Talk:Slavery

Template:Vital article

Slave vs. Enslaved Person Terminology

I'd like for us to revisit this section, as well as Wikipedia's general recommendation for using the term "slave."

The article currently reads: There is a dispute among historians about whether terms such as "unfree labourer" or "enslaved person", rather than "slave", should be used when describing the victims of slavery. According to those proposing a change in terminology, slave perpetuates the crime of slavery in language by reducing its victims to a nonhuman noun instead of "carry[ing] them forward as people, not the property that they were". Other historians prefer slave because the term is familiar and shorter, or because it accurately reflects the inhumanity of slavery, with person implying a degree of autonomy that slavery does not allow.[15]

The reference is from 2015 (and actually concludes that the magazine will use the term "enslaved person". The discussion has moved forward in the last seven years, particularly in the United States. For example, the US National Park Service addresses the terminology and states "....the use of the term "slave" to describe African Americans indicates that the individual accepted the term as a definition of their own humanity. "Enslaved," meanwhile, demonstrates the condition of the individual within the class and economic system of the dominant society, and less of an internalized, or intellectual condition."

Thoughts? Is it time to shift the use on Wikipedia? Jinian (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The source you suggest is rather problematic, as it explicitly refers to African American slaves only. What about slaves in other countries or from other ethnic groups? Imposing American values to world history is Americentrism. Dimadick (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is less of an issue about "imposing American values to world history" but possibly more an issue about dictating the use of the English language. As authors and readers of the English language, those in the USA can use it how they desire. How other non-english speaking countries choose to refer to "slaves" will not be impacted, they can continue to use whatever nouns they like. I would say if we were trying to alter another countries actual language to fit this model of "humanizing" those who have been enslaved, then yes, we would be imposing our values. Sure they may feel inspired, but it would still need to be adopted (or not) by their scholars. For example, as much as "America" or "Hollywood"[[1]] may want to get the Spanish to refer to a motion picture as a "movie" they will continue to call it a "película". As far as other English speaking countries, the same would be true, they can choose how their particular English speaking, writing, reading society wants to refer to enslaved people. As far as I know, Australians still say "G'day" instead of "good morning". As much as "Americans" may want the rest of the world to use the term "Soccer", English speakers outside of the USA continue to use their equivalent "football" [[2]], in fact there is no entry in Wikipedia for "soccer". Now if a proverbial "better mousetrap"[[3]] is devised, such as "enslaved person" instead of "slave", it may be adopted by all users of English, for example, how people who have short stature have adopted being referred to as "little people" instead of "dwarfs" [[4]]. Ducky008 (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

As somebody finishing off my university studies with a specialisation in Slavery in the United States, I hope I might be able to bring some insight into how this subject is discussed among scholars (not that I consider myself to be one right now). I think many people confuse the discourse surrounding this terminology in academia and the discourse among members of the public. The interpretation of the academic discourse (and in a broad sense the public discourse as well) given in the paragraph quoted by you from the current Wikipedia article, is still accurate. There is no consensus among scholars and many choose to still use the word 'slave' for the reasons mentioned in the Wikipedia article. It is still very much an ongoing debate that is far from being resolved. What you consider the discussion "moving forward" is above all a shift in the terminology used by several non-academic institutions.

This is reflected in your use of the US National Park Service as an example. the US National Park Service is not an academic authority in the area of slavery, but a government entity which follows either political motivations or the personal opinions of members of the boards of the relevant monuments, the majority of which are not necessarily historians specialised in North American slavery. These types of sources should therefore not be used to highlight anything other than the shifting popular opinion, as it is far from a scholarly source. Furthermore, the reference from 2015 you mention in your comment also is not a scholarly source. The fact that it concludes with a preference for "enslaved person" is meaningless for the scholarly debate on the terminology, as I was not able to find any information referring to the author having done any historical research or education.

I would like to conclude by emphasising the fact that the scholarly discourse surrounding this terminology is far from hostile and that both sides tend to agree that the most importance should be placed on the actual content of the work, regardless of word choice. It is important to stress both the agency and the dehumanisation that took place under chattel slavery, without having one detract from the importance of the other. The words you choose to make that point is a matter of debate, but generally amicably left to the author in question.

(I also believe it is important to keep in mind that this debate is mostly being approached from a United States/chattel slavery perspective. This is also the only type of slavery I myself have any level of extensive knowledge on. I therefore do not know how applicable this debate would be to scholarship on other kinds of slavery. Considering this is a Wikipedia article regarding slavery as a whole, this should be taken into consideration.) CatAppreciator29 (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I just came across the term 'enslaved person' in an article and was confused because I thought that something other than 'slave' was meant. Maybe someone who was not born into slavery? But it turns out it means the same thing. That makes the term rather confusing. And more than that, it robs us of the option to use the term in the aforementioned sense, 'a slave not born into slavery', which makes more sense grammatically.
But also, I don't understand the reasoning. For example, I am Dutch. But that is not by my own choice. Furthermore, I am (I think) forced to have a nationality (wichever it is). But I am opposed to that because I regard myself as a human, a world citizen, not inherently Dutch. So am I not Dutch but 'a Dutchised person'? DirkvdM (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You're seriously saying the state of being enslaved is comparable to the state of being Dutch? Who forced you to be Dutch? Who chased you down and put you in chains if you decided you didn't want to be Dutch? What the change in wording does is shift the agency of enslavement; the unpleasant condition is not "being a slave", the unpleasant condition is "being enslaved by someone". This is actually an entirely neutral change in, or addition to, terminology that Wikipedia can implement without adding any non-neutral POV, other than strengthening "slavery is bad". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't understand the reasoning. I interpreted it as that being a slave is not an inherent characteristic of a person. So it's a person, and something has been done to them that was not their choice. In that sense it is similar to me being Dutch. Now, given that I have to have a nationality, I don't mind being Dutch, but what about people who hate their nationality (there can be loads of reasons for this). DirkvdM (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, you speak of being chased down and put into chains. That applies to enslaved people (the way I would understand that word), not people born into slavery, as I was born into being Dutch, so that doesn't apply here.

(On a side note, my father hid in the Biesbosch to escape forced labour in Germany during WWII. And I suppose that was a result of his nationality, although I am not sure how this was for Germans.)

But more importantly, the alternative terminology is about stressing how bad being a slave is. But firstly, some people choose slavery out of their own free will (although the reasons for that may also be bad, but then we'd get into a discussion about for example the downsides of the free market). But also, who decides when to apply this? Does it also apply to the de facto forced labour of 19th century factory workers? Using the alterative terminology for slaves but not for them would suggest that they didn't have it that bad, which would be rather insulting.

Ultimately, it is not up to an encyclopedia to determine these things. Describing slavery already demonstrates how bad it is. It is up to the reader to conclude that. Same goes for 19th century factory work. And some might argue that forced labour by prisoners is entirely justifiable. It is still part of US law. Slavery is such a broad subject that you can not condemn it beforehand, either in the used terminology of otherwise.

To quote the rulebook, it violates the rule of Neutral point of view: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." (My italics.) DirkvdM (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No. This is an obvious case of WP:IAR. We get to condemn murder. We get to condemn Nazism. We get to condemn slavery. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That is new to me. Well not the 'be bold' bit, but that basically means you are allowed to make mistakes because they can be corrected. But it also states that the rules are not set in concrete, just guidelines. But that really means that you can deviate from them, but you would then have to have a good reason for it. So as long as no consensus has been reached about breaking the guideline, NPOV prevails. Furthermore, if I understand correctly, IAR is just a proposal that is still a matter of debate.

You compare it with murder and nazism, and I agree that those are bad things, but the point here is that how you or I think about them is beside the point. I think death sentences are a bad idea, but many disagree. Same with war. As long as there are people who agree with death sentences (a form of murder) or forced labour for prisoners (a form of slavery), Wikipedia should not take a POV (either way). DirkvdM (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

1) The expression "enslaved people" doesn't imply that slavery is bad. It just implies that slaves are people, something enslavers often denied (in theory and / or in practice). 2) All reasonable human beings agree that slavery is bad. So, even if the term "enslaved people" implied that slavery was bad, that would still not violate NPOV. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Now I am really confused. At first I understood that the new terminology was about stressing that it is something that is forced onto you, wich is not of your own choice, such as nationality. But jpgordon says that is not it, it has more to do with being chased down and put into chains, which I interpreted as it being about slavery being bad. And now you say that it is not about that either.

