Talk:Slavery

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


Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2018[edit]

Change "there are an estimated 45.8 million people subject to some form of modern slavery worldwide.[6]" to " there are an estimated 40.3 million people subject to some form of modern slavery worldwide.[6]" The information currently available on Wikipedia is outdated, although the source of the information is correct: https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/findings/highlights/ 144.32.113.131 (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Sam Sailor 21:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2018[edit]

A world map showing countries by prevalence of female trafficking, accompanied by an image has no credible source. it claims some countries e.g., India that female trafficking is partially legal, which is not the case. https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/findings/highlights/ Referring to this article, India has one of the stronger enforcement for anti-slavery laws (although prevalent, problem is taken seriously). Further, referring to another Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_India, it clearly states that trafficking is strictly illegal.

Whoever included the attached images, did not provide a

Map3.3Trafficking compressed.jpg

source. Sachk666 (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Not done The image is from 2011 and is a little outdated. You can update the image at File:Map3.3Trafficking_compressed.jpg. The image is from http://www.womanstats.orgBrandonXLF (t@lk) 23:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2018[edit]

In discussion of abolitionism, in discussion of religions opposed to slavery, recommend adding a reference to Baha'i Faith, which prohibits slavery. Text could come chronologically before: "In 2014, for the first time in history, major leaders of many religions, Buddhist, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Hindu, Jewish, and Muslim met to sign a shared commitment against modern-day slavery; the declaration they signed calls for the elimination of slavery and human trafficking by the year 2020."

And the suggested text is: "The founder of the Baha'i Faith, Baha'u'llah, prohibited slavery in his 1873 book, Kitab-i-Aqdas.[citation: "Synopsis and Codification of the Laws and Ordinances of the Kitab-i-Aqdas", Universal House of Justice, 1973, p 47.]

Links can be added to current Wikipedia pages for Baha'i Faith, Baha'u'llah, and Kitab-i-Aqdas. Deanchurchill (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 03:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

African slave trade images[edit]

@Musicfan122:, Regarding this edit it seems that the consensus is against you - diff. I agree with @Balolay: that this article is maybe too Euro-American-centric. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The image is informative and provides the reader with an important perspective on the subject of slavery in non-western cultures. Also, the Arab slave trade existed for much longer period of time than the Atlantic slave trade, but the later seems to be the main focus of the article. Confining the former to a single section is not good. I don't see any reason why @Musicfan122: keeps opposing this addition. Regards. Balolay (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is far from "Euro-American-centric", you seeing it as that is WP:POV. As said in the edit summery, an image of a 19th century Arab slave trading caravan is already provided in a section discussing the matter. Musicfan122 (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Musicfan122 as I have already explained, the image present in the Arab section this different from the picture I have added in the lead.
Secondly, can you please elaborate, why you are removing the image about Christian slaves that has been in the article for 7 years without consensus? Regards Balolay (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

And I explained to you why it's not different, but you're not listening. It's the same way with Algiers image. You're one revert away from a 3RR, I'd be careful if I were you. Musicfan122 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Musicfan122 no you haven't explained anything. There is no wiki rule that says that 2 images related to a single topic can't be in the same article. You need to respect the opinions of other wiki editors.Balolay (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Not going to discuss this extensively right now but the lead image should be more neutral and represent the whole topic of the article MOS:LEADIMAGE most of Slavery was done by Westerns as in Haiti, America, Brazil, Australia etc and even the article cover a lot about these topics but we only choose the Arab slavery to represent in the lead? I think this is a POV pushing. SharabSalam (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @ SharabSalam can you provide credible sources proving your claims. This article is about slavery in general. This practice was prevalent around the world not just the west & still remains prevalent in some Arab nations.[1]

Also historians have suggested as many as 17 million slaves were involved in the Arab slave trade.[2] Balolay (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It hasn't been 24 hours and you are already threatening to start an edit war. go on.. but be ready for a proposal topic ban if you did that because you are obviously pushing POV and putting disruptive edits into articles. Anyway the same sources that you are mentioning talks about that there are 18-24 million slave trades that were by Europeans and at the middle it says not only Europeans who did slavery trade but also Muslims and yet you are using cheery picking fallacy. Also the lead image should be neutral and most of the time it is preferred that no lead image in the article is better. Again your behaviour is going to get you banned so I advise you to stop this behaviour that only shows how you are trying to push your POV. --SharabSalam (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
You said "the same sources that you are mentioning talks about that there are 18-24 million slave trades that were by Europeans and at the middle it says not only Europeans who did slavery trade but also Muslims and yet you are using cheery picking fallacy."

Actually the BBC source I mentioned clearly states that Muslim slave traders were responsible for the enslavement of 17 million people. So I am not the one who is cherry picking. This also goes against your initial premise that Europeans were mainly responsible for slavery.

You said "Also the lead image should be neutral and most of the time it is preferred that no lead image in the article is better."

Can you please explain what is your definition of a neutral image? Also I haven't heard of a wiki rule which says that not having an image in the lead is preferred. Infact most wiki articles have multiple images in the lead. Regards Balolay (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Balolay: Well first of all I want to play a little bit fallacy detective game here you said "This also goes against your initial premise that Europeans were mainly responsible for slavery." I never said that in the talk page or in the article and thats not the argument I am having with you here although the The transatlantic slave trade was the biggest deportation in history[1] and The Europeans often gave goods in advance to their African trade partners. African trade partners are usually muslims because of the spread of Islam. The growing demand for slaves from ((Europe)) meant that the ((African suppliers)) increased their activities[2] but as I said thats not my argument thats not even what I said in the edit summary that you might be referring to.
I am surprised that you are asking for the rule in wikipedia and I have gave it to you in this talk page but I guess you didnt pay attention. Anyway here I qoute from MOS:LEADIMAGE "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic...Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. 20% or less is about Muslim slavery and yet you are pushing for the images in the lead to be about Muslim slavery and this is not the only article you are doing this to!
while we are here trying to disscuss this issue you are editting and adding images into other articles leads that are related to the dispute [3]
[4] and more in your contrubtions anyone can see that and threatening to restore your POV in this article without seeking consensus. Also without mentioning that you dont care for the neutrality of wikipedia [5]. This behavour isnt healthy for the community of wikipedia and should be taken into consideration before asking us to disscuss here.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @SharabSalam "I never said that in the talk page or in the article and thats not the argument I am having with you here"
Actually you did say it [6] and your edit was immediately reverted by an admin.
Secondly, the BBC source I gave clearly states that 17 million people were enslaved by Muslim traders in different parts of the world. This doesn't take into account whether Arab traders acted as intermediatries in transatlantic slave trade. So I don't know what are you talking about.
Regarding this [7], can you provide me even a single valid justification for removing such an important image besides it being a burden on the lead. There is no denying that photography helped a lot in ending slavery. Even if it was indeed a burden (which it isn't), why didn't you remove any other image besides this one, shows your bias in terms of Arab/Islamic perspective... doesn't it?
  • regarding this [8], I made a mistake and other editor reverted it as good faith edits. I don't know what's the problem now. Using the same logic can I ask you why you did this [9]? Balolay (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say this in the talk page nor in the article and I didn't say "Europeans were mainly responsible for slavery." I said that Slavery is associated with the Western culture more than in the Arab one and it does exist in the West more than in the Arab world until now but in its modern version and that's not my argument.
You completely dismissed and ignored what I argue about; that images in the lead should be neutral and represent the whole article most of the article isn't even about Arab slavery yet you are putting images randomly in the leads. And yes I removed images that aren't neutral nor related to the article that you put in the leads while we are discussing this issue here. You just added that image just 1 day ago and you are asking me to delete other images other than yours the one that have been there for decades --SharabSalam (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @SharabSalam" I said that Slavery is associated with the Western culture more than in the Arab one and it does exist in the West more than in the Arab world until now but in its modern version and that's not my argument."
That's where you are wrong. Provide me credible sources saying western culture is 'more' prone to slavery and we are ready to argue. Infact Slavery has been entrenched in the Arab culture since pre-Islamic times.
  • "that images in the lead should be neutral and represent the whole article most of the article isn't even about Arab slavery yet you are putting images randomly in the leads." Using that logic most of article isn't about the transatlantic either.
  • Also I want you to justify the removal of 2nd Image which has been here for 7 years now and has been historically very important. Balolay (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Balolay
For the third time that's not my argument
I am not trying to justify that image and I never deleted it and if you scroll up in the talk page you see that all of what I was arguing about is the lead images that you are constantly reverting and refusing to listen but edit warring--SharabSalam (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok. Thanks for pointing that out.Balolay (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


@Balolay: Did you read what I said about MOS:LEADIMAGE? SharabSalam (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Eperoton Could you please give Balolay an advice about the lead image? I ((think)) he disrespect me so much for some reason and respect you for some reason.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam I have thoroughly read MOS:LEADIMAGE, and this image doesn't break any rules mentioned there. Your primary concern throughout this thread is that this Image refers to Arab slave trade when in reality Europeans did most of the trade, which is factually incorrect and logically incoherent.
Regarding Musicfan122's (recently blocked as a socpuppet troll) argument that there is already an image in Arab section, that's incorrect too since both images are related but are entirely different from geographical and temporal sense. And there is no wiki rule that says two images from same topic can't be used in a wiki article.
Thirdly, please stop tagging other editors and wasting their useful time. Regards. Balolay (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Balolay No my argument is only about the lead image which you are trying to add with no consensus that has been made. I am not talking about European trade or anything did you read this? "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic...Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. 20% or less is about Muslim slavery and yet you are pushing for the images in the lead to be about Muslim slavery and this is not the only article you are doing this to! btw you are the one who is wasting my time with this willy-nilly additions to the lead section --SharabSalam (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam you said No my argument is only about the lead image which you are trying to add with no consensus that has been made. Actually this thread was started by Tobby72 in response to Musicfan122's disruptive editing who was trying to remove this image and another 7 year old one due to his pro-Arab bias. You joined in only later. No other editor objected to its addition when it was first added.
Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic...Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. 20% or less is about Muslim slavery and yet you are pushing for the images in the lead to be about Muslim slavery . If the same logic is applied than none of the Images about European slavery should be in the article except in the relevant section i.e., trans-atlantic slave trade because Europeans weren't responsible for majority of the slave trade either! Balolay (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Balolay: now you are totally wasting my time with this nonsense debate I am talking about the lead image and this is a wikipedian policy it should apply everywhere. I am not putting any photo in the lead about European or trans-atlantic anywhere. I dont waste my time adding images into the lead to push POV--SharabSalam (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────@SharabSalam so now you are retracting from your original stance which was "the lead image should be more neutral and represent the whole topic of the article MOS:LEADIMAGE most of Slavery was done by Westerns as in Haiti, America, Brazil, Australia etc" and now saying there shouldn't be any image about Arab or European slave trade in the lead altogether. Well, that's not fair and it shows your lack of interest in a productive debate. Regards Balolay (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

for the last time my argument is not about this. I am wondering whethar you see what I am saying or not? I am saying this Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic...Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. 20% or less is about Muslim slavery and yet you are pushing for the images in the lead to be about Muslim slavery . --SharabSalam (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
you combined two qoutes together to muniplate what I said? XD--SharabSalam (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam20% or less is about Muslim slavery and yet you are pushing for the images in the lead to be about Muslim slavery Firstly, the image doesn't mention 'Muslim' slavery for God's sake. It's interesting that you are trying to divorce Islam from Arab slavery on Arab slave trade yet here you are making it a religious issue. Those Arab traders could well be Christians you do know that do you? You can't have it both ways.
Secondly please stop making 20% claim it's annoying. The BBC source I give earlier gives an estimate of 17 million compared to trans-atlantic slave trade's figure of 21 million. Balolay (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you kidding me?I said 20% of the article is about Arab slavery!!
@Drmies and Oshwah: How can I have a "productive" debate with this editor if he/she manipulates what I say? Could you tell him to stop this strawman fallacy? --SharabSalam (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
What are you talking about?! You clearly mentioned multiple times that muslims did 20% of the slavery. Bbc source gives 17 million figure but doesn't give percentage figure. I just want a source proving that. Throwing random figures around isn't helpful.You are clearly basing the entire argument of this image not being representative of the article on that 20% figure. I want to know the source?! What's wrong in that? I too want to invite @Drmies and Oshwah: to see the ridiculous claims this editor is making here similar to here here. Balolay (talk)
again look in to the context of what I am talking about. The article is about Slavery in general. 20% of the article is about Muslim slavery and again I am going to qoute from wikipedia policy which says "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic" also says Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. I hope you get my point now--SharabSalam (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
How many times do I have to tell you that no where the image makes a claim about 'Muslim' slavery. Those Arab traders could well have been Christians unless you believe it has something to do with Islam than you have to retract your statements from Talk:Arab slave trade. Stop making it a religion issue! Balolay (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────OK, Arab slavery. so what? still the article is not about Arab slavery. thats your comeback argument? Do you realize that you still have not responded to what MOS:LEADIMAGE says?--SharabSalam (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • SharabSalam, Balolay, just close this section, start an RfC with the question of a. whether this image (which I just removed) is appropriate for the lead, and MAYBE b. if any image, and if so which image, would be appropriate for the lead. This should not be hard. You're both edit warring, you're both likely to be blocked, you're both arguing about something between yourselves that should be hashed out in a larger forum. Stop it; start an RfC. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Drmies, this image was firstly 2 months ago by him and since then he and another editor kept editwarring and I also came late and also become part of the editwarring. He refuses to start a disscusion and each time he gets reverted he revert and ask us to take it to the talk page. RfC as I also suggested earlier an in edit summary, is a good solution. I am going to start it. Thanks for your suggestion.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


Responding to a ping... I agree with Drmies, this seems like a good candidate for an RfC. An RfC on whether the disputed image is appropriate for the lead is a good fit for WP:RFCBRIEF. I'm less sure including Drmies' "MAYBE" suggestions in the RfC would be a good move at this point. On the one hand, there hasn't yet been an attempt to resolve those questions with a narrower audience. But on the other hand, it might be good to get broader input on this point, as this topic is of broad interest. Eperoton (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Eperoton, I also agree on what Drmies said. I am just frustrated of adding images to the lead or articles just like that randomly as you can see from his edits he dose that a lot and I think it should stop. He should start reading MOS:IRELEV and MOS:LEADIMAGE because I dont think he is following this policy. --SharabSalam (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Drmies Please note that Balolay use different types of fallacies. He has used strawman fallacy a lot in this discussion and it's really annoying. Take a look at his replies. He misquote what I said like he combined two different quotes from me that were taken out of context and replied to them. He also misrepresents my argument in his replies. Please tell him to stop this. It's really annoying.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    Being straw-manned is indeed annoying, but I've read through most of this, and I don't see Balolay doing that. It's hard to follow because neither of you seem to know how to thread a conversation properly here. I post. Then you post, with ":" in front of it. Then I post again (or someone else replies to you), and start that post with "::". You make another reply, the fourth post in series; that starts with ":::". Someone else replies to the second post (the one that started with ":"); their post goes at the bottom of the stack, indented with "::". If the original post started with "*", then the reply is "*:", and the next one is "*::". This is not difficult.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    He has misrepresented my argument saying that I am arguing that 20% of Slavery is done by Arabs which is not my argument. My argument was that 20% of (the article) is about Arab slavery. Also he combined two quotes from me in one quote and took them out of context when he qoute me from two different comments in one qoute taken out of context saying

    "the lead image should be more neutral and represent the whole topic of the article MOS:LEADIMAGE most of Slavery was done by Westerns as in Haiti, America, Brazil, Australia etc"

    and I have said in many of my replies that Western slavery is not my argument. Also the problem of replies is mainly because of him not putting ":" in his replies so I add ":" in my reply and get a reply again with no ":" I have tried to fix some these comments here--SharabSalam (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2018/01/slavery-libya-life-container-180121084314393.html
  2. ^ "Focus on the slave trade". BBC. 3 September 2001. Archived from the original on 25 May 2017.

RfC regarding the lead image[edit]

CONSENSUS AGAINST:
There is consensus against including the proposed image and caption in the lede section of this article. Users argued, among other things, that its inclusion would give undue weight to a specific aspect of slavery. If there are any questions about this close, feel free to ask me. Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this image File:Slaves ruvuma.jpg with this caption (Arab slave traders and their captives along the Ruvuma River in Mozambique, circa 1866.) be in the lead section of this article?--SharabSalam (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • No Because 1) it is against MOS:LEADIMAGE which says Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic and it also says Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution. 2) it is against MOS:IRELEV which says Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. 3) it is against WP:PROPORTION which says An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, though others would suffice. I disagree with pretty much every point SharabSalam raises above. Nothing is a more natural, appropriate, relevant, and proportional for representation of the topic that slaves being chain-ganged and marched off to be sold. If the secret objection is "it has Arabs in it", we know that most slaves that entered the European market were caught by and bought from other Africans, which included Arabs, so there is no issue there, either. The current image selection over-focuses on European and American trade in slaves, but slavery is part of the human story all the way back to the depths of prehistory and was practiced across many cultures. We also have a huge whitespace in the lead to fill due to the long table of contents. However, there are numerous period images pertaining to slavery that might suffice. It need not be this particular image, though one focused on the collective pathos of the condition, as this one does, would be best. That this one focuses on the capture of people and the driving of them from their homeland to a slave market is arguably important. It's not something addressed by any other image in the page, and it's quite powerful. When I first saw Roots as a child, one of the most driving-home aspects of it was the opening scene of Kunta Kinte's capture and the subsequent sea voyage. Everyone already understood that slaves were bought and sold, forced to work, and generally mistreated, but many did not give a lot of thought to their former lives – their separation from their families and people and culture. At any rate, this image should certainly be retained in the article, though another could be used in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The image is meant to highlight Arab slavery not to highlight slavery in general and again it is not an appropriate to only highlight Arab slavery in the lead section. This user has been adding Arab slavery-related images to the leads [10][11][12]. Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative what I can understand from putting the image in the lead is suggesting that Arab slavery is significantly related to slavery though that's a POV and not true. Also this "chain-ganged and marched off to be sold" is not a good reason to only show Arab slavery in the lead and yes it is not a neutral point of view and it's not representative image of slavery, slavery has different forms and different ways other than chains etc. If it is a NPOV then I will be adding European-American slavery related images in to every single article that is related to slavery and also I will be putting them over the Arab one to see if there will be any objections.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you ,Eperoton. I have never came across this policy and editting to make a point seemed reasonable to me but now I can understand why it's wrong.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No. In terms of the arguments presented so far, I'm actually a lot more in agreement with SMcCandlish than SharabSalam. It's hard to think of a more recognizable representation for slavery than a neck chain gang and Arab slave trade is a major force in the history of world slavery. I'm not sure if the part of the caption that reads This is one of the best known and frequently reproduced images in the literature on slaving in Africa is taken from a RS, but if true, this statement would satisfy the requirement that the lead image be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works. That said, I don't think putting this image or any image in the lead would improve this article. I'm generally a lead image exclusionist, based on the main rationale for lead images: ... a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. These are all examples where a reader may recognize that they've come to the right page more quickly by seeing a familiar image than by reading the text. I don't know who would come to this article while looking for another one, and I don't think any image would make for a quicker clarification than the title itself. This goes particularly for an image that would be displaced below the text of the lead by templates. Also, although I'm not aware of any guidelines on this, I have a strong personal aversion to filling up space next to the table of contents with images, as I feel it gives the article an impression of being carelessly slapped together. Eperoton (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Everyone gets their say, of course, but as a designer for much of my career, I would beg to differ with your last point. Leaving an enormous whitespace area when we have pertinent content to put in it is a terrible idea in a work of this sort, and is what looks shoddy, as if we're too incompetent to work around something like an auto-generated ToC. "Oww... da software it broked my brain."  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No. This is clearly WP:UNDUE. When I think of slavery, the first thing that springs to mind is the transatlantic slave trade, and rightly so. Apart from having been the most intense and the largest in terms of volume, it was also the worst and unique in its promotion of a racist ideology whose ramifications are still being felt. M.Bitton (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The lead should not contain any image either showing Arabs with chains or images related to transatlantic slave trade. There is no easy representation of this article because slavery is not chains or Arabs or atlantic and per MOS:LEADIMAGE images in the lead are not required. There are other forms of slavery i.e Modern slavery. I think the best image for the lead would be a map showing traditional slavery and modern slavery index which I am currently working on.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Just because you think of the transatlantic slave trade first doesn't mean it was "the most intense and the largest in terms of volume, it was also the worst and unique in its promotion of a racist ideology whose ramifications are still being felt." The Arab Slave Trade was comparable in size but lasted MUCH longer. I'd challenge you to review what you think about it. Slavery all over the world has led to racism and decimated Africa especially. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No because I think the current not-quite-leadimage the shackles works quite well, similar to Intelligent design and Islam. Slavery is ancient and worldwide, any more specific image seem likely to exclude too much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, though the caption need not say specifically Arab. It represents a central type of event in the best known historical situation; that there are other historical situation also is unavoidable. Even for such broad topics as Human, we use a single lead, though it does not represent all the possibilities. It serves very well in each case to indicate and exemplify what the article is about. Of course there are other possible images, but I think this is the clearest and most generalizable one of those in the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weakly Yes per the points of SMcCandlish, but I'm not against another image/caption either. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No The history of the Arab slave trade is well documented and an image depicting such a scene would work as a lead image, but since this image was added by an user who has added several images related to the topic I'm afraid it was done as some sort of political statement. There is a very rich and unfortunate tradition on the Internet and elsewhere of popularizing the Arab and African slavers not for reasons related to history or education, but as a way of making the Trans-Atlantic slave trade seem less abhorrent. "White people didn't do anything to Africans that they didn't do first to themselves" sort of thing. We should avoid letting Wikipedia become a vessel for such attempts. That being said, the map SharabSalam is proposing would work well as a way of avoiding this and it would also be much more useful than any drawing or photograph depicting scenes of enslavement PraiseVivec (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No. (Summoned by bot) Slavery has occurred in many societies for thousands of years. If we want to place a picture in the lead, we should choose either one depicting slavery in an ancient society, or one showing modern slaves. How a random picture about Arab slave traders in Africa in the 1860s could neutrally represent the long history of slavery? Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.