Article wrong. Most cultures did not have slaves. But modern imperial / colonial ones did[edit]

The article incorrectly asserts (in the first sentence) that most cultures had slaves. This is totally untrue. Taino did not have slaves. Olmecs did not have slaves. Yoruba did not have slaves, nor did more of the early ancient cultures in the land we call North America, and South America. Further, the first paragraphs is too politely written. It should give the terms: "Genocide" "crime", inhumane", etc. It approaches slavery in very nonchalant manner, almost validating it. --2604:2000:DDD1:4900:39DC:A8CF:93F5:7C8E (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It says almost all, not all. 2A00:23C4:2401:6D00:DDB7:637E:D691:39FF (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hereditary slavery[edit]

In this article, it is said that "Slavery was not usually hereditary". My question is, how does anyone know this? As to the word, "usually", I ask, what about those instances? How would those be different from any other act of slavery, including the African slave trade? And if this is true, then why do numbers of slaves or how people became slaves against will matter? Hereditary slavery has likely been around since prehistory, and it is discussed in early Chinese texts, at least as early as a few hundred years before year 0 AD. Should it be considered that many males taken captive by Islamic slavers were castrated? It was not unheard of for the rape-produced children born to enslaved women to be killed by them, as well.

Indigenous peoples of the Americas[edit]

In the section for the Americas, why does this article focus almost exclusively on African slavery in the Americas? So much effort went into that aspect of New World slavery, yet comparatively, exceedingly little went into indigenous slavery, slaves which were the first to make the Transatlantic voyage. Native enslavement was just as brutal, if not possibly more so because they were seen as being highly expendable (de las Casas is a good source).

Transatlantic Slave Route[edit]

The transportation of slaves across the Atlantic between the Old World and the New World began with the transportation of indigenous peoples of the Americas being sent to Spain. Why is this exclusively associated with transportation of Africans to the Americas? The route was used prior to the 16th century (the time given in this article) when indigenous people were taken to Ferdinand II and Isabella I.

Dumping[edit]

The slave trade was very sad. I hope the people involved were punished for their mistakes.

--I agree with you re punishment. Of course they could be punished. Even if a government were involved, we could punish the government officials, like we did to Hitler, etc. Some of the responses here seek to detract from your position with illogical responses. --2604:2000:DDD1:4900:39DC:A8CF:93F5:7C8E (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean you hope they were punish for their mistakes? Punished by who? Their governments supported this. That is how they were able to do all of this. Also how do you punish someone who has contributed to the system of owning and abusing someone? Civ1hk (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This information was once part of the "slavery" article. However, when the article was cleaned up and reduced in size, most of the material in this section was dumped without being distributed into other articles. There's some very good material here, including information I was looking for earlier today and not finding. I resurrected this article from version "22:23, 11 July 2006; 67.188.173.95", the last revision of this material before it was dumped. I have also changed several redirects from "slavery" to "history of slavery". Peter G Werner 03:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dumping material should be punishable by some heavy wiki-beating-on-the-head of parties responsible. Consider DYKing this article, it should achieve much more attention if this succeeds.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There needs to be a lot more about slavery and islam, i recommend Islam's black slavery by Ronald Segal. There is a longer history and roughly the same numbers transported, ie. 12-14 million. It seems ridicolous not to mention this, maybe slightly political correct(?)

Slavery in Arabia, the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East[edit]

delted weasle words and direct POV which is trying to white wash the transatlantic slave trade by demonizing Arabs and redirecting focus. Just state the facts, we dont need any POV comparisions, site multi sources. I will tag this section because it is not neutral. The fact that it is called Arab slave trade over and over again is a bias. when even indians and chinese were involved. there is also virtually no ref for the BIG statements.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But Arabs traded African slaves on a massive scale. In fact, other than some isolated Roman and Greek occurrences, they invented the whole idea of exporting slaves from Africa. Sorry, but thems the facts. Don't try to wash your hands of it just because you are not a WASP. That is the height of the PC crap that is ruining everything.Arlesd (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Muslim Slave Trade was horrible, but not that horrible. They often took in Christians as well, and wars weren't started in Africa for slaves, unlike other trades. 86.161.6.178 (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Muslim Slave Trade was horrible, but not that horrible" -- I want to leave this up here because, sadly, this is what many editors believe. DenverCoder9 (talk) DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of 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:

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).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rebel leaders Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Nathan Beford Forrest and others were Slavers and Slave-Traders[edit]

I added to the Civil War section... Rebel leaders Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Nathan Bedford Forrest and others were slavers and slave-traders. 2601:580:1:235:2C15:3245:8D43:A133 (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent edit[edit]

This recent edit by Grufo seems to problematic for several reasons:

VR talk 02:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

USSR[edit]

This edit removed the entire section on the Soviet Union. Yet, there are many works on slavery in the USSR, including a book called Stalin's Slave Camps: an indictment of Modern Slavery, which was positively reviewed by Hugo Dewar in International Affairs and call's Stalin's penal manpower a "modern form of slavery" and "an integral part of the Soviet Union". A chapter on forced labor during the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany appears in the The Cambridge World History of Slavery vol 4. Illness and Inhumanity in Stalin's Gulag also documents slavery in the USSR. We also have articles like Stalin's legacy lives on in city that slaves built. The katorga is also considered a form of slave labor.VR talk 10:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VR It looks like the section was restored, so feel free to add those references to it. 2001:569:7D8E:5300:9D1B:654F:C8B:52E1 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inaccurate statement?[edit]

Arab or Islamic slave trade lasted much longer than the Atlantic or European slave trade: "It began in the middle of the seventh century and survives today in Mauritania and Sudan. With the Islamic slave trade, we're talking of 14 centuries rather than four."

Arab slave trade started before the 6th century, and before the advent of Islam. The European slave trade didn't start with the Atlantic slave trade either. Should this be removed? Ibrahim5361 (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ibrahim5361 - I've changed the wording to quote the source more accurately (he doesn't mention Arab).

"Enslaved people"[edit]

Ducky008 asks in the summaries of various recently-reverted edits:

How do I obtain consensus? I invite all readers to go through each of the edits made and compare them to the immediately previous version instead of just blanket reversing. It reads better and more appropriately reflects the current views of society towards the victims of these crimes. While the English language tends to favor brevity, in this instance the extra word in the edits is much needed.

This is NOT about "righting a great wrong", no facts have been changed or altered, no opinions have been asserted, and no sources of information have been misconstrued or disrupted. These edits apply a more appropriate common noun for the victims of a heinous crime, as opposed to the dehumanizing noun provided by the perpetrators. The length of time something is wrong, does not make it right.

This is not about "political correctness" this is about respecting victims of a crime by providing them a more proper title of who they are. The English language is always evolving as we get a better understanding of the impact our written and spoken word has on people. This is a long overdue correction to how we refer to these victims.

This refers to Ducky008's repeated substitution of the words "enslaved people" for the shorter single word "slaves" generally used in the sources. In this edit war they have been supported by @Drmies: while @MrOllie: @Equivamp: @ThoughtIdRetired: and myself have disagreed. To answer the question: we should obtain consensus by discussion on this page. Hunc (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are many reasons for resisting the form of words suggested by User:Ducky008:
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia based on reliable sources. The sources for the article do not avoid using the word "slave". If you study the list of references, just looking at the titles, you will find:
"Born to be a slave in Niger". BBC News.
"West is master of slave trade guilt". Theaustralian.news.com.au.
"One in 200 people is a slave. Why?". The Guardian.
"Historical survey: Slave-owning societies". Encyclopædia Britannica.
Grindal, Peter (2016). Opposing the Slavers. The Royal Navy's Campaign against the Atlantic Slave Trade (Kindle ed.). London: I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd. ISBN 978-0-85773-938-4.
"The impact of the slave trade on Africa". Mondediplo.com. 22 March 1998
The list of reliable sources that use the word "slave" in their titles goes on and on. If we are to follow the type of language used by those writing on slavery, some of whom have put in years of work on the subject, then referring to someone as a slave is not only acceptable use of English, but the preferred form.
One can find current use of the word slave in the recent output of the most politically correct of organisations - for instance: [1] The idea that "the world is catching up" is not really true.
Does anyone who has been or is held as a slave actually object to the word? Surely total clarity of language is highly important in this case.
The article is, or should be, a useful education on the subject. If a particular form of words is repeatedly used, to some people this will make the reader presume a particular partisan standpoint. I suggest that this is a barrier to the reader simply taking on board facts which speak for themselves.
As well as passion over the wrongs of slavery, there are some who care about the integrity of the English language. We have a word for someone who is or has been held as a slave. Making this word taboo does nothing to improve the situation of any slave, but it does make it much more difficult to talk about the subject. How on earth does that improve anything? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I hear you say is that changing "policeman" to "police officer" makes it impossible to talk about policing. I've already indicated that how reliable sources and academics and historians use this language is changing. Your BBC article is from 2005, for instance. "Slavers" is a different use of the word, as are "slave ship" and "slave trade". "Making this word taboo" is just nonsensical, and "facts which speak for themselves" is a much more complicated thing than you propose. Might as well re-introduce the n-word. Do you want us to take a poll among those who have been enslaved? Well, you might could look at this, from the Underground Railroad Education Center--they probably know this better than you and I do. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1) What I hear... is not what I said. There is every reason to use "police officer" as there are women who carry out this role. That is correct use of English.
(2) Your BBC article is from 2005 - no, the news report is from January of this year - it has been all over the local news where I live. This is the sort of thing that is happening now, for which we need absolutely crystal clear language to help stop it happening.
(3) "Slavers" is a different use of the word, as are "slave ship" and "slave trade". "Slave trade" is one of the changes made in the original edit.
(3) "Making this word taboo" is just so much drivel, - no, it isn't. If you introduce barriers to people talking about things, you make education more difficult. Why do you think there have been, in recent history, big attempts to get people talking about mental illness, sexually transmitted diseases, financial problems and all the other taboo subjects that exist in the world.
(4) Might as well re-introduce the n-word. I am not sure where that falls in the spectrum of treating other editors with respect, but for the avoidance of doubt, when I heard someone (in Montgomery Al) refer to one of his employees by that term, in the man's presence, I was horrified in a way that I have not felt before or since. Please do not make presumptions about my attitude to that sort of thing.
(5) Do you want us to take a poll among those who have been enslaved? Clearly, I do not know your circumstances, but I guess you are talking about your ancestors. Yet, as I have pointed out above, I live in a community where someone has been convicted of keeping a slave. This is a big subject and something on which anyone with any trace of humanity to them has the right to an opinion. Neither of these points are relevant, though, because as stated above, the overwhelming factor in this has to be what reliable sources say. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an additional thought, see Alex Scott (footballer, born 1984) which uses as a source a report of the "Who do you think you are" BBC genealogy program. I doubt the program is available online in the USA (and it currently is offlinebut is still available in the UK), but this episode handles the enormously difficult subject of ancestors of Alex Scott being both slaves and owners of slaves (and that is not a white slave owner) in a way that has to be commended. The people talking in that program are immensely close to the subject and do not shy away from the word. It has huge educational value - something which Wikipedia should not lose. We really should take a lesson from that. (And the episode featuring Alex Scott is in the most recent series of this program, so this is well up to date.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the irony cannot be lost on the fact that the "source" documents ThoughtIdRetired is referencing above, including from the BBC, The Guardian, Encyclopædia Britannica, I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd, come from entities based out of the very country that played a pivotal role in the trade of enslaved people. This is not to discount the authors or message of these source documents, but taken in combination with the fact that the UK encompasses the geographic area where the English language settled and thrived, entities or individuals from within that area may be more apt at leaving well enough alone, or having a bias towards the status quo, versus changing what they may deem as a perfect language; they may face even bigger pushback from native linguist that see this as nonsense (of course this is just conjecture). Certainly the inhabitants of the UK and other English speaking countries have not bared the full brunt of the lasting repercussions of the trade of enslaved people like those residing in the Americas, and therefore may be less inclined to see the casualness of the word "slave". For the record I did not edit direct quotes from the source documents. I did not make these changes to the entire article as I did not have time to finish. If the consensus supports these edits, anyone reading this feel free to carry on with the endeavor. I will weigh in on the points made at a later time. I appreciate everyone's thoughts on the matter. Ducky008 (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Ducky008, I think you need to have some regard for the descendants of slaves who live in the UK (of whom there are many). Here is a quote from Bell Ribeiro-Addy, a member of the UK parliament, in a debate on the education aspects of slavery: "My first black relative born in the UK was actually born in 1806, in Twyford in Winchester. His name was Thomas Birch Freeman. He was the son of a freed slave and a maid and went on to become a Methodist minister." You can find the full quote at [2]. This is how the subject is addressed by someone with slavery in their history. This sort of usage is not difficult to find. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:ThoughtIdRetired, I understand slavery existed in Great Britain. How any one individual chooses to refer to other individuals, verbally or in writing, is undeniably at their own discretion, such as the quote you provided by Bell Ribeiro-Addy. In the context of an "online encyclopedia" such as Wikipedia, it may be best to pursue words wisely. In the case of these recent edits, it was effortless to give unknown victims due respect and bring some humanity to the topic. Choosing words wisely is as simple as using terms, phrases, adjectives and nouns that reflect thoughtfulness, ultimately leading others down a path of true understanding with an open mind, irregardless of the topic. No edits were made to direct quotes. Ducky008 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're telling Ducky here that they need to have some regards for the descendants of enslaved people, then consider this: twice I linked the Underground Railroad project, but you don't seem to care about their rather sensible discussion of the importance of word choice. That you find one such descendant who uses the word "slave", meh--there's thousands who don't want to use that word. And suggesting that somehow using "enslaved person" makes it difficult or impossible to discuss slavery and its ongoing effects is pretty ridiculous. I wonder if you felt the same way when we stopped using the word "retard"--is there anyone now who wants to restore that awful word? And have we stopped discussing mental health and ableism? I don't think so. So how on earth does "enslaved person" create any barriers?
But much of this, of my addressing your points, is irrelevant because your points are irrelevant. The "integrity" of the English language is not at stake here. What older sources say is important, but what is important also is what scholars and others say today--this is how singular they is now perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia. You may have noticed that if someone wants to write about ships and use "it", that is also acceptable, according to the MOS. What shouldn't be happening here is you policing this article with 19th-c arguments about linguistic purity. I'll repeat what those who have some intimate knowledge on the topic have said: "With the word 'slave', we deny the humanity of the enslaved person; with 'enslaved person', we recognize their enslaved state as imposed on them and not intrinsic to their identity as a human being". You may call that "political correctness"; I call it decency. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drmies I think what we are learning out of this is that American English and British English have diverged on how to address the subject. The danger is that the language change you advocate makes the article US centric. In fact the whole topic of slavery tends to get overwhelmed with slavery in the US which, despite its scale, is not the only part of the subject. (This point is acknowledged by educators who struggle to design a balanced curriculum.) Right now, we have the very last of the generation that included slave labourers of the Nazis - and there seems to be no hesitation in using the word there (e.g. [3]). I really do not know how to solve the problem for the article. I do understand (though you seem to think I do not) that for some people, the word "slave" is offensive if it is applied to a person. What I ask is that you address the issue that people in the UK and also, I believe, the Caribbean, do not seem to see it that way. They prefer to tackle the issue head on. Why should that group of people (especially with a relevant heritage) have their language restricted? How do we fix that for the article? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't an American vs British thing, see for example The National Archives, who use 'enslaved people' or 'enslaved africans' throughout their materials. MrOllie (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But is this the exception that proves the rule? I would be amazed if the BBC had not picked up on this if it were at all a common usage in the UK. Similarly, the Guardian. All we have is evidence of transition - and probably the early stages of a transition that may or may not come to fruition. I have given numerous examples where there is the opportunity for the writer to use this form of words, but has chosen not to.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand how "enslaved people" vs. "slaves" is a restriction. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a restriction if an editor puts text in this article using the word "slave", based on the RSs that the editor is using for the edit, and then another editor "corrects" that with the form of words you propose. I do not see how anyone could think otherwise. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If someone writes that something is 'big' and I change it to 'large', is that a restriction? MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, if it is done as a bulk edit throughout an article (perhaps many articles) and based on a belief that the word "big" is unacceptable. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What if it is not done based on a belief that the word "big" is unacceptable, but based on the belief that "large" is better, more neutral, more thought provoking or more insightful? Ducky008 (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After reflecting on this a bit and reading the above discussion, I now support using 'enslaved people' wherever possible. I was wrong to revert the changes. - MrOllie (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After also reflecting and Googling on this I find:

