Talk:Slavery in contemporary Africa

Appearance of bias toward Arabs and Islam

There were extended discussions before this article split from African slave trade, and I'd rather not do any major editing until a consensus forms. My concern with this article is that it is gives the appearance of being extremely prejudicial against Arabs and Islam. I am not disputing that many of the facts are correct, but a balanced presentation requires more than facts. The article goes out of its way to point out that the Muslims are the bad guys. This is both irresponsible and unencyclopedic. It is irresponsible because uninformed readers may conclude that Muslims and Arabs in general are pro-slavery racists, which is, of course, nonsense. Furthermore it gives the impression that Islam is the root cause of this human rights travesty, which is also nonsense. The caption to the picture of Francis Bok is one example. The first two sentences explain the image well enough, and there is a link to an entire article about him.

One important step in the right direction is to replace the current muddled introduction with a proper lede. The opening sentence, at present, doesn't even make grammatical sense, and the lede shouldn't depend on two extended quotes anyway. I'm willing to work on this myself, but I don't have very many resources on this subject at the moment. I need to visit a library. In the meantime, what do other editors think?

–Taranah 05:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree it needs a lot of work, but I do not have the resources either. I worked on formatting the links and noticed it was more of a one sided slant. But, I don't know enough to contribute anything significant. - Jeeny ^Talk 05:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the best way to address this issue is to fill in the rest of the continent. The current sample seems cherry picked. After that, exploring the current scholarship will reveal whether or not there is any serious debate on the issue. Elijahmeeks 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

NOMINATED FOR DELETION

I have witnessed the non-development of this page. Wiki is not a website for blogs or personal religiously motivated articles. This entire page is unbalanced and unencyclopedic. Not to mention poorly written. It starts with a quote.. start there. It discuss Islam and not Slavery in Africa. Mali is a stub with zero content. An article should not be a shopping list of SOME countries. As one of the editors said "Islam is slaving Christians." this is reflective of the motives for this article. There is curiously no mention of the child slave trade in Christian Ghana, or slavery in Christian Ethiopia, or Christian Nigeria, or Benin, or Togo, all of these MAJOR places with a history of this problem have been avoided. Mis motives and insincerity run through this piece. More over the debate doesn’t and should emphasis religion but Slavery.

It starts with a lopsided quote. This topic belongs in Slavery in Africa, or a complete revamp. It discredits Wikipedia and should be deleted not entertained. These backyard topics really dirty this site and take away from serious people making serious contributions here.

Read the rules of this site and see what quality articles and balance mean.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 08:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article has an awful intro and focuses too much on Muslim countries. The proper course of action is to expand on the article, not remove it. After all, slavery in modern Africa is important enough to warrant an article and contains significant issues that are different than slavery on the African continent before the modern age. Elijahmeeks 14:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I do agree, it does deserve a section. But we must start by cleaning this one up. however i will leave the tag, because if it become a den for religious hatred it is better to delete it, so let the editors decide where they want this one to go. I mean they got Niger and Nigeria mixed up. It is clear the motives.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 20:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

One example of the garbage in this article

" system exists now by which Arab Muslims" Am everyone in Mauritania is a Muslim, why would you need to state that they are 'Arab' and 'Muslim'? it is like stating 'Arab male human green eyed Muslim' there religious is not important esp. in a country where it is the majority religion. Clearly it is inserted here for the reasons explained by myself and teh above editors.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Gang editoring? COI

what is this about Religious motivated editing makes wiki look bad. the nature of the edits speaks for itself, the level of religious content speaks for itself. Cease this activity because it is vandalism--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning

If destructive POV reverts go on this page will be nominated for deletion. Vindictive edits will not be tolerated nor will hate campaigns. Talk pages and rules r for a reason. I have noticed some editors STALKING and reverting serious work. several editors on this talk page have discussed cleaning up this page, including jeeny, and the others above. please follow the rules and use the talk pages for your desputes. wholesale removal of valid content which is balanced is call Vandalism--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 15:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you are the one violating rules (see your block log [1]). Further, please restrict your comments on the talk page to comments specifically about article edits. --Strothra 15:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Respect serious work, as editors have discussed this edit, edit the article not the editor. reverting to an article which is agreed to be unbalanced, racist is vandalism and bad intent. Also removing tags and concerns is vandalism and unconstructive. ill motivated. Read the rules use the talk page. If you have a problem or a controversial edit use the talk page before wholesale destruction of peoples work. everything i was blocked for has come to pass. including the removal of this article from African Slave Trade. Thus nothing i have done is vandalism. Please restrict your usage of wikipedia for its development. think before you revert.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 15:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Step by step violation of NPOV against Islamic Africa

This entire section is not encyclopedic It opens by discussing Sudan and Islam and then proceeds to talk about fundamentalist Islam with an exhausting quote from R Segal. Nothing to do with Africa only his view on Islam and civilization.

