This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Virginia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Mid-importance). Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The article's wording suggests Hemings and her children were included in Martha's dowry. The cited sources do not actually support this claim.

The Hemings were not included in Martha's dowry.

"Ownership" of the Hemings did not pass to Martha until years later upon her father's death. Thomas Jefferson was only named as an executor of her father's will - but Thomas Jefferson himself was not named as a benefactor.

Her father's will explicitly passed ownership of the Hemings solely to Martha.

When Martha died intestate (without a will), her ownership of the Hemings passed by default to her living children. Pimprncess ( talk) 10:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Says it all. It's my understanding that style guides etc states that "enslaved persons" is correct. Let's discuss if we must. Might end up needing a Wikipedis-wide RfC on this... - Shearonink ( talk) 14:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia's own page on slavery uses the term "slave" much more than "enslaved person". It only uses it in the terminology section. It also makes no sense that the new term is only used in regards to American slavery. No one is changing the articles on Spartacus or the Ottoman Empire. Clintville ( talk) 07:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

While a discussion is taking place it's usually considered a good practice to leave the article alone rather than changing it back to a preferred version. Since two editors have used the enslaved persons terminology that could be considered as the consensus and yet the article has been changed back to slaves...

Keeping in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS this discussion is only about this article but if we are going to look around Wikipedia to see how other articles treat the terminology rather than Slavery a more-connected candidate would be Slavery in the United States where multiple instances of enslaved persons or enslaved workers etc do occur.

Re Spartacus/Ottoman Empire...these two concepts/entities didn't enslave peoples based solely on their being black Africans or the descendants of black Africans or being partially a descendant of black Africans. The Ottoman Empire version was based on commerce and not on skin color and was more towards the concept of indentured servants (for instance, the child of a female slave in the Empire was considered free and wasn't enslaved for perpetuity).

Anyway, I digress, back to this article...the American peculiar institution is charged with emotion for people of color. To insist on terminology that many consider outdated or to be an "othering" of a group of people seems pejorative and dismissive. Perhaps you should open an RfC on the usage of slaves vs. enslaved persons in articles that would fall under Slavery in the United States to see what the editorial consensus is on the matter. - Shearonink ( talk) 16:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply