Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2024

edit

Change slave to enslaved person. More neutral language. Slave is not an inherit identity, enslavement was involuntary. 2600:1702:508B:B210:4452:2AB0:EFE8:8922 (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just a non editor passing through. I didn't ask for this, but, can someone with more wiki skills follow the procedure to establish a consensus for this alteration? I think the original poster had a point and a consensus is worth pursuing. 173.222.1.130 (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's been a few discussions about this—I forget where, but I think there was one at the Village pump—in short, there's no consensus to mandate the use of one term over the other. Both terms are well attested in the reliable sources we base usage off of, and both can be argued to reflect different shades of meaning that may be worth emphasizing in different contexts. Remsense ‥  23:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

UNESCO 2024 Courrier on slavery

edit

The UNESCO Courrier of July 2024 on slavery might be useful for further edits: https://courier.unesco.org/en/latest Munfarid1 (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Revert claiming to be that of a sockpuppet

edit

Aciram, Gheghji has removed this content by falsely claiming it was added by a sockpuppet. Can you please revert it if it is worth reverting. It has removed the picture of a slave of an Arab.-Sockbuster1 (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me? You can see from the edit history it was added by a sock puppet of rajputbhatti
I removed no image I think your mistaken I only corrected the text. Gheghji (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Slave vs Enslaved Person

edit

This discussion over terminology was never resolved. There was a long back and forth which eventually went quiet and then it was deleted by the bot (17 May 2023 if you want to find it). The alteration in terminology was asked about again earlier this year, but not discussed. I will not resurrect the long discussion, but repaste an edited version of the position I put forward at the end of that original discussion, which is where things ended:

This change of terminology 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 say, 'enslaver' is preferred to 'slave owner' 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 (the 'Euphemism Treadmill'), which is frankly intolerable to the general population and undermines the very purpose of language (communication). LastDodo (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2024

edit

Please add prison labor to the "see also" section. 173.222.1.130 (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: the See also section is not for links that already exist in the article body, and Penal labour is already linked in this article. Remsense ‥  23:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply