Talk:Slavery

I find it odd that the introduction has three references to Islam.

Hello. I'm not disputing the content but find it odd that Islam - or groups associated with Islam, whether correctly or not - have been implicated in the introduction regarding slavery. It appears to be an oddly prejudiced choice. Thanks. 95.146.181.117 (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have taken a look and I agree there is an imbalance here. The fact that the Islamic Republic of Mauritania has Islam in its name can't really be helped (although we could just call it Mauritania) when it is also the last country to ban slavery, but there is more said in the lead about this than necessary for a summary. That was added to the lead on 15 February 2023, but expanded when the information about IS was added in this edit: [1]. This later edit is not a summary of anything in the main, so I will back that out per MOS:LEAD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I made some changes now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I also add that the picture relates to an Arab sultanate, which, again, I'm not disputing factually. It's just that, I would argue that the most commonly understood historical cases of slavery would be the transatlantic slave trade, and so it seems a niche choice when taken in the context of the whole. I think the Islamic Republic of Mauritiana is fine and legitimate though would probably say that, where possible, if we name the country that was last to criminalize slavery, we ought to also list where, where correctly sourced, we have the origins / beginnings or initial legalisation documented too. 92.40.197.87 (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Slavery was probably invented long before writing. The first known laws deal with regulations for an existing institution. 2A0A:A541:F206:0:491D:DD92:7E9A:3C2C (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Etymology. Once again

This section should clearly describe the following:

1. By the time Byzantine Greeks got aquainted with Slavs, the latter were not a single proto-Slavic community sharing a common name Словѣне (Slověne). They were ogranised in gens / tribes, which had their particular names (in Latin transcription): Veneti, Antes, Sclaveni etc. Hence Byzantine Greek Σκλάβινοι, Έσκλαβηνοί refers to a particular gen / tribe name, but not a reconstructed proto-Slavic Словѣне.

2. Moving to the Balkans, Slavs were conquerers, not prisoners of war. The 18th century hypothesis, which attributed the word 'slave' (Sklave) to Slavs, presumes they started to became prisoners of war quite often by the 8/9th century.

3. Contemporary hypothesis derives 'slave' from Byzantine σκυλάω, σκυλεύω ("to make booty, to extract spoils of war").

P.S. There are no disagreements that the English word 'slave' derives from the Late Latin Sclāvus. The controversions start from which Byzantine Greek word the Sclāvus itself should be derived. Therefore the Etymology section should be logically divided into three passages:
- the first passage presents the derivation chain up (or down) to Sclāvus;
- the second one presents the 18th century hypothesis and related objections;
- the third one presents the contemporary hypothesis and related objections.

Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Fuzzy Barsik, the nitty-gritty stuff about "gens" and "tribes" is not relevant here. It's not relevant for an etymology section about the English word "slave". It should explain the main theories about the etymology and that's it. For the minutiae of you can refer to Slavs (ethnonym).

Also, you've reverted a bunch of tweaks to capitalization, clarified prose and the non-standard use of square brackets. For example, the term "contemporary" is ambiguous here and l unnecessarily vague as per WP:OBVIOUS.

Please restore the copyediting that doesn't actually contradict the factual issues that you're arguing. Peter ^Isotalo 01:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo, I'm actually surprised that one of the key detail on the word origin is called irrelevant to its etymology. Sorry, but this detail is inseparable from the word etymology, partly responsible for the explanation why the 18th century hypothesis is incorrect and prevents from wrong assumptions like ones on borrowing the word Σκλάβινοι from a common proto-Slavic self-name.

Regard to the word 'contemporary' I can't also go along with you on that, sorry. The word 'contemporary' implies belonging to the present time, which is correct and much less ambiguous than 'more recent' from your proposal. 'More recent' possesses comparative flavour, but tells nothing particular. More recent than the 18th century - that's OK, but at which time exactly: in the first half of the 19th century, in the last half of the 19th century or in the first half of the 20th century? Meanwhile, the contemporary hypothesys was spoken for the first time in 1970 and accepted by F. Kluge's Etymologisches Wörterbuch in 1989 only (and as far as I'm aware of, there are no newer hypotheses on the word origin).

On the rest changes. You proposed to contract the derivation chain in the first passage, and I'm OK with that - that was a legacy and should belong to the Wiktionary. You changed the last sentence in the section from Present Indefinite to Present Perfect. I doubt that is correct for something 'contemporary', but am OK with that, 'cos I'm not aware of any other newer examples of academic criticism on the hypothesis so as to say it happens on a regular basis.

To capitalisations and use of square brackets, please explain what is wrong with spelling names in capital and which use of square brackets is non-standard. I would appreciate for appropriate links to Wiki rules.

I hope we will be able to discuss all wording here and reach and agreement prior to changing anything in the article. Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Demanding talkpage agreement for edits like this smacks of WP:OWN. Please don't go there by reverting stuff wholesale. Adjust the things you believe are important and make an effort to understand other users' intentions. That's exactly what I've tried to do with the text.

Regarding parentheses, see MOS:BRACKET.

Regarding capitalization of proper nouns, it depends on the language used. Medieval Greek and Latin did not have the same rules as modern English. If you write out an explicitly non-English word, you follow the rules for writing that language. For example, if someone writes out an English proper noun in French or Russian Wikipedia, it should be capitalized even though that's not the rule in either French or Russian.

Also, I just want to stress that I'm pretty familiar with linguistics, etymology and ancient history, but even I found the etymology info dense and difficult to parse. Especially the non-existent and unexplained word "gen" (rather than gens) was very confusing and even when you explained it here, keeping it makes no sense. Peter ^Isotalo 11:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be much better to communicate in a more friendly manner. It was quite clear from my intentions that I do my best to understand what you're trying to achive with your edits. That's why I created this subsection and invited you to join the discussion here instead of falling into some consequal unjustified adversarial text changes. Similarly we discussed changes here and in the Wiktionary when I initiated them some time ago and needed to explain myself to other contributors.

Regard to what I beleive is important, I hope I already explained that earlier. The Etymology section should be logically divided into three passages:

- the first passage presents the derivation chain up (or down) to Sclāvus;

- the second one presents the 18th century hypothesis and related objections;

- the third one presents the contemporary hypothesis and related objections.

It is also important to properly describe the source of borrowing the word Σκλάβινοι, Έσκλαβηνοί. I eventually got your point on the word 'gen'. Guess it should be replaced with the 'tribe'.

I already also explained why the word 'contemporary' better suits the description of the second hypothesis than 'more recent'.

I'm totally missing your point on brackets and parentheses. I utilise double square brackets to highlight languages and refer to their respective pages in Wiki, which is a standard tool. I use parentheses to provide subsidiary information, including transliteration.

Similarly regard to spelling nouns in capital. There is nothing unusual in spelling Byzantine Greek or Latin words in capital in other Wikipedia articles. Please be more specific, what you're suggesting to change and why. Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Improvement needed

The section “Dependents” lacks proper context, specially the sentence referring to “Persia” seems to be out of place and not providing and proper information. The picture included in this section also seems irrelevant. Marjmandi (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"enslave*" vs "slave*"

(I'm using * to mean "all the varieties" like *.txt) It's clear that across wikipedia there has been a coordinated replacement of slave* words with enslave* words. Was this a grassroots effort, or is there a policy discussion/decision that took place which I could read someplace? This article says that there are several POVs on the subject, but it does not explain why wikipedia has chosen one POV. 207.237.14.175 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe it to be grassroots. It seems to me to be similar to the shifting terms over the last 125 years for respectfully referring to African-Americans or indigenous peoples. Peaceray (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is the picture of a Black man used for the GENERAL topic of slavery?

African Americans are constantly reminded that "everyone has been slaves before - and they should just get over it. So why is the picture of a Black man used as the main picture under the topic of Slavery".

Does this not lead to further stigmatization?

What is the rationale for using this picture for the GENERAL topic of Slavery (not enslavement of Africans in the US specifically?). 89.243.98.112 (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest the reason is twofold. Firstly, there probably aren't too many photos available of those earlier slave populations. And secondly, Wikipedia has a systemic bias towards things American. Neither of these reasons make it an ideal pic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced that what you posit, is an entirely good faith argument for WHY this picture is being used as the placeholder for slavery - and has hitherto gone unchallenged.

I was made aware of this picture as a result of an altercation between pupils in a school I teach. There had been disagreement between one group and another, and as things escalated the other group "white" children started making skin color based disparaging remarks to the other children (African heritage).

The group of "white" children then started referring to the other group as "slaves" - and then made the remark that "everybody knows that you are slaves" - just look on the internet for the world "Slave" - even Wikipedia has a photo of a guy who looks just like "your" Dad (pointing to one of the children in the other group)" - of course, at this point, things turned physical, and I and some of the other teachers stepped in to diffuse the situation.

The children from the group that was assaulted (verbally, then physically), were understandably, very upset - and asked me why they (as African descended people) are always being told that everyone was a slave before, and yet still they are always the "poster boy" for slavery, and yet are told to "forget the past and move on" - when they are constantly being stigmatized in the media and by society at large, due to the "momentum of history".

I had no answer for them. The fact is that whether intentional or not, this picture DOES CAUSE HARM - and perpetuates negative stereotypes and stigmas. I can see no reason why this picture is being used in the GENERAL topic of Slavery. It would be more appropriate to use such a picture in the specific case of Trans-Atlantic Slavery, or Slavery in the Americas.

My entire class are watching the communication on here - as it provides a real-time pulse of underlying sentiments, empathy (or lack thereof) and bias in society.

I will propose a different picture, and I believe the conversations that ensue will be very informative to all. 89.243.98.112 (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I can assure you my comment WAS made in good faith, including the bit where I said "Neither of these reasons make it an ideal pic". I would support any sensible proposal for a better pic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting a different first image is fine, but there are many images in this article, images of African people and of African descent. Maybe it won't be the first image, but probably the second, third or fourth. Nothing in the article suggests people descended from enslaved Africans "should just get over it" and that an image "leads to further stigmatization". It's a reflection of historical accuracy, of the sources available. For what it's worth, I moved the infobox up, which generally goes before any image, for readability and navigation sake. I don't know how to answer your question otherwise. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment : Perhaps an additional picture of an ancient representation of slavery could suffice? This the oldest and precise ancient representation of slavery that I found in commons, dating to ancient Rome.

Kwesi Yema (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)