This is an archive of past discussions about Slavery in Africa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I can see there being room for two distinct articles. African slave trade, covers the export of slaves over the centuries while this article can cover slavery within Africa both prior to and during the periods of foreign predation. - SimonP (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[[www.afrcianholocaust.nret]
There is no need to merge the articles. Slavery in Africa existed long before the transatlantic slave trade and has endured into the present, long after the abolition of slavery in Europe and the Americas. Il Castrato (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
There is "room" for an article, but somebody needs to write it. As long as there is no content, there is no point in a debate on "keeping" the article: there is none. Just pasting a couple of urls into the page and writing an airy paragraph off the top of your head doesn't count as "writing an article"; as long as nobody does write it, the page is better off as a redirect. --dab(đł)13:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, let's write it. Great idea! There is this whole distinct literature about slavery in Africa (those "urls" I pasted are to the sorta definitive volume about the topic, so that will be a good place to start). Anyone want to divide up work to make this a better page? I know, writing takes time, and until wikipedia is perfect, it is better to spend that time attaching templates rather than adding quality content, but the time might be worth it on this topic. As it stands, this is the appropriate page for the (wider) discussion of Pawnship (among other concepts), an absolutely crucial concept that cannot be include in any slave trade pages because it was largely a short-term, domestic and local form of slavery in Africa and only got into the slave trades with the Atlantic slave trade. The topic is notable, the content is unique and not easily mergable. Give me a month and I'll write it myself, help me out and we could have it in good shape much sooner, I bet. Delete it, merge it...don't matter. I'll bring it right back with unique content soon enough. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
ok, fine: but why not just rename Slavery in modern Africa to Slavery in Africa and add a brief "History" section?
What I am saying is that the article is already written, and you are just duplicating the effort.
Your "pawnship" section would have been a splendid addition to Slavery_in_modern_Africa#Types_of_contemporary_slavery. Instead, you are somehow building a parallel account of what is already over there.
"Slavery in modern Africa" is a bad title anyway, this isn't about "modernity", what they mean to say is "contemporary".
I am not sure what "modern" Africa is, perhaps cities like Cairo, Johannesburg or Nairobi, but the intention is cleary not to identify a "modern" type of slavery from a "traditional" one, they just want to discuss "slavery in Africa, today". --dab(đł)11:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Without defending either page which I have done no comprehensive editing on until two days ago, I do think there are justifications for a split between the pages. 1. This is not a "parallel account". The unique content for this page is in discussing historical forms (like Pawnship, but not only, which I think the last recorded case is about 1905) and practices of slavery in Africa which existed before and aside the slave trades. My main priority is adding this unique content which is parallel to neither the contemporary page or the African slave trade page. To say that what I'm building is a "parallel account" is a severe misreading of the content. 2. It may be that the "African slavery" set of articles all need a content lift ("S in Modern Africa" certain does). In which case, it seems to make the most sense to make this the bedrock article and not the "Modern/contemporary article". This page still needs unique content (see #1), but could then include sections on contemporary practices and the various slave trades. Neither page seems to me to be anywhere close to good, so the division should be conceptual and not based on what content exists already. And conceptually and based on the literature, the contemporary content should either be a part of the "Slavery in Africa" page or they should be separate (the later makes the most sense); the only justification for making the historical part of the contemporary would be if the contemporary article were good. It isn't. 3. You are 100% dead on regarding "modern" title. That title is bad and "Contemporary" would be far better. Or something else, but there is no "modern" vs. "traditional" distinction anywhere, so it makes little sense. Note: the article will take a little more form today, but I'll be inaccessible for a brief while, so Manning and Lovejoy's books won't be added until later.AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hope the picture is clearer: This page (currently) focuses primarily on slave practices in Africa prior to the Islamic and Atlantic slave trades and then with a brief section on how those practices in Africa were transformed by the slave trades. Connected to this page are Arab slave trade, Atlantic slave trade both of which are pretty good (although I prefer Islamic slave trade). Less good are African slave trade and Slavery in modern Africa. The first is an invention, there's no books about the "African slave trade" (Davidson's book of that title is about the "Atlantic Slave Trade") and probably a POV title. This is not to deny an "indigenous" practice or trade in slaves for much of history; but simply that the focus on "African slave trade" is prominent on wikipedia but not in the major books on the topic. Much of its content has long standing tags, some very problematic sources, and POV writing style. The page could persist but only as a short exploration of the participation of Africans on inland trade of slaves and slave raiding. The Slavery in modern Africa seems to have a good structure and some good portions, but needs some heft and a title change. In terms of content overlap, there is some significant content overlap between "African slave trade" with both "Slavery in Africa" and "Atlantic slave trade" (largely because African slave trade is a problematic title and because it analytically wandered). Most of the other pages refer to each other, but content does not appear to overlap. Idea for reorganization (I'll expand this to more editors, but want to see if anyone has any ideas here first): 1. African slave trade page gets merged into "Slavery in Africa" or other pages as appropriate. 2. Slavery in modern Africa gets changed name to Slavery in contemporary Africa, as more appropriate. 3. Slavery in Africa page largely eludes to slave trades without devoting significant section to the topic, that stays with the slave trade pages themselves. 4. A new article on "Emancipation movements in Africa" or something needs to be created. It is a major topic which is covered as much as the slave trades were ended, but then glossed over entirely by other pages. Any thoughts on this organization? AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
How to include size?
So one of the big things missing in Slavery in Africa page (and was absent in African slave trade page too) is the different estimates about the size of slavery in Africa (and changes overtime). Note: Not simply size of slave trades (which would be key), but slavery in Africa itself, women/men distinctions, etc. There's lots of good work on this topic (Manning, Lovejoy, etc). But I could use some help on how to include this: 1. referenced paragraph in lead. 2. Referenced paragraph in demographics section. 3. short section discussing it but settling on mainstream estimates primarily, 4. long section discussing the issue and including analysis of different calculations and include as many estimates as possible. My preference is probably for #3, but was hoping to discuss this with others. What will improve the page the most? AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Reorganization of Slavery in Africa articles
Proposed arrangement of content across slavery in Africa page:
Slavery in Africa discusses A) all forms of slavery in Africa (broadly defined), B) Unique/primary content on practices in Africa prior to continental slave trades, C) brief sections on Atlantic slave trade, Arab slave trade, internal trade in Africa, and contemporary practices. (this page will have content merged from African Slave Trade, Atlantic slave trade, Arab slave trade, Slavery in modern Africa--but page does not become central page for discussion, but limited to practices of slavery in Africa)
African slave trade discusses A) Unique/primary content of the internal slave trade and its effects, B) brief sections on slavery practices in Africa (this is merged to Slavery in Africa), the Atlantic and Arab slave trades (these sections in current article will be limited in terms of content). (This page will have its content merged into other articles and focused on the interior trade in Africa)Note: Merge has happened. African slave trade is now with Slavery in Africa.
Atlantic slave trade discusses A) Unique/primary content of the Atlantic slave trade, B) addition to the Legacy section which includes the legacy of the Atlantic slave trade on Africa and not just the diaspora. (This page will remain largely the same, but have additions that focus on the impact on Africa more significantly)
Arab slave trade discusses A) Unique/primary content of the Arab slave trade, B) addition of Legacy section which discusses impact on people of Africa and diaspora. (This page will remain largely the same, but have additions that focus on the impact on Africa more significantly.
Slavery in contemporary Africa discusses A) Unique/primary content of the forms and practices of slavery in Africa today, with current organization by country, B) Very brief history section that draws content from the pages above added. C) Name changed from "modern" to "contemporary". name change done. (This page adds history section and cleanup of article so that it is coherent across countries)
Ideas/suggestions/etc very welcomed.
Ideas for reorganizing African slavery related pages
(Please post any different ideas for rearranging content on Africa slavery pages that you have here)
Counter-proposal:
Atlantic slave trade and Arab slave trade stay as they are. They're already well-defined subjects.
Slavery in Africa and African slave trade remain merged as they are. There's a lot of redundancy in this article (demarcating content focused outside of Africa) that can be trimmed or moved to other articles to shorten length overall. The internal effects of the slave trade, historical methods, etc. can all be addressed here. I don't see the need to separate this content. I sincerely doubt we'll have much historical record from preliterate African societies on pre-colonial/pre-Arab African slavery. Events during the Atlantic and/or Arab trades can be discussed in those respective articles.
Slavery in modern Africa is eliminated. The logic for creating a Slavery in Modern Africa article appears to . have been intended to separate warring editors. The current article contains two major parts: types of slavery which belongs in the Slavery article or the Slavery in Africa article, and slavery by country which contains content already existing in many separate slavery/human trafficking by country articles. Specific to this point, I don't see value added to look at current slave-like practices from a Pan-African point of view. Each nation (and more so tribe and ethnicity) defines how slavery is experienced. As slavery slowly fractures into separate caste/trafficking/ethnic issues I think we can get away from articles discussing present-day slavery. Many of the "contemporary" slavery articles don't actually discuss slavery but a smaller issue under that umbrella. Theoretically slavery has been abolished in Africa. Ongoing societal problems (such as what the Taureg people encounter) should be discussed in their own article. Chris troutman (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Comments
(Please post any comments about the reorganization content on Africa slavery pages that you have here)
Reasoning for merging: pages developed largely in ad hoc fashion with content spread throughout the different pages. A consolidation is needed to clarify the content on the pages, make them more readable, cleanup some longstanding tags, and improve the material. Any help to figuring this out is greatly appreciated. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I suppose my reading of it would be that 1. is the primary topic area with 2. and 5. appropriately covering historical and contemporary aspects respectively. 3. and 4. are obviously related but have a different focus. So I think the distinctions you have made are fairly good, though I think it should be clear that 2. is primarily focussed on history and would remain that way. If that all makes sense. Stalwart11101:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks all for the ideas. Slavery in contemporary Africa page has lots of problems, it appears to be a landfill of ideas that don't quite fit elsewhere. However, there are a number of publications on the topic (and a UN office dealing with it); I share the same concerns that Chris Troutman and Dreambeaver have about the content of the page, but think it is a notable enough topic to have its own coherent/focused page (but does need to be expanded). If there is more consensus on getting rid of it, I won't miss it. If people want to bite off a bit and try and fix that page, I'd be willing to help out where possible. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment I would also agree the "Contemporary slavery" thing is a bit obtuse. In one paragraph its talks of when Slavery in Africa was abolished, then the next paragraph talks of how there is slavery still in Africa, and then talks of the world. On the right there is what could be considered "Types of contemporary slavery" such as : Bride-buying Child labour Debt bondage Human trafficking Peonage Penal labour Sexual slavery Sweatshop Wage slavery. Links to those topics of "Contemporary slavery" would be sufficient since, as the article points out "Slavery" was abolished in Africa, at least in the context of the article. Now are there proxies, or other things that resemble slavery in contemporary Africa and the world? Sure, like those mentioned - but they have their own definition. Patriot1010 (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Slavery in Madagascar
Hi all, great work on this very important article. I do want to flag the absence of discussion about slavery on Madagascar, which is geopolitically considered part of Africa and is strongly linked to slavery on the mainland as well as the trans-Atlantic and Indian Ocean slave trades. In fact, Madagascar is considered a particularly interesting case because of the extent to which kingdoms on the island purchased slaves from the mainland for domestic use as well as to resell to traders alongside Malagasy slaves. There was an extensive system of slavery among Malagasy kingdoms which was key to the island's economic development and internal as well as external trade. Campbell's book on the economy of Madagascar provides plenty of detail. It's an area that would need to be expanded for this to pass GA/FA, and I'm available to help with feedback but am already too far buried under my own article projects to write the relevant pieces. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
"African slaves" is a potentially misleading redirect
I noticed that African slaves currently redirects to this article, even though it refers to slaves of African descent in the Americas as well as slaves in Africa. For this reason, I think this redirect should be converted to a disambiguation page discussing the possible meanings of this phrase. Jarble (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The Topic is Slavery IN AFRICA
Despite the topic there seems to be a little drift with pictures coming in of Arab ships, Plantation photo snaps. Stick to the topic. If we dont the article loses shape and loses meaning. It is very hard to separate the themes (Arab, Atlantic, and African) but if we dont it will be impossible to manage any articles. --Inayity (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Friendly edit dispute. See here for the reinsertion of a claim I deleted that "Enslaved people of the Songhay Empire were used primarily in agriculture; they paid tribute to their masters in crop and service but they were slightly restricted in custom and convenience. These non-free people were more an occupational caste, as their bondage was relative." I removed because: 1. I couldn't find the warrant for the claim in the source (the words "caste" appear only rarely in the source and "Songhay" in the reference doesn't say this). and 2. it seems that it is better dealt with below where a similar point is made, and 3. I couldn't figure out what the last clause was saying (relative to what? relative to whom? what does that mean). I can understand the revision and think it is completely reasonable. But figured I would spell out the reasons for the removal of the content on the talk page and let other editors decide how to fix this. Cheers. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification b/c I didnt see the rational in the notes. I do not think, however, that the issues raised here warrant wholesale deletion of the entire point. relative without even reading the source from my understanding of the subject means to the status of free. (I have seen it elsewhere and will search). If the clause is an issue I understand changing it, or deleting that offending clause. --Inayity (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
True enough, my original concern was simply to fix that clause and make it more readable and that problem certainly would not sanction the deletion of that entire claim. Then when I went to the source to figure it out, I couldn't find the basis for the claim anywhere. So #1 reason is the only reason for deletion, the other two are not sufficient and I recognize that. If you find the claim in the source and are willing to clean up the 'relative' point (note: it can't be relative to being free, because 'bondage' is always relative to being free' so the clause still doesn't seem to make sense. Bondage has to be relative to something else like social status, kinship structures, etc.), I have of course no problems with it remaining. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Well I have to Thank Q for the talkpage, because now I know what it means : It is used by Basil Davidson. Freedom was relative.The African slave trade By Basil Davidson (page 32). But I still thing it is to "artistic" to include hence deleted it. --Inayity (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Further Reading, Not a shopping list or a Book store
Please read this if anyone is still confused. [Further Reading. It states: A large part, if not all, of the work should be directly about the subject of the article. Works that are not entirely about the subject of the article should have notes that identify the relevant part of the work (e.g., "Chapter 7").
Preference is normally given to works that cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect of the subject, and to works whose contents are entirely about the subject of the article, rather than only partly.
Please put back the Findlay & O'Rourke reference, it links to the addition I made to the text. I put the source in the Further Reading section as I'm only familiar with the sfn referencing system. Please assume good faith next time. Thank youKeith-264 (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I did assume good faith until you ignored my edit and reinserted it. To add as a reference just hit the ref icon when editing. And a pop up will come up --Inayity (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
It will help if you accept my explanation and do something helpful. You don't own the page. As I pointed out I'm only familiar with the sfn system.Keith-264 (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Character of slavery in Africa prior to European contact.
The following sentence appears in the article:
"In most African societies where slavery was prevalent, the enslaved people were largely treated as indentured servants and not treated as chattel slaves."
Two citations are given in support, but I am removing them both because they do not support the facts given in the sentence:
Basil Davidson, The African Slave Trade, pg 46 (Difference): The edition is not given. In the edition I have access to, page 45 through 47 are a general discussion of tribal feudalism. There is no mention of slavery on those pages at all. Earlier in the book, at page 30 or so, there is a discussion of the "type" of slavery practiced, describing it as being similar to early European feudal serfdom-- but it does not compare it to indentured servitude, which is a completely different thing. And indeed the term indenture does not seem to appear anywhere in the book other than a reference on page 63 to European indentured servants (described as 'near slave') being brought to the Americas.
It may well be that the sentence is factual, but the citations given in support must actually support the facts in the sentence. That is why I am removing the citations and replacing them with the "citation needed" tag. Someone with more time than I have should re-read these sources and find the correct pages to cite (if any exist) or rewrite the sentence in conformity with the facts provided. Until then, it properly must remain uncited. Crypticfirefly (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Before you remove use the talk page, I reverted you and still you went back and re-added a disputed deletion. The statement is hardly controversial, and having read both books see no issue. IF there is an issue with page number (as I have said already) you do not DELETE ref. There are also tags for that. [failed verification] A whole range of ways, but you delete solid ref. Many solutions exist but you delete the two ref. Why not use the talk page first, and then replace indentured servitude, after all it was an editor who put the term there.--Inayity (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what the issue is here--is it the comparison to indentured servitude or is that there wasn't significant traditions/institutions of chattel slavery in Africa prior to transcontinental slave trades? I don't know about the Bailey source and don't have Davidson with me, but my recollection is that Basil was making the argument that servitude institutions in Africa and Europe in 1500 were broadly parallel. Also, let's remember that the lead should largely be supported in more detail in the text--where discussions of Pawnship, for example, seem to justify the statement in the lead. I think a better sentence there could certainly be written (remember the page still needs more clean-up and fix after Slavery in Africa was combined with African Slave Trade), but that the deletion of sources was, good faith, but hasty. How can we improve the content in that sentence? AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The issue is the comparison to indentured servitude, which seemed to me a surprising claim. That's what led me to look at the cited sources. I found nothing there to support it. However, I do not feel that I know enough about this subject to be comfortable rewriting the sentence. The solution is for one of you who seems to know more about this to either rewrite the sentence in conformity with the information found in the listed sources, or find a source the supports the statement in the article. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
So I removed the dubious tag. I added a reference which clearly makes the comparison apt. I also reworded the sentence so that it is clear that the main claim to be supported in the sources is that "Chattel slavery was rare in pre-European slave trade Africa." The comparison to indentured servitude is to help the reader, but is not the main claim and shouldn't be central in the sentence. Hope this resolves all concerns. AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it is supported by the cited texts, the statement is contradicted by many of the other details throughout the article. Slavery is essentially brutal, and we should always be suspicious of attempts to minimize it.208.68.128.90 (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
As nearly the entire article is about history of slavery in Africa, it should be moved this way. In such a case Slavery in contemporary Africa could be moved to Slavery in Africa and be expanded by additional information on its history. Sarcelles (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
What is the rationale per RS for such a move. Sounds like just shifting names around. Most books say Slavery in Africa to cover what is covered here. do not see what name change will gain.--Inayity (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I have just modified 6 external links on Slavery in Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Slavery in Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. 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}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Hello,
The article was neutral in tone, with no biased information that I could find. I checked all sources to see if I could at least verify them all, and they all worked. However, it is marked as a start article, which is considered still very incomplete and thus lacking information.--Leeannw1221 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
We might want to revisit this article
This article seems so heavily focused on systems of slavery that existed within Africa, that it feels as though the author is intending to mitigate the horrors of the European slave trade. Everyone2020 (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh do grow up. It's called "Slavery In Africa". It's about..er..slavery in Africa.
It's not mitigating anything. History is often uncomfortable - that doesn't mean it should be erased. Quite the opposite.
And before you ask, yes, I am black.
Splitting up the "Arab slave trade" to the "Trans-Saharan slave trade" or "East African/Indian Ocean slave trade"
The article uses term "Arab slave trade" to describe the "Trans-Saharan slave trade" or "East African/Indian Ocean slave trade". I think it would be better to split up the "Arab slave trade" by geographic scope. The article talks about the "Arab slave trade then goes on to talk about Romans, Byzantines and other ethnic groups. Would it be better to make this reorganization? Ibrahim5361 (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Need a more accurate slave trade map image
The current slave trade image does include information on other routes such as the slave trades over the Atlantic ocean and Indian ocean, I think it would be a better addition to the page if a more informative image is added rather than the current slave trade image which is portraying the slave trade routes going to Middle-eastern areas, It isn't wrong, but it's missing the other key routes. OhSpiderZ (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@KuroNekoNiyah: Thanks for your effort. But the map has two problems, one of which you might want to fix: On the commons page where you uploaded the map, there are no sources given. Since sources are important for WP:Verifiability, a map without sources should not be used. The second problem is that your map is showing the trafficking in human beings out of Africa, while this article is about slavery in Africa. So, the map would be of better use in other articles. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@Rsk6400: Thanks for the WP:Verifiability information! I am still trying to get used to editing on Wikipedia. I just updated the image metadata with the website where I got the information for the map from. As for the comment on slavery in Africa. The slavery that originated from Africa (e.g. the Transatlantic slave trade) should fall under slavery in Africa. KuroNekoNiyah (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@Skylax30: Normally, the editor who proposes a change (in this case, you) should start the discussion. There is no rule that the editor who opposes the change (in this case, me) should ask for anything before reverting. Your claim implies that European traders went into the interior of Africa, and that is not warranted by the source. The source says, "European traders and sailors benefitted from these links when they began to trade along the coast in the fifteenth century, acquiring goodsâand peopleâwho were captured from the interior and brought to the Atlantic coast via the African tradersâ inland trading systems." Moreover, the source is not an academic one and should therefore be treated with care. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that everyone who is adding a phrase in an article has to start with discussion. Is there any rule saying so? Deletion of info and source should be discussed and not the vice versa. Also, articles are not academic publications and sources are not expected to be academic, for as long as they seem to be reliable. I am not implying anything, but I tried to avoid the exact copy of the source, because you deleted it claiming that I violate the copyright. So, please formulate the phrase as you like, so that it renders the meaning of the source and doesn't violate the copyright. --Skylax30 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Its well know that Europeans did not travel to the interior of Africa to obtain slaves, but they did use existing traders and routes to obtain slaves. Please remember. WP:NOTPERFECTRobjwev (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@Skylax30: Of course, you don't have to discuss before you make the first change. But, according to WP:BRD, discussion should start when you see that there is opposition. Academic sources are to be preferred, but other sources can be used. I was not rejecting the source outright, but said that it should "be treated with care". I didn't delete anything claiming copyvio.
@Robjwev: There is a difference between "traders`" and "traders". The verb "to use" implies that the Europeans controlled the African traders, which is not supported by the source. Please use a colon to WP:INDENT. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rsk6400: I don't understand why small grammar issues justifies full removal of your fellow editors properly sourced edits? As editors we should be working together to improve this article. placing notes on your "reason for edit" notes is not working with your fellow editors to reach a concusses on a subject matter. We can acknowledge that Europeans did not travel into the interior of Africa to obtain slaves. But they did use existing slave routes/traders to obtain slaves. How can this be properly worded that will satisfy your concerns? Robjwev (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
The subtopic title LOCAL SLAVE TRADE should be changed.
That brief section of the article contains the only reference to African black people waging war against, and capturing, members of their own race to sell to the Europeans as slaves. This is no small point. It is the other half of the story of slavery in America. As the article states, 90 percent of the slaves were supplied to foreigners by black African tribes who made a business out if it. I don't know what to suggest for a title. Perhaps something containing the word "complicit." The slave trade would not have happened without African tribes' willingness to sell out their own race. 2600:8801:BE26:2700:B09F:3FEF:E7EB:2AC5 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC) James.
I think that first of all you need to rethink your use of the word "race", and of the idea of "their own race". You may think that all Africans are the same, or all Black people are the same, but that's not gospel truth. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dondrehuddl12.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isabelalvarado0.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Crjones96, Mrussell30.
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Slavery in Africa's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ReferenceA":
From Privateer: "In the Eye of All Trade: Bermuda, Bermudians, and the Maritime Atlantic World, 1680â1783", by Michael Jarvis, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 2010
From Ottoman Empire: Stone, Norman "Turkey in the Russian Mirror" pp. 86â100 from Russia War, Peace and Diplomacy edited by Mark & Ljubica Erickson, Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, 2004 p. 95.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOTâĄ02:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I am confused about the revert [1]. It is properly sourced by a historian of Ghana. Nothing special is required for this. If there is a source for it, like I provided there should be no issue. If no valid wikipedia policy based reasons are provided I will restore. Quotes can be provided. Other sources from Cambridge University Press state that slaves were used since at least 3000 BC which is part of the Neolithic range [2]. Definitely ancient. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this to the talk page. I don't think that we can define a form of domination over human beings as "slavery" before we have some form of textual evidence (be it in writing or through oral traditions some generations before the first written evidence). That's why I think this is a case of WP:REDFLAG, meaning we need a lot of excellent sources. We already have expressions like "hundreds of years" or "ancient times" in the article, which seems to be sourced and also plausible. Since the definition of "neolithic times" depends on the region, we'd also need to know when neolithic cultures were active in Ghana. I don't know that, but if e.g. the neolithic period should end about 1500 AD, the claim would be true, but pretty worthless. On the other hand, the Stilwell quote doesn't show which region he is talking about. Is it really Ghana ? Or is it Egypt ? Rsk6400 (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with redflag because you already acknowledge that slavery in these regions go as far back as the ancient period. These sources are saying the same thing. We could just use the term "ancient" instead of Neolithic - which already has numerous sources for it. Stilwell is talking about all Africa in the link I provided on how the general conditions of expanding commerce and war lead to what to do with captives and then proceeds to break down the conditions of multiple regions in Africa including West Africa on page 37. Talks about how political and commercial complexity existed "long before 500CE" in West Africa.
Also, it is not me defining slavery it is the sources themselves. "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." (A history of Indigenous Slavery in Ghana - Akosua Perbi p.15)
Also in the same discusses the ancient practice of acquiring slaves through warfare "The retention of captives taken in battle was a recognized practice among every people before the beginning of written history. The ancient records of the Assyrians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Persians, Indians and Chinese are all full of references to slaves and types of labor for which they were usually employed. With the Greeks and the Romans, the institution of slavery reached new heights."(p.15)
Here is a another source "Many languages in Africa have different words for âslave.â 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. One working hypothesis, faute de mieux, would be that slavery among the peoples of the Northwest and Africa was similar a millennium earlier to how it appeared when our evidence begins. But the assumption that the distant past was unchanging just because it is unknown is optimistic at best. 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."[3]
Thanks for providing all those sources. I learned something new. I'm okay with a re-worded sentence. "1st century AD" sounds much more credible than "neolithic period". But since this is still based on conjectures from linguistics (the words for "slaves") or comparison of types of society (complex societies have slaves), I'd suggest you add something like "according to Ghanaian historian Akosua Perbi". Rsk6400 (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Great! I will attribute. To capture the ancientness, will reword to include ancient or distant past or something like that.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
India
@A.j.roberts: The onus for getting consensus for your additions is on you (see WP:ONUS). I don't think the section on the Indian Ocean slave trade is the right place to add methods of payment that were used in all aspects of the trade. I also have strong doubts that we should add randomly chosen non-academic sources about Calcutta in an article that is about slavery in Africa (and not in India). I'd also like to ask you to use complete sentences. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
@Rsk6400 The references satisfy the WP:RS policy, being "reliable, published sources". Though your initial argument for the the first of your revisions was:
"13:42, 31 May 2023 Rsk6400 talk contribsâ â614 Undid revision 1157442625 by A.j.roberts (talk) - one source about Bengal, the other too old to be considered reliable".
Could you also justify, stating the policies, rather than any fallacious false authorities, say "We" or "I", how the addition of:
Though James Silk Buckingham, the editor of the Calcutta Journal, published an article in 1823, that indicated the trade persisted, describing Calcutta as:
This great capital is at once the depot of the commerce and riches of the East, and the mart in which the manacled African is sold, like the beast of the field to the highest bidder.[1]
A trade that often used Cowry shells and Indian textiles as the medium of exchange.[1][2]
The texts assertions being backed by relevant published references, that verify all assertions in the addition, to satisfy the WP:RS policy, and the text being relevant to the Indian Ocean Slave trade.
Per my comment when reinstating the addition, "see: WP:AWWWP:DOREVERT". Can you please reference the Wikipedia POLICY, that mandates that instead of affixing a [better source needed] to any block of text associated with a non academic (whatever academic means) references, or for text that is relevant to more than just that section:
the associated text is to be immediately DELETED. Say as the following reversion of yours:
" 06:05, 2 June 2023â Rsk6400 talk contribsâ â24â ââEffect on the economy of Africa: Removing non-academic ref (claim doesn't need a ref since it is not likely to be challenged)"
Or say your removal of an edit, as backed by a published reference, on the unsupported grounds: "Chattopadhyay is no academic historian."
Please justify your numerous reversion with regard to the WP:DOREVERT policy. Not just to my own contribution but others over recent weeks, eg,
15:42, 12 May 2023â Rsk6400 talk contribsâ â5â Undid revision 1154449180 by 81.102.55.161 (talk) - is this level of precision covered by the source ?
When reverting Editors contribution, you fail to state any POLICY that justifies the reversion, and the Articles history show NO attempt to add fact or Better source needed needed tags to others contributions. Which appears rather discourteous if not disruptive WP:DE.
The revision reasons offered also seem to fall foul of WP:AWW, would you like to explain what you have against "Chattopadhyay" and odeally back it by a WP:RS or say the following assertion, for removing text from the article:
"... the other too old to be considered reliable".[citation needed]
There seems to be a misunderstanding here: Reverting is a normal part of WP editorial work, and it is in no way discourteous, let alone disruptive. Regarding WP:DOREVERT: Yes, I believe that the edit makes the article clearly worse, because you added material that is - as I see it - irrelevant for an article about slavery in Africa (and not "in India"). I didn't understand why you mentioned WP:AWW, and this is surely not the place to discuss reverts that concern other editors who can speak for themselves. Chattopadhyay is the author of the text you want to use as a source. I have no problems with him or her, but he is no academic historian, and a text on a historical subject that has attracted as much academic attention as ours should be based on good academic sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
How is the enslavement and trafficking of Africans to the Indian sub-continent, not pertinent to an article on Slavery in Africa. A WP:RS supporting any argument you offer for the exclusion of that trade would be appreciated.
Devasis Chattopadhyay]], and per the cited article, or the list of articles on the other end of the link, is a published author, and columnist for the like of: Live History India, The Quint, National Herald India, ... meeting the WP:RS POLICY. He quotes part of the 20th century book you asserted in one of your reversion as "the other too old to be considered reliable" though failing to offering any definition or justification "too old", least a Wikipedia POLICY.
There are several problems with your insertions and your arguments for them. I'll touch on a few.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, whether or not that information is supported by reliable sources. Editors labour to keep articles clear, focused and helpful to our readers, and this often involves deciding that material should not be inserted after all or should be pared down.
We prefer scholarly sources - see WP:SOURCETYPES. Your comment above about "relevant published references, that verify all assertions in the addition" suggest you think that anything published is reliable as a reference for Wikipedia; it's not.
According to the profile you linked, Chattopadhyay "took up Public Relations as his calling". A handful of columns on historical subjects don't make him an academic historian too.
He did not name the editor of the Calcutta Journal; it seems you researched that, which was WP:OR on your part.
Our concern in this article is the trade in human beings; a vast number of currencies and goods were used in that trade, and a paragraph consisting of an incomplete sentence naming two of them stands out as an editor ascribing such importance to a fact they've learnt (or the happenstance of them learning it) as to insert it into the encyclopedia with no concern for integrating it into the flow of the article or regard for the reader's experience.
This applies also to your paragraph quoting the Calcutta Journal, again an incomplete sentence, again an unintegrated fragmentary insertion.
If we were to include something concerning or encompassing trade to Calcutta, a brief properly supported direct statement that the trade to EIC India persisted after the British Act of 1807 might be added to the end of the existing paragraph thus ".... The British captured the islands in 1810, however, and because the British had prohibited the slave trade in 1807 a system of clandestine slave trade developed to bring slaves to French planters on the islands; in all 336,000â388,000 slaves were exported to the Mascarane Islands from 1670 to 1848. Large numbers were also traded to India until xxxx." (addition underlined) Such inclusion would have to reference a suitable WP:RS; if your source Chattopadhyay is correct, then you should be able to find academic historians have studied and described this. But this can only serve as a demonstration of phrasing and sourcing; it's still not appropriate for this article.
As Rsk6400 has already pointed out, this article concerns slavery in Africa. It includes the African islands of the Indian Ocean, but it is not Indian Ocean slave trade and we should resist the temptation to add details of that trade; the brief mention of overall figures is enough. NebY (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
You're objection "this article concerns slavery in Africa. It includes the African islands of the Indian Ocean, but it is not Indian Ocean slave trade and we should resist the temptation to add details of that trade;" as justification for removal of the block on the Indian Ocean trade, is frankly erroneous, given the substantial part of the article covers the Atlantic trade OUT of Africa, and you've left that content.
As to the addition of Indian Cotton textiles, and slave markets, the Kazuo paper offers a figure of 30% of slaves exported from AFRICA were exchanged for Indian textiles, typically pieces of indigo blue died cotton cloth. In addition to stating cowry shells, brass, military items, ... made up the remainder of the trade goods, used in both the Indian Ocean and Atlantic trades, in the 18th century. Details of which are echoed in the cited article. As Indain Cotton textiles appear to have been the most significant trade good, in both the Arab and Atlantic traces, ignoring Indian cotton textiles devalues the article. As does the importation of African slaves into the numerous Indian kingdoms, into the MID 19th century.
If you have no explicit objections to articles written by, Chattopadhyay, a reasonable editor would likely have simply added a [better source needed] tag, while a studious editor would have added sufficent citations to satisfy their curiosity. Removing blocks of text that cover almost a third of the African slave trade, doesn't appear to be an edit that meets the WP:AGF bar.
I'll look at how the use of Indian textiles could be integrated into the article, keeping our focus on the African end of the trade. NebY (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
"who cautions that the true picture of European slaves is clouded by the fact the corsairs also seized non-Christian whites from eastern Europe and black people from West Africa."
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dondrehuddl12.