|This template is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 China
- 2 Baibars
- 3 Border color
- 4 History of Slavery in United States
- 5 Change to template
- 6 Removed "Wage Slavery" link from template
- 7 Underware Railroad
- 8 Terminology/New heading of template ["Slavery & Unfree labour"]
- 9 Unfree labor in title?
- 10 Collapse??
The reference to China links towards a legitimate penal system. Even in The Netherlands we are familiar with work-for-punishment. Maybe it's a terribly huge amount of work but unfairness does not make slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I dont think this box is in the right place. Article of Baibars speaks about Baibars and his achievments. Samsam22 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Seeing no discussion in the past three days, I went ahead and changed it. If people feel strongly about the border color, let's discuss it here. – Scartol · Talk 16:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
History of Slavery in United States
Why does this template not include the article Slavery in the United States. I hope that is there is a reason other than bias?
Change to template
The removed article is off-topic for this category. The current disambiguation page also distinguishes this Marxist analogy from the actual practice of slavery. StephenMacmanus (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Terminology/New heading of template ["Slavery & Unfree labour"]
I think the placement of unfree labour under the heading of slavery is dubious because it tends to imply that unfree labour is a form of slavery. Whereas, in fact, unfree labour is a broader and more generic term that includes slavery, along with less well known practices. Hence I have changed the heading of the template. Grant | Talk 05:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfree labor in title?
It doesn't seem right to include "unfree labor" in the title of the template. The title should be common & concise, following rules similar to WP:TITLE. Instead, a link to the article Unfree labor could be in the body of the template, in a new section such as "associated topics" or "related topics". But it just looks odd in the title. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the editor above - the slavery sidebar has gotten huge recently with a dump of parochial US history topics onto the global sidebar by one editor. This is an international sidebar. You wouldn't know it at the moment, with little headings saying "Jefferson" and "Adams".
This template is so disgusting right now. This is how wikipedia used to look like 10 years ago. Make a "Slavery in the US" sidebar for the American topics.
One link for slavery in India (as it should be) - about millions of slaves in debt bondage at present - vs around 20 articles in the template about the pre-1865 US experience, including:
- Slave iron bit, US slaves
- Slave Songs of the United States
- Underground Railroad
- Songs of the Underground Railroad, SMH at this being on an international sidebar....
- Thomas Jefferson and slavery
- John Quincy Adams and abolitionism
- Fugitive slaves in the United States
- Forty acres and a mule
- Freedmen's Bureau, US history
- George Washington and slavery
- Abraham Lincoln and slavery
- American slave court cases
- Slave breeding in the United States
- Female slavery in the United States
- Slave and free states
- Slave codes, seriously, on an international sidebar
- Interregional slave trade
- Slavery in the colonial United States
- Treatment of slaves in the United States
- Fugitive slave laws, "The fugitive slave laws were laws passed by the United States Congress in 1793 and 1850...."
- Penal labor in the United States
- Field slaves
- Slave Power, more US only history