Of course different people can interpret the terminology in different ways, but that only illustrates that the terminology is confusing, which was my initial problem with it.

And yes, an excuse for slavery was that only non-humans were made into slaves, but that is not quite the case anymore. Activists at the time may have used such alternate terminology to stress that that is not true, but there is hardly a need for that anymore, to put it mildly. DirkvdM (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The difference is, you have a voice, you can choose to refer to yourself however you like. In fact, if you want to refer to yourself as "citizen of the world" go right ahead (or continue to). If you want to refer to yourself as "Dutchized person" go right ahead. This scholarly adoption of "enslaved person" by reliable sources (which is taking place) over the word "slave" appears to be rooted in seeking a better way to refer to victims of a serious crime, many who do not have voices, or died in an enslaved status. Where your mother chose to give birth to you, and the legal title assigned to you by the land which you were born (or first arrived, or flagged vessel if born at sea), is not a recognized crime on any countries legal books. While it may seem unfair to be assigned a legal title without your consent, which is a fair point, sorry; the only way you might have escaped such title is if you were born in a raft in the middle of the ocean and were not declared upon returning to land.Ducky008 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Reading the article, I came across the sentence "It is estimated that 25% or more of the population of Ancient Rome was enslaved". Had I not already known about this alternate terminology, my interpretation would have been that Romans captured in battle were made into slaves, wich in antiquity was a common way to acquire slaves (as can be read in the next sentence: "Slaves represented 15–25% of Italy's population, mostly war captives"). At first, that would have baffled me, were so many Roman soldiers captured by other people? But no, it bit further I read "Generally, slaves in Italy were indigenous Italians". Ah, that would explain it. But now I am really confused about that first sentence. Does it mean what I first thought, so slaves elsewhere, or in that last sense, Romans who were enslaved in Rome? (Also, if it is the latter, how can that second quote be correct, but that is more a matter of content than terminology - or is it?)
And again, a bit further down, "In the Senegambia region, between 1300 and 1900, close to one-third of the population was enslaved". Does that mean that one-third of the population were slaves, or that one-third of the population was captured and taken elsewhere, to become slaves, as can be read a bit further; "Africans were sent as slaves to the Arabian Peninsula, [...]"?
And, oh dear, still further I read "Slave-owning people". Does that mean that they were not slave-owners by choice? And shouldn't that then be "enslaved persons owning people"? DirkvdM (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker of English, but I can assure you that I have no problems understanding the meaning of the expressions you are making fun of. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Making fun of? Well, maybe that last bit, but I am addressing a serious problem. Had I not known about this alternative terminology I would have misunderstood that fiirst sentence that 25 % of the population were enslaved. I suppose this is a grammatical problem because 'enslaved' can mean two things. What I assume is meant is 'enslaved people' (eg captured elsewhere and taken to Rome), but I would have read it as 'made into slaves' (eg Romans captured and taken away). Those are two radically different things. But then there is also the problem I had when I first encountered the wording and thought it meant 'not born into slavery'. Not as big a difference, but still confusing. DirkvdM (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not very good at grammatical terminology, but are the two meanings of 'enslaved' adjective and past tense? DirkvdM (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Oh, here [5] it says the second one is past participle. DirkvdM (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I have been looking up 'slavery', 'slave', 'enslaved' and 'slave vs enslaved' on the internet and as far as I could see (eg by looking at the address or spelling) only sites from the US mention 'enslaved' in the meaning of 'slave' (so not in the meaning of 'made into a slave'). So is this debate limited to the US? If so, it would be a case of Americentrism (and the USA represents only about 5% of the world population). But more than that, even there it is still a matter of debate. And a fairly recent one at that, I understand.
If a familiar term (in casu 'slave') is to be changed, there should be some consensus about it, if only to avoid confusion. This holds true in everyday life. But for Wikipedia this is even more true. It should mention the debate, but not take a stand. Only when a majority of sources use 'enslaved' in this alterative meaning should a change on Wikipedia be considered. But even then there remain the problems of grammatical confusion and (possibly) NPOV-violation, as mentioned above. DirkvdM (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Its also increasingly popular in the UK, which imports much of its moral zeitgeist from the US. The change in terminology is somewhat more radical than most people seem to understand. Effectively what is being asked is to not use the term 'slave' any more. This would lead us to say things such as 'The Atlantic Enslaved Person Trade' or 'enslaved person plantations' or 'George Washington was an enslaved person owner'. I don't see why 'slave trade' is acceptable if 'slave' is not. But the fact is this: 'slave' is a useful word. It describes a certain social state in which it is possible to be. To say we should have no specific word for this state is downright odd. LastDodo (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not that much more complex, to fix your examples, it would be "The Trans-Atlantic trade of enslaved people"; scholars are also moving away from plantation, so it would be "labor camp for enslaved people", and "George Washington owned enslaved people". I would agree, if "slave" goes, then so should "slave trade", it will likely become "the trade of enslaved people".Ducky008 (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I wish you luck in getting most people to use the term 'The Trans-Atlantic trade of enslaved people', but regardless, my main point remains. Effectively what is being asked is to not use the term 'slave' any more. And since there is nothing special about that word, really what is being asked is to have no word for a widespread and important state of being which we have common need to refer to. I don't recall any previous sitation in which such a request is made. 'No', you say. 'It is important we have no word for this commonly referred to and important thing!' It is quite extraordinary. LastDodo (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't remember anybody having asked not to use the word "slave" any more. What is being asked is to use a language that reminds our readers that enslaved persons were - persons. Washington was an enslaver - even more easy than "slave owner". Rsk6400 (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