There's no Wikipedia policy that directly answers the question of "slaves" versus "enslaved persons". On common usage, the Manual of Style does give a pointer to Google ngrams:

ngram for " enslaved persons"
ngram for " enslaved person"
ngram for " slave"
ngram for " slaves"
The uses of "enslaved person" in 2019 are still, even in what Drmies correctly identifies as a current meme, at least twelve times less than the use of "slave". It seems fairly obvious that the world isn't "catching up" in the sense that Drmies means. At least, that part of the world that we're supposed to use as sources in Wikipedia isn't.
I don't suppose that anyone is confusing the subject of our discourse with slave-making ants, nor would we wish to exclude persons born to slave status as the phrase might be taken to do. (Can you be enslaved if you were never free? That's an argument that we really don't need, but which the verb in the phrase "enslaved person" does invite.) Omitting these issues, the longer phrase is simply tautologous. All slaves are persons, personhood is an essential part of the definition: contra Drmies the word affirms their personhood and does not in any way deny it.
This leaves us with the consideration that some people really do want to move to the use of the longer phrase and some of them feel very strongly about it. Clearly, this is the case. But, in view of the above, it does not amount to an argument to which we should attach any significance. Substituting "enslaved person" for "slave" is really not a good idea. Hunc (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"All slaves are persons, personhood is an essential part of the definition"--you're basically telling the millions of descendants of slaves that they should stop whining. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I am pointing out that to be a slave is to be a person. By definition, omitting the ants. We don't need tautology in Wikipedia, nor should we lead promotional changes of vocabulary. We are not here to right great wrongs, but to follow established academic usage. Hunc (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Hunc, I believe you are misusing the word "tautology". A clear example of tautology is "They arrived one after the other in succession". "Enslaved person" is not tautology just like "free person" is not tautology. Perhaps "the enslaved slave ran away" or "the slave person ran away" would be examples of tautology. Ducky008 (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Hunc, Wish I had more time to respond to your points, which I don't at this moment. I do question your calculation of "twelve times less" usage of the word enslaved person in 2019; my calculation from the links you provided reflect two times less usage, and the current trend is in favor of its usage. Certainly someone can be born into slavery and live there life as an enslaved person, enslaved at birth--born an enslaved person. So yes, one can be enslaved if they were never free. To really want to hang onto this word "slave" lets take a look at possible etymology wiki/Slavs (ethnonym) "In medieval wars many Slavs were captured and enslaved, which led to the word slav becoming synonym to "enslaved person""[1], based on the origin of the word it certainly can be viewed as derogatory. It also appears this trend of replacing "slave" with "enslaved person" is taking place in other topics such as the one I just referenced. Maybe this should be settled at a higher level as there are numerous (hundreds, thousands?) pages that discuss enslaved people or slaves, ideally it would be consistent across all topics. Interestingly, our discussion doesn't even breach what words are used in other languages for enslaved people.Ducky008 (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, misattributed calculation. Nevertheless, the traditional word is still dominant. We should use it, unless and until the new phrase becomes established academic practice.
I really don't want to get into this and regard it as a reason to keep to the single noun, but for someone who is born into slave status, when does the process of enslavement take place? At conception? At birth? To use a verb does imply a process. Hunc (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Hunc, It is my understanding that a verb can become an adjective with the addition of "ed" supported here: adjectives-verbs. Enslaved can refer to a state of being for example I was born enslaved. The actual action of becoming enslaved, if they were not born free, would be at birth, now to get into when does a life begin, that topic is likely debated in depth on a "pro-choice/pro-life" page. Another answer could be, a person is enslaved when the contract, agreement, purchase, sale, law or capture took place, including that of the mother giving birth to the newly enslaved person. Ducky008 (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a minor issue and I'd like to drop it here, but as you point out, the phrase does potentially stimulate endless futile discussions and the noun does not. Hunc (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Hunc, Actually it is a non-issue. Yes it should be dropped because it is an invalid point. The phrase, "enslaved person", an adjective and a noun, does not "potentially stimulate endless futile discussions" any more so than the noun "slave". The same questions can be asked of a person "born a slave"--how was the person born a slave, under what circumstances. Couple of examples--1. "John was born a slave for his mother's captors" 2. "John was born enslaved to his mother's captors" a. "he was a slave since birth" b. "he was an enslaved person since birth", I don't see any endless futile discussions because "enslaved person" is not a verb as you suggested. This is clearly not an issue, I agree it should be dropped.Ducky008 (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really did not think there would be this much push back to a thoughtful edit. These types of edits are occurring across Wikipedia, and the trend is going this way beyond Wikipedia.

ngram for " enslaved person"
ngram for " slave"

If the consensus wants to make [| History of slavery]the last bastion for the word slave, I think you are battling the inevitable. I don't think the word should be taboo, I don't think people should be shamed for using it, but in a reference website such as this, why not implement or encourage the use of more thoughtful words for users who are coming here to learn (again, we are not setting this trend). Ducky008 (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You raise an interesting point about the various domains of this discussion. I have the impression that the phrase is a current fashion and shibboleth among some people with an interest in the ongoing effects of historic Atlantic slavery in the English-speaking colonies, people who may legitimately be interested in trying to right great wrongs. That is not what Wikipedia is for. (I don't see this particular approach as an effective way of making anything better for anyone at all - I feel its main effect in real life is likely to be irritating potential allies - but if people think it's worth their time and trouble, my best wishes and I hope it works out.) But, and especially in other areas and periods, which is most of the subject, we should stick with established academic usage, which is, generally, the noun. Campaigns of this sort should be fought outside Wikipedia. Hunc (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

::User:Hunc, I do not believe this fits the category of "righting a great wrong" as you have mentioned a couple times now. No substantive information has been changed, no opinions have been made, no sources have been altered, no questionable sources have been cited. These edits are not publishing original thought or original research. These edits are not spreading the word about an unfairly suppressed theory. The edits are not explaining the truth or reality of a current political, religious or moral issue. This is not about altering facts. We are pursuing a neutral way of presenting the information. You may not be in favor of these edits, but that does not elevate them to the level of attempting to "right a great wrong" at least per the link you provided. Ducky008 (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comments and Drmies's make it very clear that righting great wrongs is exactly what this is about. That it strikes me as counter-productive is beside the point. You are pushing the use of a clumsy meme instead of a clear and well-established word, a recent shibboleth not the majority usage, and this is not what Wikipedia is here for. It does occur to me that you might want to pursue this campaign by more legitimate methods, such as finding the specific areas in which recent academic usage actually does use the phrase for historical research rather than just demand its use, then making your changes in an appropriately-sourced and referenced way, one change at a time. This sort of mass change is indefensible and I'd hope that you will revert it yourself. I'll take a break now and see if anyone else wants to comment. Hunc (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not "righting a great wrong" per wikipedia standards, please elaborate on how you think it is. I am not sure how you are defining academic usage, but a couple of cites have been provided in this discussion that come from what could be deemed reputable sources: National Archives, UK and Underground Railroad History both of which likely employ scholars to author web pages. I currently am not studying the history of slavery or slavery as it relates to the Americas, perhaps we can find some professors in the field to weigh in on the matter. I don't think the extraordinary trend in the charts you provided exists because a couple of people are posting "shibboleth" on random wikipedia pages. For the record, prior to my edits, I had no knowledge of Drmies existence, I do not know who that person is. Ducky008 (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Hunc, For your consideration of this "shibboleth" (as you call it), here are reliable published sources discussing the matter: 1. Chicago Tribune 2. Buffalo Library 3. SUNY 4. Telfair Museum 5.Medium 6. Slate.Ducky008 (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Hunc User:ThoughtIdRetired User:MrOllie User:Drmies, The following is a quote from the SUNY link: "In the latest post, “Slaves vs Enslaved People-The Subtle, Strong Powers of Words” the author Andi says “By changing from the use of a name – slaves – to an adjective – enslaved– we grant these individuals an identity as people and use a term to describe their position in society rather than reducing them to that position." "In a small but important way, we carry them forward as people, not the property that they were in that time." original source - Andilit.com - Slaves vs Enslaved People In a sense, this is at the heart of these edits that are taking place here and elsewhere (also note, I was not the first person to make such edits to this article). I find it hard to believe any scholar, educator or academic would not get behind this reasoning if they weren't already. I mean really, think of how this group of people are still being objectified as property when referred to as slaves, the same title their owners gave them, a knee-jerk response may be "well that is what they were", to which we should all see they were more than that. I don't know if there is much more to say about this including what is discussed in some of the original source publishing's that I have posted above; the change will come at some point. Good points were made for both sides, in my opinion the biggest thing weighing against a change is the fact it is still widely used, without hesitation, even by descendants of enslaved people as User:ThoughtIdRetired discussed above. Ducky008 (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we need to get back to the basics of sourcing a Wikipedia article on a history subject. The rules are that Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources. First, history is an academic subject. Therefore our sources should be as recommended in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. To see how this specifically works within the subject of history, there is WP:HSC, which is part of WP:HISTRS.
Following these principles, I have taken a look on JSTOR for recent academic articles (since 1/1/2020) which include the word "slave".(Note that this also picks up the word "enslaved".) I have found the following, in some cases based on a speed read of much of each article - so no absolute accuracy with my assessment of usage. (My access rights do not allow electronic processing of some of the texts.) I have ignored academic articles that appear to have been written originally in a language other than English or which specifically deal with the work of other writers who worked some time ago (e.g. Adam Smith)
[4]: uses "slave" exclusively
[5]: uses "slave" extensively with isolated use of e.g."enslaved men, women and children" - in context is this simply an easy (and more flowing) way of saying male, female and child slaves? In the summary, there are 5 uses of "slave"(4) or "slaveholding"(1) and one use each of "enslaved persons" and "enslaved property"
[6]:uses "slave"
[7]: uses "slave" extensively with no use of "enslaved" (was able to electronically search this one)
[8]: extensive use of "slave"; one occurrence of "enslavement", which refers to the process (e-searched this too - note this another book chapter from same book as previous in list - skipped remaining chapters from this book in search)
[9]: article is about the genomics of slavery. There is a lot of mention of "enslaved Africans", which seems to be because the author needs to identify slaves who are genetically African. The word "slave" is freely used in other cases, which are mostly in the context "slave trade" and "slave ship".
[10]:"enslaved" is used once, in the context "enslaved Jews", otherwise extensive use of "slave"
[11]:very brief piece uses the word "slave" twice - not a history article, more arts related I guess - perhaps should ignore as not a history RS
Skipped next search hit as an academic legal article
[12]: Uses "slave", could not find any alternative usages. Mostly about the politics of anti-slave trade courts in Africa, jointly with the British
skipped another search hit as was another chapter in the book mentioned above
[13]: Uses "enslaved Africans" with no individual referred to as a slave, but "slave trade" and "slave ship" as frequent occurrences.
So that is 6 instances of academic history works which clearly prefer the word "slave" over other options, one that clearly prefers "enslaved persons" and others that are more complex to categorise. From this I conclude that (a) more evidence is needed (b) the is no consensus to not use the word "slave" (c) there is some evidence of some using "enslaved persons" instead of "slave", but this is not common. This would fit with the article not substituting "enslaved person" for "slave" unless there is a good reason, for an individual occurrence, based on the sources used for the part of the article in question. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:ThoughtIdRetired thank you for your impartial efforts. A query of JSTOR for just the word "enslave" does produce a significant amount of authored works that do appear to favor the use of the word "enslaved" over "slave". Of note, there is one article/book titled "Slaveries of the First Millennium", that appears to favor the use of "enslaved" for Pre-Trans Atlantic victims, and another titled "The Jamaica Reader..." focusing on the Caribbean island of Jamaica, that does favor the word "enslaved". I make note of these two as it came out in the discussions above that possibly a public desire for the use of "enslaved" over "slave" was driven by sources outside of the study of pre trans-Atlantic and the Caribbean. The following is the list I compiled, I also did not thoroughly read these writings, and my access was restricted for some; for restricted I did have access to snippets that gave me an impression of the authors word choice of "enslaved" over "slave". I will agree that searching JSTOR for the word "slave" does appear to reflect more authored work that favors the historic use of the word "slave". Some of these authors should contribute their knowledge to "The History of Slavery" wikipedia article (exclusive of this debate), these authored works seem quite interesting, if I find time I will fully read The Jamaican Reader.

