Talk:Christian views on slavery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

you cannot take a quote about employment and apply it to the slavery [edit]

Dear Tahc, You left the following message at my user_talk page. Your attem(p)ts to justify slavery is in the name of "Christians think of themselves as slaves of Christ" is inappropriate Christian views on slavery and total[l]y inappropriate for Christian ethics. I would like to have the whole section removed-- but even it you want to cram in such a total[l]y inappropriate justif(i)cation for slavery -- you would have to gain WP:CON first, which you don't have, per WP:BRD, and have not even tried to get. By the way, any slavery to God is not real what one means by slavery -- because God is out (incorrect spelling of our) maker and author."

I never included slavery to God in the actual Wikipedia article or in my justification for changing the article. I did point out that Christian usage of the word slavery includes slavery to Christ, and so not all forms of slavery are unfair and unjust. That was only for the 'edit summary', not for the article itself. My additions have not supported unfair and unjust forms of slavery. They explicitly opposed it by opposed any slavery that does not fit with Christian ethics (for example as outlined by Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Apostle). Please stop launching spurious accusations at me re adding 'justification for slavery'. Such an accusation is without merit. Nevertheless, you are wrong when you say slavery to God is not really what one means by slavery. The Islamic name/term 'Abdullah' means means 'slave of God', and likewise for Christian ethics, see: Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13. For slavery to Christ see Romans 1:1 1 Corinthians 7:22, and Philippians 1:1. In future, please do not make large changes to articles which involve a subject you do not know much about. There is no need to remove the whole section as the quote from Augustine and other parts of the removed section are useful. Col8lok8 (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

In modern times, Christians reject the permissibility of any slavery with near unanimity.
Your edits to remove and/or weaken this statement (Christians reject the permissibility of unfair and unjust forms of slavery) imply that Christians (by and large) accept certain fair and just forms of slavery. But this is not true-- it is just your orginal research. Wikipedia is not a place for your WP:orginal research. tahc chat 17:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not just my original research. Did you read the quotes by McQuilkin&Copan, Capes,Reeves&Richards, and Marshall? By fair and just forms of slavery, people writing on Christian ethics and Biblical justice would suggest only including slavery that meets the standards of Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Apostle. Such slavery, if slavery is to be practiced in the 21st century, must be in the form of paid employment that passes and exceeds the normal expectations of employer-employee relationships in the 21st century (safe work environment, absence of various forms of harassment, fair and just wages, flexibility of working hours, etc) as, for example, it would be unfair to give someone pay that was given in the 18th century. In the 21st century, not paying for work performed would be even more unjust (unless done voluntarily with 21st century expectations that come with volunteer work).

McQuilkin & Copan (2014, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom, InterVarsity Press: IL, p. 448-49): "[T]he principles enunciated for slave-owner relationships are so humanitarian in their protection of the oppressed that they are easily transferable to labor-management relationships in the ... era in which we live, an era brought about through the influence of New Testament teaching. For example, in his letters to the churches at Ephesus (Eph 6:5-9) and Colossae (Col 3:22-4:1), Paul gives principles for both the employer and the employee ... Employees are to work "from the heart," humble in attitude, fearful before God of wronging their employer. Employers are to be humbly fearful of wronging their employees. Furthermore, both are to relate honestly with one another, without hypocrisy ... The atmosphere and attitude at work is to be cordial and even cheerful ... Paul says that this means the worker will work diligently and faithfully. And he says of the owner, "in like manner" ... Managers must not threaten. They have power over the welfare and livelihood of their employees ... employers must not use their power to coerce ... Furthermore, all working arrangements, including pay, must be just. Unsafe working conditions ... are certainly unjust." Col8lok8 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that Christians reject employer-employee relationships, such as employer-employee relationships in Christian organisations? The teachings regarding slavery given by Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Apostle arguably (see above) exceed the present reality of 21st century employer-employee relationships.Col8lok8 (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

While you and I agree that the New Testament teaches principles that are applicable to both slave-owner relationships and to employer-employee relationships, that does not mean that the English word(s) for employment and the English word for slavery are either equal or synonymous. Since they are not synonymous (in English at least, the langage of this wiki) you cannot take a quote about one and apply it to the other. That would be WP:orginal research, or worse. tahc chat 19:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Since Col8lok8 is still editing here on Christian views on slavery but limited his disscusion from other, it seems best if I include this here for others to join in. tahc chat 19:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The quotes are about slavery and employment and where they are synonymous, in other words when slavery and employment meet. Circumstances where slavery and employment are synonymous are in slave-master relationships where the teachings of Paul, Jesus and the apostles are 'followed' and 'only employer-employee relationship finally remains' (Picirilli et al eds 1990, The Randall House Bible Commentary: 1 Thessalonians Through Philemon, Randall House Publications, TN, p. 387). Relationship that are at the same time *nominally* 'master-slave' but *functionally* 'employer-employee'. One could use both to describe such relationships and one would be referring to the name and function respectively of the same relationship. I have strived for accuracy and to provide reliable sources. I removed a statement because the source was not reliable, and then replaced it with a statement for which there are reliable sources.
In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of harsh, unfair and unjust forms of slavery which are neither capable of meeting nor surpassing the relationships between employers and their employees in modern times.
Picirilli, Robert E.; Outlaw, W. Stanley; Ellis, Daryl, eds. (1990). The Randall House Bible Commentary: 1 Thessalonians Through Philemon. TN: Randall House Publications. p. 387. ISBN 0892651431. "Paul ... Jesus ... the apostles ... dealt with it [slavery] in the most effective way possible, at the time, by instructing both slaves and masters in the proper conduct and relationships toward one another. Where these instructions were followed, the harshness of the master-slave relation was eliminated and only the employer-employee relationship finally remained. Because of this, most of what is said to masters and slaves in the N.T. can and should be applied to employer-employee relationships in our own time."
Picirilli is not only stating that there are principles that could be applied (that is the last sentence only). He is saying that there can exist a type of master-slave relation which is functionally an employer-employee relationship and no immoral/sinful/unethical elements of master-slave relationships remain for that relationship. Such a relationship would be an example of *slavery* which *is synonymous* (and possibly even more favourable to) *with what is referred to as employment*.Col8lok8 (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Please address the important issues of Wikipedia policy. I am repeating them because you are not addressing them.
It does not really matter if you or I think "employment" synonymous with "slavery", unrelated to "slavery", or the opposite of "slavery". All that really matters is what the published sources say.
If if you have one source that says "employment and just slavery are the same" (and you don't have this!) and another source that says "Christianity agrees employment is good" you cannot put these two sources together to cite the idea/statement that "Christianity agrees just slavery is good". Putting the two together is a form of original research called synthesis of published material. That is what you are tring to do. tahc chat 22:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Impling your own original research[edit]

I am not even proposing that we add 'Christianity acceepts just slavery as good'. Ever heard of Straw man, a common informal fallacy used in discussions? The statement 'In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of harsh, unfair and unjust forms of slavery' absolutely takes NO stand on whether or not there is such a thing as just slavery that Christians accept. You can hold 'all slavery is unjust and wrong' AND 'all unjust slavery is wrong' at the same time. It is neutral on the question of the existence of just slavery. If you think all harsh, unfair and unjust forms of slavery is a description ALL slavery, then that's *fine*. If you think harsh, unfair and unjust slavery only represents the bad apples of a box containing good apples and bad apples, then that's *also fine*.
The idea that 'modern Christians reject any slavery' assumes all slavery is bad (see below).
A. 'Modern Christians accept that just slavery is good' is different from
B. 'Modern Christians reject unjust slavery (which may be all, most, or just some slavery) as bad' basic form of the statement I would like on the page is different from
C. 'Modern Christians reject any slavery as bad' basic form of the statement that you would like on the page
B and C share a common assumption: that all slavery which is considered to be unjust is rejected as bad by modern Christians. C unnecessarily adds 'there can be no such thing as good or just slavery'. (Col8lok8 (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
"Unjust slavery is unjust" is a tautology, like saying "unjust marrages are unjust" or "unjust killings are unjust". It is logically irrefutable, but does not contribute any real information either.
"Unjust slavery is bad" is also a tautology, since "unjust" merely one form (or subset) of bad. (Likewise, "In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of harsh, unfair and unjust forms of slavery" is a also a tautology.)
Now, if we say "Christians agree unjust slavery as bad" is (theoretically) an irrefutable truth, but it is really a silly thing to say (in an encyclopedia, and most other places) unless Christians also agree some slavery is not bad; to say "Christians agree unjust slavery as bad" implies that "Christians agree some slavery is not bad". (Likewise, "In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of harsh, unfair and unjust forms of slavery" also implies that "In modern times almost all Christians accept the permissibility of unharsh, fair, and just slavery". This is just as "In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of unfair and unjust forms of capital punishment" implies that "In modern times almost all Christians accept the permissibility of fair and just capital punishment".)
Impling that your own ideas or your own original research is true is not the way to write an encyclopedia article, and is against Wikipedia policy. tahc chat 17:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
No stand is taken on whether unharsh, fair and just slavery actually exists. Maybe there is. Maybe there is not. You are reading into the statement something which isn't actually there.
You stated "This is just as "In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of unfair and unjust forms of capital punishment" implies that "In modern times almost all Christians accept the permissibility of fair and just capital punishment".
Wrong. The former does not imply the latter especially if you already accept all capital punishment is unfair and unjust. In that case, it just becomes a tautologous. But the statement is not asking you to make the assumption that leads the tautologous reading of the statement. Don't read into the statement your own point of view and you will see the statement as offering a number of possibilities: ALL capital punishment is unfair and unjust, ALMOST ALL capital punishment is unfair and unjust, MOST capital punishment is unfair and unjust, and SOME capital punishment is unfair and unjust. Also the statement used in the example is not true. A significant number of Christians accept the permissibility of capital punishment as fair and just in some circumstances.
I repeat: the statement 'In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of unfair and unjust forms of slavery' gives the reader the choice of whether to take 'unfair and unjust forms of slavery' as being ALL slavery, ALMOST ALL slavery, MOST slavery, or SOME slavery. The statement does not force the reader to pick any option. It does not imply one particular choice. If picking the first option, the statement is true but tautologous (like all married men are married). If picking the second or third option, yes fair and just slavery does exist but it is in the minority. If picking the fourth option (which almost no one will pick), most slavery is fair and just and slavery that is unfair and unjust would be in the minority. There is significantly more freedom in the statement I offered than in your 'almost all modern Christians reject any slavery'.
In philosophical ethics, Christian or otherwise, you have to be cautious for the possibility of exceptions to every statement you put forward for consideration, especially if it is a generalisation, as generalisations often have exceptions. 'Any slavery' is definitely in the form of a generalisation (just like a statement starting with the unqualified words 'any Jew' would be a generalisation of all Jews). That is what you learn when you study academic philosophy like I have. My carefully crafted statement allows the possibility (but does not assume or imply the actuality) of exceptions to slavery as harsh, unfair and unjust. Using possible worlds language of academic philosophy, even to say that fair and just slavery may exist in some possible world is not to say that fair and just slavery exists in the actual world. Something can exist in some possible world without existing in the actual world.
The statement 'in modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of unfair and unjust forms of slavery' is a statement so neutral in its carefully constructed wording that no particular one of these statements have to be assumed as true for a person to accept the statement. You can hold A, B, C, and/or D and accept the statement:
A. Fair and just slavery exists in every possible world.
B. Fair and just slavery exists in the actual world.
C. Fair and just slavery exists in at least one possible world.
D. Fair and just slavery exists in no possible world.
I personally hold to position C but I have great sympathy for position D given the abundant examples of unfair and unjust historic and modern day slavery. The possible world(s) that fair and just slavery exists in for position C may or may not be (or include) the actual world but the actual world is regarded as a possible world by philosophers.Col8lok8 (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is another quote from Chris Marshall (2005, The little book of biblical justice, Good Books: TN, p. 46) who is discussing slavery as a punishment for those who committed crimes: "it could be argued that Hebrew slavery was a more humane institution than its modern equivalent of imprisonment". Note: many people, including Christians, do indeed accept that time inside a modern prison is fair and just at least for those people who are considered to deserve prison time as a punishment, or for whom it is considered they are a safety and security threat that the community/country/society needs protection from, etc.
Before I discuss this quote, here is a description of imprisonment (Joanne Hemenway, 2010, Forget them not: a holistic guide to prison ministry, Wipf & Stock: OR, p. xiii): "Terrible suffering is what the present prison system with the motif of retributive justice incures, for it generates isolation, shame, rejection, and loneliness; it stokes the emotional fires of anger and rage. Ultimately, it breeds deep disconnection, which only serves to fuel further cycles of violence."
Can there be a form of slavery that is more compassionate, caring, fair and just than what is described above with imprisonment (which many people, including Christians, accept as just for those who have committed particular crimes)? Certainly.
Isn't Marshall saying it could be argued that a certain form of slavery could be used by our modern criminal justice systems as a more humane (i.e. compassionate, caring, good, fair and just to human beings) sentencing option for those who have committed crimes than a prison sentence in a modern prison?
The person who undergoes slavery could ask his master for a letter of recommendation to improve his chances at future employment after his time in slavery comes to an end and if he has done excellent work for his master. There is no reason why that can't happen in a master-slave relationship. Prisoners, on the other hand, often find it very hard to obtain work after spending so much time confined in a prison environment. Prisoners might if lucky get programs or penal labor inside prison to improve useful skills but a master could deliver a program, or hire someone to deliver a program, to improve useful skills of his slave.
The person who undergoes slavery would perhaps have greater freedom to move about in a community. The slave would not necessarily be confined in a cell, or behind a fence/gate/wall like a prisoner is with imprisonment. The slave might travel with his master as he goes on a journey around the world. The master of a slave preferring not to travel for whatever reason may want a trusted slave to visit and care for a sick relative located in another country. Prisoners might not be allowed to leave the prison property (including outdoor areas of the prison) while serving their sentence let alone be able to travel to another country during their prison sentence.
A sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole lasts a lifetime. The best forms of slavery do not last a lifetime (unless the slave loves and cares for his master and chooses to serve the master for the rest of their life) but only a certain time period.
Col8lok8 (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
There are some things you can write in an encyclopedia article but not write in a philosophy paper, and there are other things you can write in a philosophy paper but not write in an encyclopedia article.
Synthesis of materials is permitted in a philosophy paper, but not on Wikipedia.
Statements like "Christians consider unjust slavery to be unjust" are permitted in a philosophy paper for clarification, because it does not explicitly state anything about "just slavery", but they are not permitted on Wikipedia because (outside philosophic writings) it does imply "Christians consider just slavery to exist," even if you claim "no stand is taken on just slavery".
Likewise, statements like "In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of harsh, unfair and unjust forms of slavery" are not permitted on Wikipedia because it does imply that "Christians consider unharsh, fair, and just slavery to be permissibile", even if you claim "no stand is taken on unharsh, fair, and just slavery". tahc chat 19:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
According to who? That which is presented without evidence can be rejected without evidence. There is no implication of just slavery there unless you add in some extra assumptions other than the words found in the actual statement. The statement only adjudicates on what people think of slavery where it is unjust (which may be all slavery, but may not - leaving the question open is not the same as implying there is just slavery). Philosophical discussions about possible worlds, generally speaking, are part of human knowledge. They occur in philosophical literature all the time. They are encyclopedic. In any case, a more specific statement highlighting opposition to unjust slavery is to be preferred over a generalisation of slavery which may or may not be true.
I referred you to a quote by Marshall (and later one by Hemenway about imprisonment for comparison), outside philosophical discussions which you haven't responded to. Chris Marshall (2005, The little book of biblical justice, Good Books: TN, p. 46) who is discussing slavery as a punishment for those who committed crimes: "it could be argued that Hebrew slavery was a more humane institution than its modern equivalent of imprisonment".
Note: many people, including Christians, do indeed accept that spending time inside a modern prison is fair and just at least for those people who are considered to deserve prison time as a punishment, or for whom it is considered they are a safety and security threat that the community/country/society needs protection from, etc.
There arguably could be forms of slavery that would be more humane in modern criminal justice than modern imprisonment which, rightly or wrongly, is accepted as just by many. Forms of slavery allowing greater freedom of movement perhaps even movement across countries, allowing greater degree of self-actualisation, allowing greater pay/rewards than low-paying penal labor, allowing a greater opportunities for employment afterwards with good words to those who would hire them as workers from their former master, and lasting for a shorter amount of time (unless the slave loves and cares for the master and voluntarily wishes to serve them for the rest of their lives.Col8lok8 (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Just does not mean perfect justice or the Hebrew shalom (the way that God originally intended for the world to be with humans living in loving relationship with each other and caring for creation under God's loving rule). Even in an article about Christian views of slavery. Obviously, slavery is against the way God intended the world to be. But so is imprisonment. There is no indicaton that God originally created humans to be creatures confined in prison with restrictions on their rights. Moreover, Christians generally do not hold that circumstances of perfect justice can be achieved by human effort before the supposed glorious Second Coming of Jesus. Col8lok8 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

contentious?[edit]

I think it should say something like "many Christian organizations reject..." or "various Christian organizations reject..." instead of "the Catholic Church and many other Christian organizations reject...", but other than that...
@Tgeorgescu:: ...how is it what Jess wrote contentious? tahc chat 00:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Jess included the words any slavery. Those words are not supported by the sources which by and large refer to bad examples in the past, and bad examples in the modern day. To reject historic evil in slavery, and the present evil in modern slavery is not to reject any slavery. Moreover, no source cited ever explicitly includes the words 'not only in the actual world but in any possible world' in reference to slavery but rather make it abundantly clear in those sources they are talking about the actual world. There may or may not be fair and just slavery in the actual world but it does not rule out the possibility of fair and just slavery existing in at least one possible world (and I repeat that possible world may or may not be the actual world). You do not have to hold that just slavery actually exists to limit a statement about slavery to a rejection of 'unfair and unjust slavery' because that could be a description all, almost all, most, or just some forms of slavery. Yet, 'any slavery' does not bear the same freedom of interpretation (it must be interpreted as 'all slavery is rejected as unfair and unjust) as a more limited statement would have. Saying that bad examples should be rejected is not to make a pronouncement on whether good examples exist. It may be the case that bad examples completely exhaust the number of examples and that all examples of slavery are rejected as unfair and unjust.Leaving the question of the existence of just slavery open is not the same thing as implying there are fair and just examples of slavery. That is another discussion (one which I am also happy to have). Col8lok8 (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Your argument against the clear statements attributed to those organizations seems contrived. Reference to all possible worlds is a far fetched philosophical musing. It bears no relationship to what the average reader understands by slavery, or even to what reputable dictionaries of the English language understand by slavery. While you could write a philosophical paper thereupon, it is WP:UNDUE and it would be so even if such paper were cited after being published with peer-review in a reputable philosophy journal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
But that is not my only argument:
I am not proposing that we add (A) "in modern times, although not completely exhaustive of all examples of slavery, Christian organisations reject the permissibility of unfair and unjust slavery". I am proposing that we add something like (B) "in modern times, Christian organisations reject the permissibility of unfair and unjust slavery". The question of whether 'unfair and unjust slavery' is an exhaustive description of all conceivable examples of slavery is another discussion. All this statement does in regards to the existence of fair and just slavery is leave the discussion open rather than closing it. There is a big difference between (A) and (B) in the assumptions contained in the statements. The words 'although not completely exhaustive of all examples of slavery' is neither explicit nor implied by statement (B).
Don't people see how a statement like 'in modern times, Christian organisations reject any slavery' definitively closes the discussion as to whether there are fair and just forms of slavery that Christian organisations accept as permissibile? It is not a neutral point of view (from the policy page: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view."). What can be more neutral than a statement about modern Christians or modern Christian organisations that leaves open the discussion of whether fair and just slavery actually exists (not endorsing or rejecting either the position that it does exist or the position that it does not exist)? Col8lok8 (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
"what the average reader understands by slavery" The average reader comes to the issue of slavery with many misconceptions (largely from a too narrow view of slavery). When slavery is mentioned, they will think of the Atlantic slave trade, William Wilberforce and Abolitionism, human trafficking, or military use of children. But 'any slavery' is a very wide term, whereas these concern especially bad examples of slavery. The average reader always has misconceptions that need to be corrected, and articles on Wikipedia ideally do that rather than encouraging misconceptions.Col8lok8 (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Huh? All possible worlds? That's not really our concern. If the precise wording is the problem, we can rephrase it without a wholesale removal of content. What if we remove "any" from the sentence? Does that work for you?   — Jess· Δ 03:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Coming back to tahc's question, I don't see anything contentious about those statements. They are verifiable, they are attributed to their respective denominations. Certainly they should not be deleted because of an original research claim and an undue claim. Col8lok8 argument is to right great wrongs and only makes sense to a handful of philosophers having no important subjects to discuss. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Coming back to tahc's question, I don't see anything contentious about those statements. They are verifiable, they are attributed to their respective denominations. Certainly they should not be deleted because of an original research claim and an undue claim. Col8lok8 argument is to right great wrongs and only makes sense to a handful of philosophers having no important subjects to discuss. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
"in modern times, Christian organisations reject the permissibility of unfair and unjust slavery" is the very definition of WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't caught Col8lok8's proposal, but I'd agree that "unfair and unjust" is not supported by our current sources. Col, what sources support your proposal, and would removing "any" from the sentence be acceptable as an alternate remedy?   — Jess· Δ 04:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


False. Let's take this statement: 'Most costumers reject the terrible taste of the green tea ice cream at the small cafe down the street from here.'
Does this statement assume there are other flavours of ice cream on sale at that cafe? No, if that statement is true it only expresses an opinion about the taste of the green tea flavoured ice cream (that it tastes terrible). For all we know that could be the only ice cream available at the cafe. Yes, there are other flavours of ice cream but we are not told whether they are on sale at the cafe. So the question of other ice cream flavours remains open.
In the same way, 'most Christian organisations reject the permissibility of unjust slavery' is only stating a view on unjust slavery (that it is rejected as not permissible by most Christian organisations). For all we know unjust slavery could be the only sort of slavery in the actual world, and in that case the permissibility of all slavery is rejected by Christian organisations. You are allowed to hold that point of view. Yes, the statement is weaker than 'most Christian organisations reject the permissibility of any slavery' but that is exactly why the statement is more neutral. It doesn't provide a conclusion for readers of Wikipedia as to whether Christian organisations know of any examples of just slavery that is permitted. So the question of existence or non-existence of just slavery remains open.
The problem is that most statements against slavery by Christian denominations are referring to specific examples of bad slavery that have occurred or are occurring (human trafficking or the Atlantic slave trade for example), or time-specific slavery (historic/past, modern). The words 'any slavery' does not follow. It is better to use something that is supported like a rejection on the part of Christian organisations of unjust slavery.
All the sources used to support 'any slavery' support 'unfair and unjust slavery' as well as all of them are condemning the examples of slavery they mention as unfair and unjust.Col8lok8 (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Col, thanks, but this isn't the place for a debate. Let's keep things concise if we can. 1) What source supports the "unfair and unjust" wording? Acceptable sources would either use that wording explicitly, or would discuss Christians supporting "fair or just" slavery. 2) Would removing "any" from the sentence be an acceptable alternative?   — Jess· Δ 04:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A better alternative would be to list specific examples rejected by Christian organisations.
For example:"In modern times, Christian organisations reject a variety of different forms of slavery such as human trafficking (list sources), the forcing of children to participate in armed conflicts through kidnapping and recruting (list sources) ... (list more examples only with sources)".
Specificity rather than generality. 'Any' and 'all' convey generality and close the discussion on whether, for example, it could be argued that particular forms of slavery would be more humane than imprisonment for people who are processed through criminal justice system particularly because prison numbers in USA are too high and are overrepresented by people from various minority groups. Col8lok8 (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, and what source supports that proposal? The sources I see say "slavery" or "human trafficking" (to mean slavery). I don't see a source discussing forms of slavery these organizations support and oppose, or drawing distinctions at all, really. If we had one, we could incorporate it.   — Jess· Δ 06:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

many[edit]

Hey @Tahc:. About this edit, the basic problem is that we need to stick to the sourcing, and right now our sourcing doesn't say "many Christian organizations". Our sourcing right now just lists a couple organizations who individually support this position. We're singling out the Catholic church because it is the clearest and best source we have. I'd love to change the wording to what you've proposed, since I think that's probably true, but we need a source for it first. Finding 5 sources that list 5 Christian organizations and synthesizing those to say "many Christians" is unfortunately against our policies. Finding such a source shouldn't be too hard. Unfortunately, I'm a bit tied up with my time right now. If you can track anything down, that would be awesome!   — Jess· Δ 17:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You are changing my edit to "...the Catholic Church and many other Christian organizations..." because (you say) you object to the word "many"-- but that makes no sense. I understand your objection to "many" (in theory) but your version on the text still has the word "many". In fact you make it worse by making it "[one plus] many", which is a bit more than many.
Furthermore, I object to "the Catholic Church and..." and you have done nothing to fix that, so overall your objection comes across as a bit of a red herring (at best). The Catholic Church source is not the clearest and best source we have (I consider the Mennonites the clearest and best, since it is from the whole body and not just one speach from one person who is (as of today) the RCC's "earthly head") but even if the Catholic was the clearest and best source, that is not any reason to set it apart. To interject "the Catholic Church" implies they are noteworthy of special interest (like maybe, they were the first orgainization to object to slavery).
If you object to "many" the solution is say, "In modern times, various Christian organizations reject..." or maybe say, "...some Christian organizations reject...".
I will make this change since its does reponsed to your concern with "many", but if you want to propose an different adjective go ahead, but in the mean time, please do not re-interject "the Catholic Church" without any WP:CON. tahc chat 21:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The "many" is OR in both versions. I wrote it that way just because it seems to be uncontroversial, and it stayed closest to the wording I was replacing several weeks ago. That doesn't make it not-OR. "Various" is better, but not a hell of a lot better. We should be saying "The catholic church, the mennonites... etc... reject slavery." The problem with that wording is that it appears inclusive, implying that other Christians don't reject slavery. The problem is the sourcing, not the wording. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make this a battle, as your last sentence implies. I'm doing my best to work with everyone here, and that's a goal we should all be striving towards.   — Jess· Δ 22:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian views on slavery. 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}}).

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Christian views on slavery. 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}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Non-bidirectional navbox[edit]

Moved from User talk:142.160.131.202#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL: 142.160.131.202 (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I initially didn't understand your edit summary, as it did not point to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (it just said that it wasn't bidirectional, which did not seem to make sense at first in the context). While I understand that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL can be a sane reccomendation (that is a guideline, not policy, and it says should normally, not must). I see no reason why this footer would be controversial despite the lack of a slavery link in the main Christianity footer (this could be more controversial). But thanks for the explanation. —PaleoNeonate - 07:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, PaleoNeonate. WP:NAVBOX is clear as to the purpose of navboxes: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia." Their purpose is not to provide an article with peripherally relevant links to articles about a much broader subject – that is what we have {{portal}} for. This is why WP:BIDIRECTIONAL provides that, "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional."
You are correct that the word "should" is used, but nonetheless, the question we have to ask ourselves is 'what makes this case sufficiently unique that it warrants an exception to the guideline as either (1) such a case was not foreseen by the drafters of the guideline or (2) it is such a very unique case that noting the exception in the guideline would not be worthwhile?' To ignore that question would be to ignore the WP:CONLEVEL policy.
With respect to Sondra.kinsey's concern noted in their edit summary that "I read WP:BIDIRECTIONAL as a policy for navboxes, not for articles", we cannot look at this one article in a vacuum. To bring this article and this article into compliance with WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, one of the two would have to be changed. Are you suggesting that this article be linked in the navbox? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I should also note that Sondra.kinsey is currently advocating for an amendment to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. It is not appropriate to be attempting to implement your proposal without it first being adopted and it is approaching WP:GAME. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@142.160.131.202: I apologize for the confusion that may be added by my proposal for changes to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. My attention was drawn to that guideline by your edits, and I am content to have this discussion on the basis of its current wording.
As I read it, the guideline currently allows editors of articles to place or remove the template as they please, and it is up to the editors of navboxes to either follow the guideline or claim warrant for some sort of exception as you describe. I think this conversation belongs in Template talk:Christianity footer. I don't see a justification in the existing WP:BIDIRECTIONAL guideline for removing it from this page against the objections of other editors. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)