'Enslaver' and 'slave owner' are two different things. The former is a person who enslaves people and the latter uses them. And in between are slave traders. The distiction between the three is useful, so using 'enslaver' in all cases is confusing. DirkvdM (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

But that is what is being asked. That is why you [edit: not you, but I assume you agree] suggest replacing the word slave in every context. Why you [same mistake] want people to talk of the 'transatlantic trade in enslaved persons'. If not, then when in your view is it appropriate to use the word 'slave'? LastDodo (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I personally use both "enslaved people / person(s)" and "slave(s)". As a modifier, e.g. in "slave trade", "slave market", I use "slave". Rsk6400 (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

But then how are you not falling foul of your own criteria of needing to 'use a language that reminds our readers that enslaved persons were - persons'? As Ducky writes above 'I would agree, if "slave" goes, then so should "slave trade"'. In other words the word 'slave' should go entirely, and since there is nothing special about that word, there should be no equivalent word. Perhaps this is not your view, but you can see it is clearly some people's. LastDodo (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Although I do not tend to do so myself, there is a broad consensus among scholars that choose to use "enslaved person" rather than "slave" regarding most of the issues raised here. "Trans-Atlantic slave trade" is generally still used as a concept in and of itself, as is the case with other broadly fixed terms like "slave patrols", "runaway slave advertisements" and "slave market/auction". However, as is the case with any set of words, when used regularly in a sentence one might use something like "the Trans-Atlantic trade of these enslaved people/Africans/etc.". This is not new, and has been done for many decades.

Furthermore, a few words beyond "slave" have also been replaced accordingly. "Slavery" is often replaced by "enslavement" where such a choice makes sense in relation to the context. "Slaveholder" and "Master" are replaced by "enslaver". Occasionally "plantation" will be replaced by "forced labour camp", but in my experience this is not as common, as forced labour camps invoke their own associations and nuances which might not be applicable wholesale to North American chattel slavery. When refering to someone who was only enslaved later in life and originated from Africa, they will often say "enslaved African". When they were enslaved later in life, but did not come from Africa, this will simply be clarified in the text itself.

I myself prefer to reserve "enslaved" for those that were not born into slavery and to refer to the forced transformation of a free person into a "slave". However, that does not mean I do not respect the choice of some (respected, knowledgeable and experienced) scholars to have a different opinion. Some of the comments made in this thread seem to forget that these are academics and not schoolchildren they are talking about. You may disagree with them on some complex and nuanced issues, but you should assume they will have taken some of the more obvious issues raised here into consideration long ago, as they indeed have. CatAppreciator29 (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Off topic, but replacing 'plantation' with 'labour camp' is even more confusing because they mean entirely different things. A labour camp is not necessarily a plantation and a plantation doesn't have to be a labour camp. (On a side note, Amsterdam has a neighbourhood called Plantage (the Dutch word for it) because it was the green part of Amsterdam. Hardly a labour camp, it was where the rich people lived.

Back on topic, replacing 'slavery' with 'enslavement' is confusing because the latter is the act of making someone into a slave. So if you do that, how would you express that act? Similarly, like I already mentioned, the grammatical meaning of 'an enslaved person' is someone who has been made into a slave, so not born into slavery (the confusion that led me to look up the terminology here).

In short, it's complicated because of the ambiguity and because it's overly long (harder to read). And it's confusing to those who are not accustomed to this newspeak.

And it's completely pointless because it is quite clear what is meant by the word 'slave'. Stressing that that is a bad thing is quite unneccesary. Or is it about that? Protagonists seem to disagree amongst themselves (see above, where I'm "really confused"), illustrating how confusing it is. DirkvdM (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@CatAppreciator29: I'm afraid I do not share your high opinion of this part of academia, the source of all this newspeak. Perhaps you can respond to my charge that got my previous interlocutors to go quiet: this campaign effectively amounts not only to removing the word 'slave' from the lexicon, but to have no word for that thing that 'slave' refers to. This, it must surely be admitted, is extremely novel and unusual. No we mustn't have a word for that thing is an argument I've heard nowhere before from anybody, ever. Even Voldermort was called 'He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named'. Also note that the term 'enslaved person' and 'slave' are not synonyms, for example just try substituting the term in this article. All these substitutions are transparently motivated by the desire to condemn various things associated with slavery by using new words that have other associations because they refer to something different. The only reason 'enslaved person' is preferred to 'slave' is because it sounds worse, but it only sounds worse because it refers to a different thing (enslaving a free person). The same goes for the other terms. The second the replacement of the term becomes universally used and accepted, the replacment becomes pointless, creating an imperative for a constant roll-over of terms, which is frankly intolerable to the general population and undermines the very purpose of language (communication). LastDodo (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I came across this opinion piece & thought it relevant.

• Wood, Graeme (2022-07-11). "Just Say 'Slavery'". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2022-07-11.

Peaceray (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it was. 'Involuntary relocation' indeed. Dear me. LastDodo (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

A bunch of activists appear to be replacing the word 'slave' all over Wikipedia. But let me repeat, it is not up to us to decide these things. Wikipedia should not take a stand. Only when (the majority of) dictionaries omit or condemn the word 'slave' (or 'slave owner' or 'plantation') should Wikipedia do the same. And if they don't universally agree on the usage of the word I'd say Wikipedia should be conservative and not change the wording until there is agreement. However, some appear to be doing that already. I view that as vandalism. DirkvdM (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Key aspect of chattel slavery ?

@GuinanTheListener: The section is about chattel slavery in general, e.g. Ancient Rome, Colonial Americas, and so on. Saying that breeding was a "key aspect of chattel slavery" is not possible from two sources about slavery in the Americas and one about the Islamic World. Moreover a page reference to about 100 pages is not very convincing. To avoid original synthesis (WP:SYNTH), we'd need an academic source about (chattel) slavery in general to support your claim. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Most of those pages speak directly about breeding. I can definitely go through and cite the specific pages, but that doesn't negate the facts. Every instance of chattel slavery in the world has the key factors of both breeding and sex. All of them. There are no exceptions. From Europe to the Americas to the Middle East. Rome had one of the largest slave empires in the world specifically because they bred slaves. I should not need an academic source about chattel slavery alone when sources about all the countries/kingdoms that participated in chattel slavery have passages specifically about breeding. There is not one instance of chattel slavery that I've found where the enslaved were not also bred. GuinanTheListener (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Wikipedia's core policies require you to provide a source. You can argue that policy is wrong (See WP:VPP for the venue for doing that), but until you change the Wikipedia community's mind about it you'll have to abide by it and provide a source. Given your comments about how widespread your definition is finding a source ought to be easy. MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I missed the WP:SYNTH link you posted. I didn't realize that was a guideline. I will restructure the sentence and provide an additional source. GuinanTheListener (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

Add "Children were not allowed to work much until they were the age of 14 to 15. "Dey didn't let children work much in dem days till dey were thirteen or fourteen years old" (Yellerday). Children would usually go do simple farm tasks that did not require much thought or physical exercise to do, while the teenagers and adults would endure physical torture and labor." After "In 2007, Human Rights Watch estimated that 200,000 to 300,000 children served as soldiers in then-current conflicts. More girls under 16 work as domestic workers than any other category of child labour, often sent to cities by parents living in rural poverty as with the Haitian restaveks."