JSTOR - Spaces of Enslavement...

JSTOR - A “Complicated Humbug”...

JSTOR - Slaveries of the First Millennium,

JSTOR - Slavery and Freedom in the Shenandoah Valley...,

JSTOR - Surveillance Capitalism in America,

JSTOR - A Short History of Charleston,

JSTOR - Law, Lineage, Gender, and the Lives of Enslaved Indigenous People ...,

JSTOR - The Jamaica Reader: History, Culture, Politics
Ducky008 (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The key point that I would emphasise on these JSTOR searches, is the we need to establish the ratio of the two usages. This is where it is fortunate that a search for "slave" also finds (as far as I can determine) articles including "enslaved" (with no usage of "slave"). So one search, with a given set of date parameters, provides the material from which to assess that ratio. Then you are able to make a conclusion about the "academic consensus" – which is what should guide editors on the terminology used in the article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand your point, and what you are saying with your methodology of searching "slave" which would encompass results including "enslaved". I'm not a statistician, but I do not believe that method would give a true random sample, I'm not sure of your exact methodology, but perhaps you pulled or researched from the sources presented in the query results from the first page or two of the results, which will never replicate a true random sample of the entire results. Depending on the algorithm used by the search engine, the results may have favored, and presented results near the top where the word "slave", as a standalone, was more prevalent in the authored work--or maybe it was just sorted by title or author. On this same note, I will agree that the query for the word "slave" results in much more authored work than "enslaved", and a true random sample may come close to your less than perfect methodology. My query of "enslaved" goes to the point that the use of "enslaved person" is not "shibboleth" as another has claimed and is indeed an accepted academic, scholarly approach to how to refer to these victims. In fact 536 page "The Jamaican Reader" is edited, in part, by Matthew J. Smith, Professor of History and Director of The Centre for the Study of Legacies of British Slave-Ownership, University College London, not just some random yahoo. I would gather if authors on either side of the slave/enslaved word usage were asked, they would likely state that both are acceptable, neither is right or wrong, the issue is evolving (maybe there could be some that say-- what!? that is preposterous, total shibboleth!). As an aside, some people still believe Earth is flat. So, where does it leave the fate of these edits...perhaps that is above my level. Ducky008 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do we need to establish the ratio of the two usages? If there were a proposal to move the article we'd care about the common name, but that's not what's happening here. We're supposed to paraphrase the sources, there is no requirement to copy and paste their exact phrasing. We should instead be asking if there's any harm in making the switch - If there isn't, there's no good reason to hold back the folks that want the change. MrOllie (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do we need to establish the ratio of the two usages? Because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia based on Reliable Sources. As an article on a history subject, the preferred sources should be academic. Where there are differences between academics, then the editor should discover what the academic consensus is. Ideally that would be from a review of the subject in an academic journal. That doesn't appear to be available here. That is the reason for trying to assess the degree to which the language in question is being used. The outcome of these rules is that Wikipedia is a follower of any change, not a leader in that change – which appears to be what User:MrOllie is advocating.
Looking at the comment on paraphrasing, we should not confuse that with using the correct terminology of the subject. This is easily illustrated with, say, the article on Herpes simplex virus. The medical/virological terminology for this virus is as per the article title. If you decided to go and edit that article to say "cold sore" (the non-medical name for the result of an HSV1 infection) instead, you would very rapidly be reverted, because you were using different terminology from the medical/virological sources on which the article is based. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is purely a style issue, no facts are being altered. None of the changes are in conflict with the cited sources. Your analogy doesn't make any sense - that would be a case of changing the article to be incorrect. Here we have someone who wants to change out one synonym for another. This is more like someone changing 'transmitted through any intimate contact' to 'spread through any intimate contact'. - MrOllie (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do feel it is a style issue. As far as analogies, it could be more in tune to the debate of referring to certain border crossing individuals as undocumented immigrants versus illegal aliens [|Illegal_immigration#Terminology], and immigration-agencies-ordered-not-to-use-term-illegal-alien.... My initial thought was how the use of "little people" referring to people with dwarfism came into being [| Dwarfism-Terminology] and Little People of America. In my opinion this is very similar in the fact that academic scholars and journals are trying to define the "slave" as a person "enslaved person" and not their condition, similar to people with short stature may prefer to be referred to as "little people" as opposed to "dwarf" or their condition.Ducky008 (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anybody, read the following three sentences, than answer the question/poll (in your mind):

"1. The slaves wore chains and were huddled in the bottom of the boat to stay warm"
"2. James, Robert, and John wore chains and were huddled in the bottom of the boat to stay warm"
"3. The enslaved young men wore chains and were huddled in the bottom of the boat to stay warm"
Question--> Turns out you are one of these enslaved persons discussed in the sentence! How would you want to be referred to, presently, or 100 years from now, rank the three sentences? What if one of the persons in the boat is not you but your grandfather, father, uncle, brother, cousin, nephew, best friend? Maybe you don't care, maybe these all seem the same to you. How do each of these sentences make you feel about the people in the boat when you read each sentence. No feelings, no difference, doesn't matter? How does each sentence impact your thoughts on slavery? Let's just go with the status quo? Ducky008 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's quite enough. Ducky008, you are 100% correct that the proposed reframing has semantic and semiotic and social advantages. My own practice is to make these changes moving forward, organically, as I edit articles. But it seems like you are trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This is not the place to do this. This is the place to suggest improvements in this article. You have done this. You have not, however, gained WP:CONSENSUS to implement your desired changes -- that's obvious. Therefore, further discussion on this is not conducive to improving the article; you need to take this discussion to some broader platform than this talk page, since it's not about the article History of slavery, but rather is about how Wikipedia should refer to slavery. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 01:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Jpgordon, not sure if you are late to this discussion, but it has already been addressed that this is not about "righting a great wrong" as defined in the Wikipedia link that you provided. I have already given a response to that accusation with no real rebuttal (see my bolded text above), feel free to scroll up and provide a rebuttal, or at least see how this does not qualify as "righting a great wrong". For me to be "righting a great wrong" a real or perceived great wrong would need to exist; the facts reflect the use of the word slave is completely acceptable, and I have no real qualms with that. Perhaps Wikipedia needs to update what consists of "righting a great wrong". As far as consensus goes, I'm not sure consensus actually has been obtained one way or the other. Unless somehow you are the judge of consensus and I was not made aware of it; I have not clicked on your user name, so perhaps maybe you are some elevated level of editor that can drop the gavel. There have been other editors contributing to this "talk" that are in agreement with the proposed edits.Ducky008 (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With all that said, I appreciate many of the good points User:ThoughtIdRetired made as to why it should remain as is. I am not on some crusade, but I did come to this "talk" page to defend the position as I felt directed to do. Which I accepted the challenge. I have no intention, nor time to go any further than this. If the consensus god has spoken, so be it, I have appreciated the discussion on the matter with the editors; your initial comment is very intuitive on how better to approach this as well, so thanks. Ducky008 (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also appreciate the interesting points made. I support Jpgordon's idea of making changes gradually, where they may be appropriate under Wikipedia policies and the best English usage. I don't want to have anything to do with wronging great rights either; my main problem is that using (especially, righteously enforcing the use of) a clumsy circumlocution, in places where it really isn't the best choice, gives cheap and easy targets for trolls and it irritates people who would otherwise be on the side of righteousness. I do hope that we will all be suitably cautious and, above all, help to build a really great encyclopedia. Hunc (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Hunc, you seem to misapply the "righting great wrongs" standard. You have been unable to explain or elaborate how it falls into the Wikipedia WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS guidelines. "Enslaved person", like it or not, is "used by reliable and secondary sources", as established in the JSTOR cites above. It is not spreading something "neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community". It "has been reported in mainstream media and published in books from reputable publishing houses". It is not based on "original thought or original research". At best this is a style disagreement. Feel free to review WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and elaborate on how this edit fits the "righting great wrong" guidelines.Ducky008 (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sure that over time, this article, and others, will start to use the changes discussed here. When that happens, it will be less of a jarring change for those (like me) who view the subverting/changing/evolution (choose whichever is acceptable to you) of the meaning of words in our language with horror; gradual change is the key. Some of the articles found on JSTOR are educational on this point - such as where an article uses "enslaved person" a few times, introducing it alongside the more frequent use of "slave". This gives much easier reading. Also educational – even among those academic articles fully adopting "enslaved person" – is the continued use of "slave trade", "slave ship", etc. Given the huge volume of valuable academic work on the slave trade, it would be awkward to have Wikipedia entirely expunge the usages found in these existing sources, giving a dissonance between source and encylopaedia. As with many things, diversity is the key. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:ThoughtIdRetired, well said and good points.Ducky008 (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we may be near a true consensus, there were two others in on this discussion, maybe they have additional words to provide on the matter. I would like to repeat the view that these edits were never about "righting a great wrong". In addition to these edits not meeting the definition per wikipedia WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, it has been made clear by the queries in JSTOR, reflecting academic authored works, that both Slave and Enslaved person are acceptable and in use, so it should not be construed that wrongs are being righted; neither are "right" or "wrong", they are essentially the same, but one may be better. I don't believe I have ever made the argument that "slave" is wrong, where as to the contrary, some editors/users in this "talk" have a stance that using "enslaved" is wrong or to quote one editor "shibboleth". The only reason I think a couple editors/users here are attributing these type of edits as attempting to "right a great wrong" is that they perceive this change to "enslaved" as wrong, or they perceive that this action is done by editor(s)/user(s) that believe that the word "slave" is a great wrong. No, the use of "slave" is not wrong, and certainly not a "great wrong". It is still widely and commonly accepted amongst academics and laypeople. So then, what is the point of these edits? If you read the Wikipedia WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, it states "what we do is find neutral ways of presenting...", I would certainly take the stance that "enslaved" is actually a more neutral way to present those who have been enslaved. These edits were about improving the article by using a better, academically accepted, word, not righting a great wrong. Now certainly arguments can been made as to how it does not improve the article, and the word is not better, and therefore not necessary. By User:Jpgordon own commentary on this talk states "you are 100% correct that the proposed reframing has semantic and semiotic and social advantages." Ok then, if using enslaved has advantages on the subject why not improve the article with the change (I say this rhetorically as I have seen the many well thought points already made above on why not to, or a better approach, so no response is necessary, just providing my perspective). Lastly, these changes are already happening across Wikipedia, and have also already occured in this article (prior to mine, and perhaps organically). Ducky008 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without quibbling about any of the above points, I am still not convinced that "enslaved person" is superior in any context - except for indicating the author's membership of a specific group - but I accept that some people think that it is superior, and that we may use the longer phrase where it isn't too graceless and/or repetitive. That may not amount to perfect unity of thought, but it may allow a practical working consensus. Hunc (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, I believe that the imposing of the longer phrase onto everyone, regardless of his or her preference (which is what insistently editing the words written by others amounts to) is inherently graceless. Moreover, the phrase is clumsier, and apt to mislead, as "enslaved" can mean "deprived of liberty", which applies to free men or women who are enslaved, but not to their descendants who were born to liberty. For these reasons, I consider "enslaved person" an inferior alternative to "slave", which I'm making a point of stating here lest silence on the matter be misinterpreted as implicit "consensus". JudahH (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Judah, I just got the ball rolling, it was not insistent. It seems the current preference, included in new additions and edits by others, is to use the more humanizing word "enslaved", I am willing to accept some gracelessness in the English language when humanizing enslaved people. Best Regards Ducky008 (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs_(ethnonym)#Etymology

