![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
These two article titles seem to cover a great deal of common ground and it seems to me sensible that they be merged.
I would suggest merging them under Slavery in Africa, as that is how similarly title articles appear relating to other geographic regions (see e.g. Slavery in Brazil, Slavery in India and Slavery in the United States. However it is clear that African slave trade contains far more information, and presumably that would form the bulk (if not all) of the merged article.
-- Legis ( talk - contribs) 23:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 (𒁳) 11:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
Proposed arrangement of content across slavery in Africa page:
Ideas/suggestions/etc very welcomed.
(Please post any different ideas for rearranging content on Africa slavery pages that you have here)
(Please post any comments about the reorganization content on Africa slavery pages that you have here)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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:
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)
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)
A discussion thread about the reliability and notability of this author and his pages is taking place at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Owen 'Alik Shahadah, please comment there so we can get a final consensus. Rupert Loup ( talk) 12:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Paine Ellsworth u/ c 11:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Here. Spicemix ( talk) 22:02, 26 May 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 goods—and people—who were captured from the interior and brought to the Atlantic coast via the African traders’ 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:NOTPERFECT Robjwev ( talk) 22:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
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.
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.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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":
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. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that "chattel slavery" existed in the Nile Valley, or any slavery at all? This doesn't sound right. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 14:12, 19 September 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)
@ 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)
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 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)
References
"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."
What non-Christian whites existed in Eastern Europe in 1500? Paganism ended with the last of the Northern Crusades, which took place in modern day Lithuania. There is no evidence that the Corairs ever got anywhere near Lithuania. /info/en/?search=Northern_Crusades 72.181.56.250 ( talk) 15:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
These two article titles seem to cover a great deal of common ground and it seems to me sensible that they be merged.
I would suggest merging them under Slavery in Africa, as that is how similarly title articles appear relating to other geographic regions (see e.g. Slavery in Brazil, Slavery in India and Slavery in the United States. However it is clear that African slave trade contains far more information, and presumably that would form the bulk (if not all) of the merged article.
-- Legis ( talk - contribs) 23:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 (𒁳) 11:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
Proposed arrangement of content across slavery in Africa page:
Ideas/suggestions/etc very welcomed.
(Please post any different ideas for rearranging content on Africa slavery pages that you have here)
(Please post any comments about the reorganization content on Africa slavery pages that you have here)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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:
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)
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)
A discussion thread about the reliability and notability of this author and his pages is taking place at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Owen 'Alik Shahadah, please comment there so we can get a final consensus. Rupert Loup ( talk) 12:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Paine Ellsworth u/ c 11:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Here. Spicemix ( talk) 22:02, 26 May 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 goods—and people—who were captured from the interior and brought to the Atlantic coast via the African traders’ 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:NOTPERFECT Robjwev ( talk) 22:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
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.
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.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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":
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. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that "chattel slavery" existed in the Nile Valley, or any slavery at all? This doesn't sound right. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 14:12, 19 September 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)
@ 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)
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 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)
References
"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."
What non-Christian whites existed in Eastern Europe in 1500? Paganism ended with the last of the Northern Crusades, which took place in modern day Lithuania. There is no evidence that the Corairs ever got anywhere near Lithuania. /info/en/?search=Northern_Crusades 72.181.56.250 ( talk) 15:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)