside of this wikipedia article caption that either individual in the photograph is a slave. The image seems to be of nomadic shepherds and the Wikipedia file description from the photographer (H. Grobe) calls them nomads. Perhaps this photo should not be used to illustrate slavery at all.

Thus, all things being considered, I think this photo and caption should be removed. Jayreed33 (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I think that Jayreed33 makes a good case against holding this pic in the article. Thanks for noticing and calling attention to this mistake. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 20:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Request minor edits to Middle Ages

I have only made a couple of edits in Wikipedia, that must be why I can't edit the article. I can understand why this article is edit-protected.A6910 (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A6910 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I can make an improvement to this part of the article with regards to balancing point of view. One of the edits is where it says, "In 1452, Pope Nicholas V..." I propose to add, "In 1452, with the Muslim conquest of Constantinople imminent, Pope Nicholas V...". This would do a little bit (but not enough) to help clarify why Pope Nicholas V wrote Dum Diversas.

There is much more historical background information needed to properly understand Dum Diversas. Pope Nicholas granted permission to the king of Portugal to hold the Muslims in slavery as the lesser of evils in a situation where doing nothing would have meant the death of Christians (for whom the pope was responsible), or at the very least, their enslavement by the Muslims. Pope Nicholas did not have to explicitly state that enslavement was the lesser of evils because he was not writing a letter to 21st century critics, he was writing a letter to a 15th century king who would have understood that. Critics of the Church point to Dum Diversas as an example of the Church’s endorsement of the evils of slavery. Careful, unbiased study reveals not an endorsement of evil, but rather an undesirable, but prudent decision by the pope during an era of widespread death, destruction, and slavery as the result of seemingly constant warfare and invasions, a reality that modern sensibilities can have difficulty grasping. Pope Nicholas V, faced with preserving the lives of Christians in difficult circumstances, had to deal with it from the very dangerous reality of the times in 1452, not from the ideal situation in which we find ourselves now in the 21st century in which proper measures to eliminate slavery can be facilitated with much greater ease.

When attacked by those who were intent on killing or enslaving them, Christians had little choice but to fight and defeat their enemies, sometimes preemptively, to preserve their own lives. When Christians defeated their enemies, something had to be done with the captured combatants. Setting them free was not an option because the freed combatants would simply regroup and resume their attack to kill the Christians; the execution of the combatants was an undesirable, evil option, even in the most dire circumstances. Thus, the Christians would have been suddenly faced with guarding and feeding thousands of hostile Muslim soldiers for an indefinite period of time. This simply was not feasible at that time in history, which lacked the modern means of food production and distribution that we have today. Thus, in this difficult situation, the least evil option for the Church was to keep the enemy combatants (who otherwise did absolutely nothing but eat) occupied with the productive work that was necessary to keep everyone fed - i.e., slavery. It was called slavery, but Pope Nicholas V's intentions had nothing to do with the cruelty that is so popularly associated with slavery in America or the unjustified bondage of the innocent.

Another minor edit I propose (in the interest of due weight) is to delete the statement that Dum Diversas “legitimized the slave trade as the result of war”. Dum Diversas says nothing about the buying and selling of slaves, i.e., the slave trade. Keep in mind that the bull Dum Diversas was a private, sealed letter addressed to a king; it was not a doctrinal statement to the whole world about the “legitimacy of the slave trade”. I am adding here a citation to the only article I could find that includes the entire text of Dum Diversas.

And here are two excellent articles about the Church's position on slavery:(You have to scroll halfway down to get to the part on slavery.) Also.

The statement I propose to delete cites an essay by Diana Hayes, whose opinions misrepresent (or at least she misunderstands) what the Catholic Church teaches. Here is one example, taken from her essay Reflections on Slavery:

Indented text As the statements cited in this book show, from its very beginning, the church not only acknowledged but actively supported the “natural order” of slavery. As Pope Gregory I (ca. 600) noted: “A hidden dispensation of providence has arranged a hierarchy of merit and rulership, in that the difference between classes of men has arisen as a result of sin and is ordered by divine justice.” The enslaved were slaves because of their own faults and failures, and the church did not see its role or responsibility to change this state of affairs.

It is Diana Hayes, not Pope Gregory, who is saying that the enslaved were slaves because of their own faults and failures. Here Diana Hayes fails to make the distinction between original sin and personal sin, a distinction so commonplace in the Catholic ethos that ordinary Catholics understand the contextual meaning even without the modifying adjectives original and personal. Even in this short excerpt, it is clear that Pope Gregory is referring to the original sin of Adam and Eve, not the personal sins of the slaves. There are countless examples in Catholic writings, from Paul’s letter to the Romans to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in which original sin is referred to simply as “sin”. Furthermore, the “hidden dispensation of providence” that Gregory speaks of is simply the acknowledgement that God’s ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8). When sin entered the world through the original sin of Adam and Eve, “divine justice” (which Gregory mentions) demanded consequences; sometimes those consequences come about as the result of free human actions that are evil, such as slavery. Incidentally, this is one of the ways that the Catholic Church explains the problem of evil and the purpose of suffering to a world that doubts the existence of a loving God. God loves us so much that He leaves us with the use of our free will even when we do evil (such as slavery), but in his “hidden dispensation of providence” He uses the consequences of evil actions (suffering) as a means to conquer that evil (Jesus Christ did that very thing). God also uses suffering to draw sufferers closer to Himself (again Jesus is the model for that), and thus to greater glory in heaven.

I am new to Wikipedia editing, and I agree wholeheartedly with all the guidelines I have been reading about. I have read the article about assuming good faith and I am assuming good faith with the editor who cited the Hayes essay. Unfortunately, I am not skilled enough as a writer to put things into the encyclopedic style of writing with the neutral point of view that is required on Wikipedia articles. I am also still learning the proper conventions for citing sources, no original research, etc. My intent is to improve the article’s balance and give due weight to the 2000 years of Catholic consensus on this matter, which should be given more weight than opinions that misrepresent what the Catholic Church says about itself. A6910 (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Serfdom

The article claims The term 'forced labour' is also used to describe all types of slavery and may also include institutions not commonly classified as slavery, such as serfdom... (my bolding). I've frequently seen serfdom described as a form of slavery, and the articles serfdom and Supplementary_Convention_on_the_Abolition_of_Slavery treat it as such. (Plus, the word 'serf' is derived from the Latin for slave). Iapetus (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wardog: If your concern is that the line contradicts your assumption that serfdom should always be consider as equal to slavery, just realize that serfdom is Not always the same as slavery. Central to the definition of serfdom is the contract and the manor. Still, practices and applications varied considerably across time and space. That's why the article states, "distinctions were often less clear than suggested by their different names". Keep in mind that we are trying to classify behavior and events that often defy the parameters imposed by the limitations of our language. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 20:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

My issue is not so much that "serfdom should always be consider as equal to slavery", but rather that in my experience it often is considered so, but the article claims it usually isn't. (In contrast, I've seen both conscription and penal labour described as slavery, but this doesn't seem to be a common view). Perhaps the simplest solution would be to change "not commonly classified as slavery" to "not necessarily classed as slavery". Or with a bit more work, say something about who considers them to be or not to be forms of slavery. Iapetus (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Serfdom" doen not belong on this page, it chould be mentioned only for comparative purposes with a link to serfdom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2017

Can you mention about the KKK and the Black Panther because I dont seem to think that is mention and would like to see a bit on that as i am studying it. if there is a page then please direct me to it. 86.12.102.137 (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Please be specific about what changes you are requesting. You can find articles on the other subjects at KKK and Black Panthers. RudolfRed (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Fugitive slave should not redirect to US article

We need an article on the fugitive slaves. This article doesn't even discuss the issue - how prevalent it was, what were the penalties, procedures, slave catchers, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2017

Suggested edit: remove Tuareg image and the caption below it.

Reasoing: The Tuareg image in the section on Africa has a caption that reads "Tuareg society is traditionally feudal, ranging from nobles, through vassals, to dark-skinned slaves." This seems to mischaracterize the source that it cites (Fortin, Jacey (16 January 2013). "Mali's Other Crisis: Slavery Still Plagues Mali, And Insurgency Could Make It Worse". International Business Times) by suggesting that this source explains "dark-skinned slaves" as part of the feudal classes. The exact quote in Fortin's article is from Sarah Mathewson who states, "We’re mainly working with ethnic Tuaregs, who have a very strong hierarchy including nobles, warriors and slave classes." Earlier in the article Fortin writes that slaves and masters are described as "black" and "white" for historical reasons that are no longer as true as they were in the past. Fortin seems concerned with showing that these terms of "black" and "white" don't necessarily match reality; thus, Fortin makes a point of stating that "members of both groups have varying skin tones."

As another note, unlike the other images in this wikipedia page that clearly show something related to slavery, I cannot find any indication outside of this wikipedia article caption that either individual in the photograph is a slave. The image seems to be of nomadic shepherds and the Wikipedia file description from the photographer (H. Grobe) calls them nomads. Perhaps this photo should not be used to illustrate slavery at all.

Thus, all things being considered, I think this photo and caption should be removed. Jayreed33 (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done - as outlined by Jayreed33, there's no indication that the people in this image are slaves, or necessarily representative of the topic. For reference in case anyone disagrees, the image is File:Mali1974-151 hg.jpg. Note that the article still contains a written mention of Tuareg slavery. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-05-15-voa30-68815957.html?rss=human%20rights%20and%20law
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021092115/http://www.jamestown.org/uploads/media/Crimean_Tatar_-_complete_report_01.pdf to http://www.jamestown.org/uploads/media/Crimean_Tatar_-_complete_report_01.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014135617/http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=GR7529&chapterID=GR7529-747&path=books%2Fgreenwood to http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=GR7529&chapterID=GR7529-747&path=books%2Fgreenwood
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040604075834/http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html to http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090911101051/http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst373/readings/inalcik6.html to http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst373/readings/inalcik6.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/economicHistory/GEHN/GEHNPDF/Islam%26SlaveryWGCS.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.faz.net/s/RubDDBDABB9457A437BAA85A49C26FB23A0/Doc~E19E0D1A29403492E9787E7A392A3FFAE~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/politics/bal-te.obama02mar02%2C0%2C3453027.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921075859/https://edition.presstv.ir/detail/146302.html to http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/146302.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304090827/http://senatehouselibrary.ac.uk/our-collections/special-collections/archives-manuscripts/subject-guides-to-archives/slavery-archive-sources/ to http://senatehouselibrary.ac.uk/our-collections/special-collections/archives-manuscripts/subject-guides-to-archives/slavery-archive-sources/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725220038/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm to http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

10s of Millions press-ganged and conscripted into slavery and death

Is being press-ganged or conscripted into the military against your will, often to die thousands of miles from your family, considered slavery? Should there be a link to the 'Impressment' and 'Conscription' Wikipedia pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

There's already a link to Involuntary servitude in the "See also" section. It's not the same as slavery though, since slaves didn't get paid. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Slave auctions in Libya

See [5] Doug Weller talk 14:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090708085725/http://www.amnestyusa.org/violence-against-women/end-human-trafficking/trafficking-faq/page.do?id=1108432&n1=3&n2=39&n3=738 to http://www.amnestyusa.org/violence-against-women/end-human-trafficking/trafficking-faq/page.do?id=1108432&n1=3&n2=39&n3=738
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605131551/http://www.econ.hit-u.ac.jp/~areastd/mediterranean/mw/pdf/18/10.pdf to http://www2.econ.hit-u.ac.jp/~areastd/mediterranean/mw/pdf/18/10.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

Slavery is depicted as bad throughout the article. As an author you have to be above the zeitgeist, even if the topic is considered morally questionable. Morality is always subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.47.74.232 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Slavery in classical antiquity

the page is locked, otherwise I'd do it myself.

Can someone add the Slavery in antiquity article as a "main article" heading under the Slavery#Classical antiquity section. Thanks --Tomatoswoop (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. Editor2020 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Slavery is 'Slavs'

This is an extremely questionable and controversial theory to be removed. The fact is that it was invented by "scientists"-racists 17-18 from Germany and France. Unfortunately this misconception is so common still in the West, even in Oxford refer to it. In reality, the Slavs have absolutely nothing to do with slavery. Unfortunately, I cannot change this text now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frost210 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2018

Change "there are an estimated 45.8 million people subject to some form of modern slavery worldwide.[6]" to " there are an estimated 40.3 million people subject to some form of modern slavery worldwide.[6]" The information currently available on Wikipedia is outdated, although the source of the information is correct: https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/findings/highlights/ 144.32.113.131 (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Sam Sailor 21:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC regarding the lead image

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

---

Should this image File:Slaves ruvuma.jpg with this caption (Arab slave traders and their captives along the Ruvuma River in Mozambique, circa 1866.) be in the lead section of this article?--SharabSalam (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• No Because 1) it is against MOS:LEADIMAGE which says Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic and it also says Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution. 2) it is against MOS:IRELEV which says Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. 3) it is against WP:PROPORTION which says An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, though others would suffice. I disagree with pretty much every point SharabSalam raises above. Nothing is a more natural, appropriate, relevant, and proportional for representation of the topic that slaves being chain-ganged and marched off to be sold. If the secret objection is "it has Arabs in it", we know that most slaves that entered the European market were caught by and bought from other Africans, which included Arabs, so there is no issue there, either. The current image selection over-focuses on European and American trade in slaves, but slavery is part of the human story all the way back to the depths of prehistory and was practiced across many cultures. We also have a huge whitespace in the lead to fill due to the long table of contents. However, there are numerous period images pertaining to slavery that might suffice. It need not be this particular image, though one focused on the collective pathos of the condition, as this one does, would be best. That this one focuses on the capture of people and the driving of them from their homeland to a slave market is arguably important. It's not something addressed by any other image in the page, and it's quite powerful. When I first saw Roots as a child, one of the most driving-home aspects of it was the opening scene of Kunta Kinte's capture and the subsequent sea voyage. Everyone already understood that slaves were bought and sold, forced to work, and generally mistreated, but many did not give a lot of thought to their former lives – their separation from their families and people and culture. At any rate, this image should certainly be retained in the article, though another could be used in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• The image is meant to highlight Arab slavery not to highlight slavery in general and again it is not an appropriate to only highlight Arab slavery in the lead section. This user has been adding Arab slavery-related images to the leads [6][7][8]. Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative what I can understand from putting the image in the lead is suggesting that Arab slavery is significantly related to slavery though that's a POV and not true. Also this "chain-ganged and marched off to be sold" is not a good reason to only show Arab slavery in the lead and yes it is not a neutral point of view and it's not representative image of slavery, slavery has different forms and different ways other than chains etc. If it is a NPOV then I will be adding European-American slavery related images in to every single article that is related to slavery and also I will be putting them over the Arab one to see if there will be any objections.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would be careful with this last idea, SharabSalam. It sounds a lot like editing to make a point. Eperoton (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you ,Eperoton. I have never came across this policy and editting to make a point seemed reasonable to me but now I can understand why it's wrong.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• No. In terms of the arguments presented so far, I'm actually a lot more in agreement with SMcCandlish than SharabSalam. It's hard to think of a more recognizable representation for slavery than a neck chain gang and Arab slave trade is a major force in the history of world slavery. I'm not sure if the part of the caption that reads This is one of the best known and frequently reproduced images in the literature on slaving in Africa is taken from a RS, but if true, this statement would satisfy the requirement that the lead image be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works. That said, I don't think putting this image or any image in the lead would improve this article. I'm generally a lead image exclusionist, based on the main rationale for lead images: ... a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. These are all examples where a reader may recognize that they've come to the right page more quickly by seeing a familiar image than by reading the text. I don't know who would come to this article while looking for another one, and I don't think any image would make for a quicker clarification than the title itself. This goes particularly for an image that would be displaced below the text of the lead by templates. Also, although I'm not aware of any guidelines on this, I have a strong personal aversion to filling up space next to the table of contents with images, as I feel it gives the article an impression of being carelessly slapped together. Eperoton (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Everyone gets their say, of course, but as a designer for much of my career, I would beg to differ with your last point. Leaving an enormous whitespace area when we have pertinent content to put in it is a terrible idea in a work of this sort, and is what looks shoddy, as if we're too incompetent to work around something like an auto-generated ToC. "Oww... da software it broked my brain."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• No. This is clearly WP:UNDUE. When I think of slavery, the first thing that springs to mind is the transatlantic slave trade, and rightly so. Apart from having been the most intense and the largest in terms of volume, it was also the worst and unique in its promotion of a racist ideology whose ramifications are still being felt. M.Bitton (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• The lead should not contain any image either showing Arabs with chains or images related to transatlantic slave trade. There is no easy representation of this article because slavery is not chains or Arabs or atlantic and per MOS:LEADIMAGE images in the lead are not required. There are other forms of slavery i.e Modern slavery. I think the best image for the lead would be a map showing traditional slavery and modern slavery index which I am currently working on.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Just because you think of the transatlantic slave trade first doesn't mean it was "the most intense and the largest in terms of volume, it was also the worst and unique in its promotion of a racist ideology whose ramifications are still being felt." The Arab Slave Trade was comparable in size but lasted MUCH longer. I'd challenge you to review what you think about it. Slavery all over the world has led to racism and decimated Africa especially. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• No because I think the current not-quite-leadimage the shackles works quite well, similar to Intelligent design and Islam. Slavery is ancient and worldwide, any more specific image seem likely to exclude too much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, though the caption need not say specifically Arab. It represents a central type of event in the best known historical situation; that there are other historical situation also is unavoidable. Even for such broad topics as Human, we use a single lead, though it does not represent all the possibilities. It serves very well in each case to indicate and exemplify what the article is about. Of course there are other possible images, but I think this is the clearest and most generalizable one of those in the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Weakly Yes per the points of SMcCandlish, but I'm not against another image/caption either. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• No The history of the Arab slave trade is well documented and an image depicting such a scene would work as a lead image, but since this image was added by an user who has added several images related to the topic I'm afraid it was done as some sort of political statement. There is a very rich and unfortunate tradition on the Internet and elsewhere of popularizing the Arab and African slavers not for reasons related to history or education, but as a way of making the Trans-Atlantic slave trade seem less abhorrent. "White people didn't do anything to Africans that they didn't do first to themselves" sort of thing. We should avoid letting Wikipedia become a vessel for such attempts. That being said, the map SharabSalam is proposing would work well as a way of avoiding this and it would also be much more useful than any drawing or photograph depicting scenes of enslavement PraiseVivec (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• No. (Summoned by bot) Slavery has occurred in many societies for thousands of years. If we want to place a picture in the lead, we should choose either one depicting slavery in an ancient society, or one showing modern slaves. How a random picture about Arab slave traders in Africa in the 1860s could neutrally represent the long history of slavery? Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2018

A world map showing countries by prevalence of female trafficking, accompanied by an image has no credible source. it claims some countries e.g., India that female trafficking is partially legal, which is not the case. https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/findings/highlights/ Referring to this article, India has one of the stronger enforcement for anti-slavery laws (although prevalent, problem is taken seriously). Further, referring to another Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_India, it clearly states that trafficking is strictly illegal.

Whoever included the attached images, did not provide a

source. Sachk666 (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done The image is from 2011 and is a little outdated. You can update the image at File:Map3.3Trafficking_compressed.jpg. The image is from http://www.womanstats.org – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 23:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2018

In discussion of abolitionism, in discussion of religions opposed to slavery, recommend adding a reference to Baha'i Faith, which prohibits slavery. Text could come chronologically before: "In 2014, for the first time in history, major leaders of many religions, Buddhist, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Hindu, Jewish, and Muslim met to sign a shared commitment against modern-day slavery; the declaration they signed calls for the elimination of slavery and human trafficking by the year 2020."

And the suggested text is: "The founder of the Baha'i Faith, Baha'u'llah, prohibited slavery in his 1873 book, Kitab-i-Aqdas.[citation: "Synopsis and Codification of the Laws and Ordinances of the Kitab-i-Aqdas", Universal House of Justice, 1973, p 47.]

Links can be added to current Wikipedia pages for Baha'i Faith, Baha'u'llah, and Kitab-i-Aqdas. Deanchurchill (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2018 (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. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 03:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)