Add "African American slaves were close together and almost like family to an extent. "We cannot live without each other, and we should not if we could" (Hurley 14). African American slaves got close together through their hardships and physical labor." After "Although most forms of slavery are explicitly involuntary and involve the coercion of the enslaved, there also exists voluntary slavery, entered into by the enslaved to pay a debt or obtain money. In the course of human history, slavery was a typical feature of civilization, legal in most societies, but it is now outlawed in most countries of the world, except as a punishment for a crime"

Federal Writers' Project: Slave Narrative Project, Vol. 11, North Carolina, Part 2, Jackson-Yellerday. 1936. Manuscript/Mixed Material. Retrieved from the

  Library of Congress, <www.loc.gov/item/mesn112/>.

Hurley, F. F, and Daniel Murray Pamphlet Collection. The Negro in America: the influence of his presence upon the material, social, moral, and political

  development of the nation, and the identity of his interests with interests of other Americans. [Columbia, S.C.: R.F. Hurley, 1899] Pdf. Retrieved from 
  the Library of Congress, <www.loc.gov/item/90898310/>. JakeMoore12 (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done sourced to primary sources, format "change X to Y" not used. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

National Pride

I recently added "indentured servitude" to the begining of this articles first sentence so as to read: "Slavery, indentured servitude and enslavement are all the state and condition and action of being a slave." The article uses dictionary definitions as its reliable source, as it should not be greater or more serious than is necessary. However my edit was removed even though it was supported by a dictionary definition as its reliable source. How obvious our pride is injured to admit that we enslaved one another at the onset of this great nation, this theme that black slavery was exclusive will end. However, let it be said for all to hear worldwide that the Wikipedians were the ones to end this unhistorical theme. Floidster (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Indentured servitude is not the same as slavery and has a page of its own: Indentured servitude. Dictionaries are not a WP:RS suitable for such usage. In any case the entry does not call it slavery. You need to consider what the actual literature says. Your comments re. national pride are WP:FORUM and not relevant to improving the page. Please keep discussion neutral and on topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The dictionary is the reliable source of the original content (slavery,enslavement, slave) in the existing articles first sentence. Floidster (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't see the connection to "National pride", don't know what "this great nation" is supposed to be, don't know how the dictionary.com entry for "servitude" (sic !) supports your claim. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The article begins as follows: Slavery and enslavement are both the state and condition of being a slave [cited by dictionary 1 and 2]. I added "indentured servitude" [cited by dictionary]. I make no claims at all. Floidster (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we don't really need a dictionary to say that slavery and enslavement are both the state and condition of being a slave. The definition is tautologous, the citation in the lead is excessive per MOS:CITELEAD and the definition of slavery is not established here, but elsewhere in the article. I would be happy with removal of those citations to dictionaries, which are unnecessary and are potentially confusing in that editors seem to think that a dictionary is therefore a WP:RS to establish what is meant in the academic literature by a term. It is not. Yet those definitions are uncontroversial, whereas your new definition for indentured servitude is controversial, and I note again that the dictionary you cite does not call it slavery. So whether it tells us anything or not is moot. It certainly does not support your edit. The edit is clearly against consensus, and unless you do as you were advised on your talk page (provide multiple concordant sources in academic research to support your assertion on this talk page) that is the end of the matter. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that Floidster has been blocked indefinitely. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I just removed refs 1 and 2 for the reasons Sifurboy gave above and because I think that our readers normally know enough English to verify that this is the meaning of "slavery" and "enslavement". Rsk6400 (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead image

I changed the lead image because the one that was there before was very crude and did not effectively show the cruelty of slavery. I know the photo I used is used further down in the article, so is it okay to use the same image twice? I💖平沢唯 (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)