Talk:Slavery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Slavery article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Slavery was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: September 14, 2007
To-do list for Slavery: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Expand: Turn the 'Abolitionism' section into a proper summary or rename it 'history of abolitionism', Expand slavery and religion section (though the daughter article is in terrible shape, so writing a better lead there first may be a good idea)

Contents

[edit] Slavery and Religion

Anyone else notice that ALL slave pictures contain only muslims as slave masters, as do the "atrocities" pictures. Islam does indeed allow (and thus prohibits the outlawing of) slave trade, including sex slave, and trade in sex slaves. However in the religion section, it is not mentioned.

Can a section on islamic slave trade be opened and address the issue that sharia allows slave trade, and many countries do not accept outlawing a practice that sharia allows ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.182.219.142 (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

A good gallery of related images can be found at gilderlehrman.org/collection/online/wilberforce/, if anyone would like some images to add. Many of them are old and so may have expired copyrights.

Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass position of wikipedia user talk and most perferably the sandbox wich i'lltry not to forget of that usage since most of my paregraphical ventures are of well ventures.

Noah lived for 500 and something years at age of 350 the water came ,it took 120years to build the arc or subsquential quarters of servival the many words spoken reflect in the knowledge of a building formation to conduct a matter of well frofound water ways question and to be studied.

Though noah was an inventer of acholhol he also drank of it ,colaberating about himself only he would know or then perhaps how many are then around and when does one become foolish with the qualities of sharing matter with another others are one thing though other can be of a remembrence of others attidude and discovery, though a place perhaps of little travel though was recommended still they stayed within a boundery married each other in share od device and cultural setting, one must still refrane from the temtations though what in some cases is a temtation, strength and the ability is perhaps more so then, then weakness of curiousity though still a living quarter achievement.

So Noah drank and lay naked in his tent or place of relaxation and then one of his sons enters and covers the being though perhaps not until one had enterd and not and then there were the other son and or sons whomm stayed within the distance though did not accure of it knowing though may have been the matter.

So when Noah awoke he spelled the vertue upon the son that coverd him that he would now be his slave for this measure and perhaps slave meant what of another matter as well though by now being confined in inosence he would not travel to egypt for more then what could be achieved of wher they were jeruselam then the sin would be collected perhaps in it's equaty and returned as to now keep within.

Another matter could of happened years before in conduct of cold weather a family freezes and some are still through time experience enough to bear the weather in wich they are about. The measure is collected when the individual see's of how the trees are of stature and the branches though are in multible quickly then the individual notices the opened erea of the waters and knows now what can be done,the adjustment of the trees are gatherd and the building of togetherness is to be established before the setting appeal the one notices the droping of the trees upon a rough standard a rock it is or a different boulder then notices if shortened an atached it would then serve purpose of cutting the other way a lever of measure and all this through time is collected and noticed and remembered an idol or something because in order for it to continue or finish to start again it would have to be available.

So years pass and travel is at hand for capture on about some other methoding idea ,the stregnth about curriousity will never change though while in this method time again passes and perhaps for longer periods ,so now one would have to be about the culture of the termoil and exsistance and know how of all of this wich then is now pertasining to a slaved issue one that bares or bears.till next time4:02 p.m.e.s.t.David George DeLancey (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

This entire article seems to have a strong anti-slavery POV. I think it should be fixed to be more wp:NPOV. Novjunulo (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering that. There were a (few) advanatges- in very ancient times, you only had the choice between enslaving the losers or massacring them. 87.113.85.189 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that as soon as you open this page, you are faced with Abolitionist propaganda. Compare that to the abortion article. Novjunulo (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a universial view nowadays that slavery was wrong. If you can find one person that thinks slavery wasn't at all inhumane, then we'll talk. 163.153.113.5 (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends which slavery you're talking about. If you're talking about slavery under the muslims, e.g. the ottoman empire, that certainly was immoral and inhumane. If you're talking about slavery under the Roman republic, that was a lot more humane, and got only slightly worse under the empire. Slaves got better educated than the average patricier under the Roman republic. If you're talking about the slavery in western Europe after the fall of the Roman empire, the "lijfeigenen", their life was probably preferable to living "free" in that age, again compared to what the muslims did, in turkey, arabia or zanzibar, that life was heaven on earth : safety, food, "education" (certainly not compareable to today's but then, that wasn't possible), all were provided for. Christianity frowned VERY hard on inhumane treatment of servants, and fought a few wars over it. As another example, slave life on the American plantations was a LOT better (even if not equal to non-slave life) than the life of that same slave in the arab slave trade that brought them to the plantations. There are many gradations in slavery, and a distinction should be made.
It can be argued that slavery under the Roman republic was no worse than what is referred to as "wage slaving", which we probably most (if not all) do. Slavery covers a lot of different law systems, from Roman lex to sharia. They obviously are different, and this should be illustrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.182.219.142 (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

POV? Abolitionist propaganda? You may as well say that the article on the solar system lacks a pro-geocentrist viewpoint! Slavery is incompatible with universal views on human rights as defined by the united nations and has been outlawed around the world for over a century. There are no significant organisations whether academic, political or otherwise that promote slavery. Abolitionism is a historical change that has occurred naturally with modernisation and progress in history, analogous to the rise of the merchant class at the end of the middle ages. I'd also like to add that any pro slavery arguments would either be ones that exist because of abolitionism and are both outdated and universally seen as wrong or original research, since there would be a lack of suitable sources to cite. --I (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] citation for female slavery section

I that this section needs to have a citation; else it should be removed. It's a very small section of the article and doesn't do much to add to the informational quality of the article. Also, I think that it's a bit biased, because while I am pretty sure that there was a female slave trade in several parts of the world, the article only mentions a slave trade in the Middle East. A section on female slavery is only useful if it details the history of the female slave trade in all parts of the world -- not just the Middle East. This article is about slavery globally; not just in the Middle East. Otherwise it just seems as if someone is try to emphasize stereotypes, i.e. Arabs being evil, women-hating chauvinists. Thanks. --User:Enaam (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] criticism of contemporary slavery needs a reference

while the contemporary slavery section mentions that the definition of slavery has critics, it doesnt attribute a source, and after looking on the web for 3 hours I havent been able to find one outside of wikipedia. A source should be provided or the phrase should be removed. 08:30, 24 april 2007 (gmt)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.130.87 (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] So-called contemporary slavery

This section does not really relate to slavery, as it does to unfree labor. What is being discussed does not fit with the traditional definition of slavery, which is what is being discussed here. Dullfig 20:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to the proposal to merge the section with Unfree labor. Why not shorten the section, point out that it relates only to a broad definition of slavery, and head the section with a link to "main article Unfree labor". I'd also like to point out that "slavery" is a complex concept and is not going to respond to easy definitions. Also that a priority for the article would seem to be better sourcing. That is the best way to nip potential POV problems in the bud.Itsmejudith 12:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Another idea is to simply add Unfree labor to the Slavery disambiguation page. Nina Odell 12:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we eliminate the word "virtual" & change the entire sentence because it is real slavery of children & should say so: "There are millions of people throughout the world — mainly children — in conditions of virtual slavery, as well as in various forms of servitude which are in many respects similar to slavery." Sundiiiiii 02:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

May I add this article in 'External Links' about slavery today from National Geographic? http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/index.html Sundiii (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

May I also add the movie/book The Grapes of Wrath and the movie Salt of the Earth? Also the books "Capitalism and Slavery", The War Against Women, "Woman, Child for Sale", When Corporations Rule the World, Firestone Liberian controversy, & Disposable People which all show slavery today? Sundiii (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Were Slaves Immigrants

Is it possible or even appropriate to add a section to this article that discusses the recent trend to clump slaves in the same category of immigrants? Maybe a detailed definition of the two (slaves/slavery and immigrant/immigration) can be provided.--Lovejesus1st (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] "and and their jsjdskjfhs"

It appears the article "poop" is protected. Unfortunately browsing through the history of edits the string of text: "and and their jsjdskjfhs" remains unedited and has yet to be corrected for several revisions. Would someone with the ability to correct it please remove that string of text and replace it with a period. Thank you. ELizama (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human Trafficking

How about a redirect from “Human Trafficking”? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.146.68 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Information................................

The orgin of the word slave also sould be on this page.

Slavery is a sin as stated in the Ten Commandments "You shall not steal" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.32.176 (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume your referring to stealing a person's freedom. I don't think the 10 Commandments are meant that way, otherwise taking a fish from the water would be deemed stealing (from nature). Plus there is the part in the Religion and slavery section, that argues Slavery was condoned by the Bible. Tydamann (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny

What does the first part (Slavery allows Mr. Matson to call John "Johnny.") mean? I don't understand how that is...important/true or anything. Is it just some random vandalism? Tydamann (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume it was random vandalism because it's gone now. Tydamann (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] abolitionism

It could be interessant to write that the first abolition of slavery, was in 1794 in France, in the wake of french revolution, decided by the national assembly. Trade and slavery were prohibited. People were declared free and equal, called "citoyen".  Alas Bonaparte in 1802, restarted slavery in 2 french colonies (Guadeloupe and Guyane). (He wasn't perfect). 77.204.67.172 (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Jm 25/05/2008

[edit] Article length

I think there should be a bit less history in this article as well as less historic literature mentioned. Sarcelles (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

Near the top of the history section it says:

most slaves were captured in wars or kidnapped in isolated raids, but some persons were sold into slavery by their parents, or by themselves, as a means of surviving extreme conditions. Most slaves were born into that status, to parents who were enslaved

Both of these things cannot be true at the same time. Which is it? Were most born in, or were most captured in wars and raids?(67.85.178.24 (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)) hey wat is up i like doing this!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.57 (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)