Why were my edits reverted in this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1136846996

It doesn’t seem to be related to the disagreements between you people Bobisland (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies. That wasn't intended. I meant only to revert the "Enslaved person/people" back to "slave(s)" edit. Because of a later dummy edit, this required restoring a version rather than simply reverting, but I somehow landed on the wrong version; I haven't worked out how. Thanks for questioning it. NebY (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok I’ll just wait a bit until you people conclude the dispute Bobisland (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historical use of words[edit]

It does occur to me that this meme "enslaved person" is now a part of the history of slavery. Do we need a sentence or two in the article to outline its history to date? Perhaps "In the early 2000s, the use of the word "slave" has been deprecated and the word "enslaved person" has been thought to remind readers of the intrinsic personhood of every victim of slavery"? OK, it's arguably inappropriate recentism and of no use to the actual victims, but what do others think? Hunc (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This crossed my mind also, however I think this topic has less to do with the "history of slavery" and more to do with the history of the use of the word slave. It may be more appropriately entered here: [[14]]. Ducky008 (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, generally the place for the historiography of a subject is as a section in an article which covers its history. You would, however, have to find an RS that covers any language change – which may be a challenge. What we have here on this talk page would be criticised as WP:OR if it were in an article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems an entry on this does exist under "terminology", here, [| Slavery]Ducky008 (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:ThoughtIdRetired, You are right, this is just fodder for the local cafe, haha. There does appear to be numerous reliable published sources discussing the matter, like the following (found on the first page of a Google search): 1. Chicago Tribune - slave enslaved 2. Buffalo Library 3. SUNY - slave vs enslaved 4. Telfair Museum 5.Medium 6. Slate.Ducky008 (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Social sciences[edit]

Slave trade 41.170.85.178 (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the nationality change[edit]

I received your message. Just to be clear: from the wiki page of Liutprand there is written that it is of longobard origin, while here it is written: "italian ambassador"; I think that for coherence the nationality change should remain. 62.10.58.107 (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liutprand of Cremona's family had Lombard origins but on his mission to Constantine VII he was serving as an Italian ambassador. Similarly, if this had happened during his mission to Nicephorus Phocas, we would describe him as a papal ambassador. We would only describe him as the Lombard ambassador if he was the ambasssador of Lombardy's ruler. NebY (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slaves[edit]

Slaves were held by evil traders that made them.work on the plantations

Wiki Education assignment: HIST 2010 Early U.S. History[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ridge1028 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Brooklyncox22 (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No mention of the fact that Africans captured and enslaved other Africans[edit]

It is deceptive not to mention that most enslaved Africans were enslaved by other Africans from different ethnic groups and tribes 2601:589:407F:3B95:956F:D495:247D:2EEA (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, now try reading the article. After the short slavery in antiquity section, the very first thing you encounter is the slavery in Africa section. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 01:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typos make this very difficult to understand[edit]

User:Taksen, please review this edit of yours. You inserted this paragraph:

Did you mean the slave trade *in* instead of *on* Spanish America? And what does “providing Dutch, British and French America from the Caribbean islands were there organized depots” mean? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have tried to fix it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Origins[edit]

The current second paragraph of the lead begins

Slavery was relatively rare in pre-civilisation hunter-gatherer populations,[1] as it develops under conditions of social stratification.[2]

The Origins section argues

Mass slavery requires economic surpluses and a high population density to be viable.[3] Because of this, the practice of slavery would have only proliferated after the invention of agriculture during the Neolithic Revolution, about 11,000 years ago.[4]

The referencing of that lead sentence highlights that it's not a summary of the body per WP:LEAD, and the references are troubling. The first source (Smith et al) finds and examines wealth inequality within hunter-gatherer populations, includes a table showing hereditary slavery in 24% of a sample of hunter-gatherer societies, argues for "a reassessment of the view that hunter-gatherers (with a few obvious exceptions) are characterized by pervasive equality in wealth and life chances" and comments that among hunter-gatherers, "the smaller set of sedentary high-density foragers [...] includes societies (e.g., Northwest Coast, Calusa) with slavery, hereditary nobility, stores of durable valuables, and other features strongly related to intergenerational wealth transmission." It doesn't support that part of the lead.

The second source for that lead sentence, Wanzola, is self-published through Xlibris. Our link takes us straight to the page, published in 2012, where the first seven sentences (after the first three words) are a straight copy of this article as it was in 2010. I'll remove that citation.