• Slavery in the Sudan predates Islam, but continued under Islamic rulers and has never completely died out in Sudan

The topic is African Slave Trade not Islam in Sudan or Islamic rulers, the topic is SLAVERY and SUDAN, who are these Islamic rulers?

• was under pressure from Congress, including conservative Christians concerned about religious oppression and slavery, to address issues involved in the Sudanese conflict.

The topic is about Slavery not religious oppression or conflict or the views of "concern" Christian fundamentalist and their lobbying power. Discuss Africa and Slavery

• In the Sudan, Christian captives in the ongoing civil war are often enslaved, and female prisoners are often used sexually, with their Muslim captors claiming that Islamic law grants them permission

Why is Christian and Muslim in every other sentence, with Muslims and Islamic law being the demon, this is a NPOV violation, it is not balanced and has loaded language. The topic is about Africa not Christian in Sudan.

• CHAD, one report from IRN hardly qualifies as content to put in a shopping list of African countries. Undue weight and not in proportion, as you can find this story in every African country, why target Chad and so-called Arab Herdmen.
• Slavery began in Mauritania around 1000 A.D., when the Arab and Berber tribes sought to introduce Islam to the Africans

What does this have to do with Africa and slavery, this is talking about Islam being introduced to Africans, which is incorrect in any event, wiki is not a valid reference and the topic is not about the history of Islam in Africa.

• In Niger, slavery is a real and current phenomenon.

What kind of encyclopedic language is this?

• Slavery dates back for centuries in Niger and was finally criminalised in 2003, after five years of lobbying by Anti-Slavery International and Nigerian human-rights group, Timidria.

Slavey dates back to the birth of humanity, Where is the source. It is not NPOV also and is without balance, Slavery was banned in Niger a while back, not 2003.

• The Malian government denies that slavery exists, however, the slavery in Timbuktu is obvious.

This is unencyclopedic and written like a personal view, obvious to who? One little account also doesnt mean you create a shopping list for Mali

WHERE IS GHANA, oh i am sorry that isnt an Islamic country.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 19:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

before this article was split, showing objections to old content

I have been editing on this page for over a year now. And wiki has rules. respect editor and USE THE TALK PAGE FOR DISPUTES. I have respectful piece by piece listed why i have removed that nonsense. The vandal is the person who continues to insert foul bad intent content into this site without following or listening to clear rules like NPOV. When we do our own thing we violate the quality of this site. I have made an address of the issues so USE THE TALK PAGE like a civilized editor.

You haven't made an argument that NPOV is being violated. Muslims, mostly Africans, are enslaving people in Africa and justifying it using Islam (correctly or not). Christians aren't enslaving people. That doesn't meant NPOV is being violated here. Arrow740 17:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My friend please do not bring your POV to this section okay, BALANCE. BALANCE my friend. Using NPOV the langauage which make slavery into a religious argument is fowl. reply to my remarks above, and some of those sources are bad sources--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The blindness of religion seems to affect all, look at your statement it vindicates me, ONLY MUSLIMS ARE BAD, CHRISTIANS ARE NICE. thats the template of your argument that Muslims are the only ones? Ghana is Christian, nigeria is 50% christian so are you sure about this. Ethiopia is Christian.? what about Bein, and Togo (child slavery) which Africa have you been looking at? i am very reasonable so i suggest you discuss and find middle ground. I am not here to defend Muslims, i am here to deal with reality and fix the horrors of humanity. But dont talk about Mali and ignore the rife trade in Ghana. and Togo it is dishonest and vile to the enslaved there.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

All I said was that Muslims are enslaving and Christians aren't. In my personal opinion, yes that makes those Muslims bad. What's your point? We're just giving the facts here. Arrow740 21:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As a lurker here for some time, I have been reading the various versions of this article. Halaqah's version is much more balanced. If we want to include a few additional sentences about the Sudan, then let's do that, but to imply that Islam is a cause of African slavery is both irresponsible and incorrect. It is as absurd to blame African slavery on Islam as it is to blame historical American slavery on Christianity. People everywhere attempt to justify their practices in terms of their religion. If we were to hold religions accountable for the atrocities committed in their names, they would all be languishing in a dungeon somewhere. As it is, this article has a lot of basic problems -- grammar, spelling, and structure -- which are exacerbated by the ongoing edit war. –Taranah 23:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any references to content here. And it may interest you to know that American slavery is also partly due to Islam. Without the Muslim slavers, acting on the pretext of jihad, there would have been no slaves for the Christians to buy. Arrow740 01:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It did not seem necessary to repeat arguments that have already been made. I just wanted to throw in my vote. Specifically, though, the section on "Slavery in Africa in the 21st Century" reads like an anti-Islamic rant, beginning with the two bizarre quotes at the start of the section. It sounds like it is blaming slavery on Islam, as if there is a causal relationship. I believe the section would be more balanced (and thus more compelling) if the religious references were removed. –Taranah 05:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are only some peoples religion mentioned?

I notice that the religion of Christian slave owners (in Ethiopia and elsewhere) are never mentioned.

Can this bbe corrected? Otherwise, it weakens the article by further turning Wikipedia into a place for propagating bigotry and racism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.37.26 (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Because there is a POV bias going on a mission to identify Islam as a slaving religion. Strange considering the History of Christianity and the Atlantic slave trade.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good now (as of 2010)

Just commenting that the article seems quite balanced now. Christians and others are mentioned. The fact that it's almost entirely Africans enslaving Africans in modern day is simply a reflection of reality. If that fuels racism, so be it. The article on the Holocaust shouldn't be deleted because it fuels anti-German sentiment nor should the article on slavery in the New World be deleted because it makes white people look bad. Hvatum (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Only Some religions get focus

See the above comment on Why only some religions mention. When it is Islam, it "gives context" all other religions get no mention. Why do we need to state Islamic and pre-Islam in a debate about slavery? Is there a relationship there that does not exist with Christianity in Ethiopia??? So when it is a Muslim country they need to focus on Islam as the agent. When it is Christian all of a sudden religion is superfluous. Please discuss Islam and Slavery under Islam and slavery. POV are unwelcome and will be quickly removed.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Pro-america bias?

I think this article is useful, but this passage

"Slavery in Africa continues today. Slavery existed in Africa before the arrival of Europeans - as did a slave trade that exported millions of Africans to North Africa, the Middle East, and the Persian Gulf. For comparison, there are more than twice as many slaves in Modern Africa as in Pre-Civil war America.[1]"

Is rather biased.

There is no need or reason to compare quantitatively modern-day slavery in Africa to past slavery on united states. In fact the two are not directly comparable (since the size of population, the underlying causes, and the general social structure are very different)

--187.40.211.182 (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

So I removed this--187.40.211.182 (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem editor 79.97.171.208 who is inserting this stuff I have removed it AGAIN, but they continue to add this white washing. It is clear what they are up to. i.e. trying to frame Islam and African slavery but making Islam and slavery friends but making no reference to other religions. This editor does not use the talk page.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The reverting summary, rm unexplained deletion of material, is incorrect (since I exposed my reasoning here). But I should have made an edit summary, in addition to this note at talk page.

I should also note that the source do not support the claim that "there are more than twice as many slaves in Modern Africa as in Pre-Civil war America.". What the source state is: Only "circum-Caribbean sugar islands and the American South" was as "preoccupied with slaves" as "the Ottomans".

The source does not cite "Modern Africa" at all. Also, it does not make sense to talk about "pre-civil war America" if you aren't talking about United States proper (neither USA or civil war is cited).

But my statement is: even if you find a source that support this specific quantitative claim, I feel that this comparison probably does not belong to this article (unless you can explain what it has to do with the subject of the article: slavery in modern Africa). --187.40.211.182 (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the comparison is useful, but if the referenced article doesn't contain the comparison it's alleged to, it should be left out. And I'm sorry Halaqah, but if you think any mention of Islam is an attack on it, you're paranoid. 79.97.171.208 (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear user wikipedia is not about what you think, it is about following the rules. Stick to the topic which is not Islam and Slavery nor is it comparing Arabs with Europeans. See the rules and not your personal desires and use the talk page before disruptive other editors, because that is a violation of the rules of wikipedia and is considered vandalism. please refrain from discussing your views of my paranoia and stick to developing this article. other objections were noted above and we work on NPOV not one ip editors personal mission.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's your POV 79.97.171.208 (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that is not an argument which is valid here. This is not a game of what you think verses what you think. Either support the additions with NPOV or it will be removed every time. "That is your pov" is a response when rational does not exist. And you have been suspected of sockpuppetry. As I have said read the talk page this issue was raised and the article must discuss the topic and not fork into specific religions, especially when it fails to ever mention Christian next to the Christian people who do slavery.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to add appropriate material about christian involvement in slavery in africa, go ahead. But do not remove appropriate mentions of islam without rationale. 79.97.171.208 (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You spoil this development for everyone. I do not want to add anything about religion. There is a rational that says this topics focus is slavery and African (two subjects), there is a page full for Islam and Slavery and Christianity and slavery. So how does Islam get mentioned in a debate about Slavery in Sudan?????????? Sudan or Chad? What is the connection if Slavery pre-dates Islam. Here is my point Slavery in Chad predates Democracy but still continues under Democracy" Can I add that in? Off course not. Same rule applies to Islam. Plus you are deleting other information in your edit war. Now you are up for 3RR. Is it worth it, or being civil and using the talk page is better. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

From Halaqah's own user page: "Christianity and Slavery

Great work on this article, I was hoping someone would come along and expand it :) - Francis Tyers · 14:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks i think it needs to be developed, I am trying to add the race dynamics thing to the critic of Christianity thing because they have written so many pages, but forgotten to discuss race-domination in religion--Halaqah 14:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC) [edit]"

Why do you believe that race belongs in an article on christianity and slavery, but not that religion belongs on an article on slavery in africa? 79.97.171.208 (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)