Category:Slaveholders ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Please note that this request is explicitly non-political in nature -- this is a simple matter of treating people-by-status categories on the same logical basis for both sides of the slavery equation. The previous discussion was 7 years ago. when circumstances were different: this deserves re-examination.

See the DRV below for an example of one use: a corresponding subcategory Category:Fictional slaveholders (corresponding to Category:Fictional slaves), or a hypothetical List of slaveholders article (corresponding to List of slaves) would be another. The Anome ( talk) 20:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Relist or permit recreation or something. The nomination was extraordinary to me ("in the past it was as common, natural, and trivial as owning a TV set today.") but what was even more odd was the number of people who seemed to agree with this. Anyway, I think the 2007 CfD can reasonably be challenged. Thincat ( talk) 15:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Our decisions here historically have been very inconsistent. I see that our List of slave owners has existed since 2005. I'd go further than Thincat and say the 2007 CfD doesn't need to be challenged. It wasn't a strong consensus and it was all a very long time ago. I think it's simply expired through the passage of time. I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to create this category. But I think you've got the wrong name for it: it should be Category:Slave owners. Calling it "slave holders" creates quite the wrong mental image...— S Marshall T/ C 23:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The choice of the word "slaveholders" as opposed to "slave owners" is deliberate, since people are not property, as a matter of international law: see the 1926 Slavery Convention. People can be (and, alas, still are) forced into slavery, but their enslavers' claims of ownership rights are invalid. This was not always always considered to be so, but we should use a present-day perspective when we name things. There are also other forms of slavery other than chattel slavery: the term "slaveholders" includes this case. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Slave ownership is illegal, and so's murder. We still call a murderer a murderer. We still call a rapist a rapist. The fact that something's illegal doesn't mean we have to resort to euphemism. But the exact name is a side issue that should be subject to the usual discussion and consensus in due course. On the main point of whether it's reasonable to have a category for this purpose, you and I are entirely in agreement.— S Marshall T/ C 14:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. This is simply WP:OC - a very large number of past people would fall under this; it isn't WP:DEFINING. Arguing it shouldn't be deleted because an article exists is not relevant - we have plenty of things, and lists, for which there are articles where categories are inappropriate (and vice versa). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Google and Bing searches for "was a slaveholder" and "was a slave owner" suggest that this category name satisfies WP:DEFINING's requirements. For a plantation owner in the pre-civil-war southern U.S., for example, it would typically be their principal activity in life: without the activity of the slaves, the plantation was merely a piece of land. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• endorse Consensus was pretty strong on the main category and I'm not seeing a good policy reason to dispute that. Mangoe ( talk) 21:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (too long ago to reconsider). Note that the discussion contained only a weak consensus. This is the wrong place to discuss the merits of re-creation. I suggest continuing this discussion at Talk:Slavery or Category talk:Slavery, cross-posting a notice at the other. Or just create it, if you're organised enough to defend a CfD nomination. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Category:American slaveholders ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Similar categories would also be created for all other countries for which they are relevant, as sub-categories of a container category Category:Slaveholders by nationality‎, which would in turn be a subcategory of Category:Slaveholders --the exact same schema as used for Category:Slaves and its subcategories.

Yes, a large number of historical biographical articles would end up getting added to this category (and the equivalents for other nations), but I think that is an argument for, not against, creating the category.

Please note that this request is explicitly non-political in nature -- this is a simple matter of treating people-by-status categories on the same logical basis for both sides of the slavery equation. The previous discussion was 7 years ago. when circumstances were different: this deserves re-examination. The Anome ( talk) 20:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment If the Category:Slaveholders is recreated it would be best to proceed by consensus with any subcategories. This one shouldn't be recreated without the parent. Thincat ( talk) 15:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• overturn American, endorse others The other by-country categories fell into the overall consensus. Strong arguments were made for the American category, however, and they were dismissed out of hand in a highly not-neutral fashion. Abolition in the US is a major aspect of our history and the owning of slaves placed people in categories which were significant with respect to antebellum politics. Mangoe ( talk) 21:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Defer to the outcome of discussions on re-creating Category:Slaveholders. Endorse the 2007 Cfd, it was a descent rough consensus. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC) reply