Those Origins sentences are entirely sourced to Encyclopedia Britannica, which is disappointing. Good specialist secondary sources should be available for this, if it should stand. The hatnote for that section refers to Slavery in antiquity, where none of these claims are made. I'm worried that Britannica's theorising about the prehistoric origins of slavery may be contrary to studies of hunter-gatherers and even perhaps too much in keeping with stereotypes of primitive egalitarianism. Is it sufficient for us? And should we retain that lead sentence at all? NebY (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well said. To answer your questions, no, the Britannica reference is far from sufficient for us, and the present version does indeed sit uneasily with the relevant high-quality studies. But it isn't entirely wrong either. The second sentence does specify "mass" slavery. Societies without slavery have existed, most of them were indeed hunter-gatherers with small group sizes and limited economic surplus. Maybe not all, did the pre-contact Iroquois were farmers, but prisoners were adopted or killed, did they have slaves? Anyway, I look forward to your bold edits, and maybe better references. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would argue that Britannica is a good source to use as it is written by experts and its points are correct. I would keep it as it does provide an overview of slavery from origins to now. But either way, here is another source than can be used for both the first sentence and added to the second sentence.Cambridge World History - Slavery
"Although this volume focuses on 1200 BCE – 900 CE as a world with states, empires, and networks, significant portions of the human race were at this time still organized in pre-state societies ranging from bands of hunter-gatherers through village societies to tribal societies and chiefdoms. Our evidence, however, for pre-state slavery in the ancient world is for the most part either terrible or nonexistent. For example, slavery among Northwest tribes in North America may have been similar in ancient times to what it was when anthropologists first studied these peoples: slaves provided little economic benefit, but were rather given away or simply killed at potlatch ceremonies. Many languages in Africa have different words for “slave.” Historians have plausibly interpreted this diversity of nomenclature as evidence of the independent development of slavery in many places in Africa in the distant past...Somewhat more convincing are statistical surveys of large numbers of societies that show that slavery is rare among hunter-gatherers, is sometimes present in incipient agricultural societies, and then becomes common among societies with more advanced agriculture. Up to this point slavery seems to increase with increasing social and economic complexity."
For Neolithic stuff, Britannica does say "Slavery is known to have existed as early as the Shang dynasty (18th–12th century BCE) in China." And I found source on Ghana saying "It is to the Neolithic period of Ghana's history that one must look for the earliest evidence of slavery. Technological advancement and dependence on agriculture created a need for labor. The available evidence indicates that around the 1st century AD farming was done by individual households consisting of blood relations, pawns, and slaves. The earliest evidence of slavery is, therefore, likely to be found in the field of agriculture." (Perbi, Akosua Adoma (2004). A History of Indigenous Slavery in Ghana : from the 15th to the 19th century. Sub-Saharan Publishers. p.15) On top of that the Cambridge World History does say "distant past". Ramos1990 (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, both. I've made a first, not very bold, pass. Rephrased that lead sentence to better align with the remaining good and Ramos's additional sources. The Britannica article is indeed attributed to an expert, Richard Hellie, Professor of Russian History, University of Chicago. Author of Slavery in Russia, 1450–1725. We can hope it's better than the misleading copy-edit for concision I found in an unrelated Britannica article a while back. Still, we do prefer secondary sources (compare WP:TERTIARY and WP:SECONDARY, and see also WP:BRITANNICA for 14 discussions), and as Ramos says Britannica's "points are correct", there must be WP:RS secondary sources that provide that assurance. Anyway, I've tweaked the Origins phrasing to accord with the slightly more muted observational approaches Ramos quotes above, and retitled the section similarly. NebY (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very good. I like your edit. Appreciate that. Perhaps later I can find some more secondary sources when I have some time.Ramos1990 (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh good! And it's yet more clear and robust with your phrasing, refs and quotes. NebY (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Smith, Eric Alden; Hill, Kim; Marlowe, Frank; Nolin, David; Wiessner, Polly; Gurven, Michael; Bowles, Samuel; Mulder, Monique Borgerhoff; Hertz, Tom; Bell, Adrian (February 2010). "Wealth Transmission and Inequality Among Hunter-Gatherers". Current Anthropology. 51 (1): 19–34. doi:10.1086/648530. PMC 2999363. PMID 21151711. Summary characteristics of hunter-gatherer societies in the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (SCSS). [...] Social stratification [: ...] Hereditary slavery 24% [...].
  2. ^ Wanzola, Hamba (30 November 2012). Rediscovering the Hidden World: The Changing Human Geography of Kongo. Xlibris Corporation. p. 72. ISBN 978-1479751914. Slavery is rare among hunter-gatherer populations as slavery depends on a system of social stratification.
  3. ^ Compare: "Slavery". Encyclopædia Britannica. [...] for slavery to flourish, social differentiation or stratification was essential. Also essential was an economic surplus, for slaves were often consumption goods who themselves had to be maintained rather than productive assets who generated income for their owner. Surplus was also essential in slave systems where the owners expected economic gain from slave ownership.
    Ordinarily there had to be a perceived labour shortage, for otherwise it is unlikely that most people would bother to acquire or to keep slaves. Free land, and more generally, open resources, were often a prerequisite for slavery; in most cases where there were no open resources, non-slaves could be found who would fulfill the same social functions at lower cost. Last, some centralized governmental institutions willing to enforce slave laws had to exist, or else the property aspects of slavery were likely to be chimerical.
  4. ^ "Slavery". Encyclopædia Britannica.

Why were my edits reverted alongside the reverts of this discussion? Bobisland (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies. That wasn't intended. I meant only to revert the "Enslaved person/people" back to "slave(s)" edit. Because of a later dummy edit, this required restoring a version rather than simply reverting, but I somehow landed on the wrong version; I haven't yet worked out how. Thanks for questioning it. NebY (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect statement on Spanish slavery and unbalanced information[edit]

The article states that Spain was the first country in abolishing slavery in 1542, but it omits that the New Laws were never completely enforced and only referred to indigenous slavery. Black slavery was pretty much alive in the Spanish Empire well into XIX century.

Also, at some point it states that slavery in Brazil was not race-based without a source (race was the main factor in slavery in Brazil as it is clear by the influx of enslaved Africans entering the colony fron the Portuguese outposts in what is now modern Angola).

Also, the different sections have a big imbalance with respect to the information covered. For instance, slavery in America and European colonies is much less addressed than other slavery, it does not seem to have a clear and common axis for the information, and it has an scarcity of sources. 181.53.12.244 (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Social studies[edit]

Slavery 160.238.138.3 (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: ARCN 211 Material Histories of Labor[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2023 and 15 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mayoralg (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Cuttera24 (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this wiki page should be organized by time and not continent[edit]

Due to the same slave trades taking part in multiple continents it created a situation on this wiki page that they’re repeated between continent tabs that have their own separate information, I believe it’d bring much more organization chronological wise and easier reading to organize the history of slavery based on date rather than continent Bobisland (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m combining Ottoman Empire and moving Barbary pirates into Asia for better organization Bobisland (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
? They were based in Africa, and mostly taking slaves from Europe to the Ottoman Empire. I realize the article is rather a mess, but I think a move to a more chronological treatment would not help. A firmer layout distinuishing between "Slaves from Foo" and "Slaves carried to Foo" might help. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Organization would be made easier if the categories of MENA could be separated into its own tab from Asia and Africa as the Muslim world is often historically connected between each other Bobisland (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undue Weight[edit]

The Arab slave trade led to the enslavement of 17 million individuals.[1] The trans-atlantic slave trade led to the enslavement of just under that number. In the lede, this first is given one sentence, the second 150+ words. Unless anyone objects, I will give them equal weight.

[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/26500685 DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While a more nuanced treatment that makes clear the widespread nature of slavery throughout history would be a good idea, I would oppose simply presenting them as equal because of the numbers involved at the time. One consideration that comes to my mind, is that trans-atlantic slavery has had significant effects beyond the era in which it occured, whereas as far as I know, there are no arab countries that have major ethnic or racial african minorities resulting from this period. It's important to remember that just because two practices fall under the name slavery, does not make them automatically equal in all possible ways. David12345 (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's always difficult to compare evils, or crimes. However, using just one bare number can't demonstrate equivalence. You might also seek figures, for example, for the proportions of enslaved people in the destinations. Ancient Greeks may not have enslaved 17 million people but the proportions of enslaved people in classical Greek poleis were very high, making them as outstandingly notorious as the ancient Romans who enslaved vastly greater numbers. There are other qualitative and quantitative differences to be considered, as David12345 points out. The legacies of transatlantic slavery in Brazil, the Carribean and the US are markedly different from each other, let alone from legacies within, for example, the Middle East. Likewise, though it's much harder to find quantitative and qualitative assessments, what were the impacts of slavery on the places from which the slaves were taken? Does it make a difference if the same total number are enslaved over many centuries or only a few?
Gaukin's brief article in the Jewish Political Studies Review calling for more attention to be given to the "Arab-Muslim slave trade" is paywalled beyond that first page at Jstor, but the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs's own website has the full text. NebY (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories