Template talk:Forced labour

message: The reference to China links towards a legitimate penal system. Even in The Netherlands we are familiar with work-for-punishment. Maybe it's a terribly huge amount of work but unfairness does not make slavery.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.143.161 (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: China

message: I dont think this box is in the right place. Article of Baibars speaks about Baibars and his achievments.
Samsam22 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baibars

message: How would people feel if we made the border some other color? The red is really glaring and incompatible with the general color scheme of Wikipedia. – Scartol · Talk 02:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no discussion in the past three days, I went ahead and changed it. If people feel strongly about the border color, let's discuss it here. – Scartol · Talk 16:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Border color 

message: Why does this template not include the article Slavery in the United States. I hope that is there is a reason other than bias? 
Because nobody who knew about this article has added it.--SasiSasi (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Slavery in United States 

message: Have tried to improve the look of the template, and the categorisation. Still needs work and addition.--SasiSasi (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. :-) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I used another template as "template". Not sure about the colours, but someone who knows more about that then me can change them.--SasiSasi (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to template 

message: The removed article is off-topic for this category. The current disambiguation page also distinguishes this Marxist analogy from the actual practice of slavery. StephenMacmanus (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed "Wage Slavery" link from template

message: What is this Underware Railroad in the template?  I assume it's supposed to be Underground Railroad. JBH23 (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underware Railroad 

message: I think the placement of unfree labour under the heading of slavery is dubious because it tends to imply that unfree labour is a form of slavery. Whereas, in fact, unfree labour is a broader and more generic term that includes slavery, along with less well known practices.  Hence I have changed the heading of the template. Grant | Talk 05:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology/New heading of template ["Slavery & Unfree labour"] 

message: It doesn't seem right to include "unfree labor" in the title of the template.   The title should be common & concise, following rules similar to WP:TITLE.  Instead, a link to the article Unfree labor  could be in the body of the template, in a new section such as  "associated topics" or "related topics".  But it just looks odd in the title.  Thoughts?   --Noleander (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I implemented this change.  --Noleander (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfree labor in title? 

message: Is there any way to collapse this? It's longer than some articles. Mannanan51 (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The pages listed are pages to slavery articles on Wikipedia. If there were ten pages on slavery in India - past and present - then these should be included as well. The template has become an inclusive map to the history of slavery, a history which countries learned to adjust as freedom and liberty issues arose throughout the world. As the poster under this section has posted, some people don't believe slavery still exists, and a template focusing on slavery should cover it all so that people looking up slavery issues on Wikipedia have as full an overview as possible. Randy Kryn 17:37 28 August, 2014 (UTC)
*I agree with both editors above. The slavery sidebar is too big and creating a U.S. specific sidebar would be appropriate. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

text: A collapsed template should hopefully cover the U.S. objections. I think one reason the U.S. has more pages is that it was created declaring itself the beacon of freedom and liberty, while still containing slavery, and an almost-countrywide major "modern" war emerged which had to be fought over the issue to resolve the obvious oversight. Hence more pages (and because it was such a recent war in human history - the history of liberty in America is itself on a very tight time-scale, more or less just since 1765 or so). I'm not a fan of collapsed templates, like this has now become, because a person really has to want to want to see it to click on the expanding tools, while if it is open the panorama is there in front of them to explore. I didn't think the list is overly long, but I come from a time when people could read more than a few hundred characters at a time. The dumbing down of the world is not easy to watch. Couldn't we have just removed that handcuff picture, which would have downsized it quite a bit? Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:00 29 August, 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks Izno for the collapsing. Any advice on how to edit the template now?  When I hit the 'E' that I usually use it takes me instead to the source code for "Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists", rather than the code to edit the template itself. Thank you in advance. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapse?? 

message: I agree with the editor above - the slavery sidebar has gotten huge recently with a dump of parochial US history topics onto the global sidebar by one editor. This is an international sidebar. You wouldn't know it at the moment, with little headings saying "Jefferson" and "Adams".  
This template is so disgusting right now. This is how wikipedia used to look like 10 years ago. Make a "Slavery in the US" sidebar for the American topics.
One link for slavery in India (as it should be) - about millions of slaves in debt bondage at present  - vs around 20 articles in the template about the pre-1865 US experience, including:
* Slave iron bit, US slaves
* Slave Songs of the United States
* Underground Railroad
* Songs of the Underground Railroad, SMH at this being on an international sidebar....
* Thomas Jefferson and slavery
* John Quincy Adams and abolitionism
* Fugitive slaves in the United States
* Forty acres and a mule
* Freedmen's Bureau, US history
* George Washington and slavery
* Abraham Lincoln and slavery
* American slave court cases
* Slave breeding in the United States
* Female slavery in the United States
* Slave and free states
* Slave codes, seriously, on an international sidebar
* Interregional slave trade
* Slavery in the colonial United States
* Treatment of slaves in the United States
* Fugitive slave laws, "The fugitive slave laws were laws passed by the United States Congress in 1793 and 1850...."   
* Penal labor in the United States
* Field slaves
* Slave Power, more US only history
It's time for a US slavery sidebar, so these US topics can have a home off of the international sidebar. Thank you. Takomosh (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The pages listed are pages to slavery articles on Wikipedia. If there were ten pages on slavery in India - past and present - then these should be included as well. The template has become an inclusive map to the history of slavery, a history which countries learned to adjust as freedom and liberty issues arose throughout the world. As the poster under this section has posted, some people don't believe slavery still exists, and a template focusing on slavery should cover it all so that people looking up slavery issues on Wikipedia have as full an overview as possible. Randy Kryn 17:37 28 August, 2014 (UTC)
*I agree with both editors above. The slavery sidebar is too big and creating a U.S. specific sidebar would be appropriate. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

text: A collapsed template should hopefully cover the U.S. objections. I think one reason the U.S. has more pages is that it was created declaring itself the beacon of freedom and liberty, while still containing slavery, and an almost-countrywide major "modern" war emerged which had to be fought over the issue to resolve the obvious oversight. Hence more pages (and because it was such a recent war in human history - the history of liberty in America is itself on a very tight time-scale, more or less just since 1765 or so). I'm not a fan of collapsed templates, like this has now become, because a person really has to want to want to see it to click on the expanding tools, while if it is open the panorama is there in front of them to explore. I didn't think the list is overly long, but I come from a time when people could read more than a few hundred characters at a time. The dumbing down of the world is not easy to watch. Couldn't we have just removed that handcuff picture, which would have downsized it quite a bit? Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:00 29 August, 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks Izno for the collapsing. Any advice on how to edit the template now?  When I hit the 'E' that I usually use it takes me instead to the source code for "Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists", rather than the code to edit the template itself. Thank you in advance. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The recent and oblivious Americanisation of the sidebar 

message: According to the Conscription article, defining the conscription as slavery seems to be just the viewpoint of libertarians, anarchists and radicals, not an universal viewpoint. Certainly it is not shared by the Supreme Court; and none of the international treaties against slavery seem to have ever been concerned about the countries with conscription (which, if it was slavery, would be a state-sponsored slavery, not a crime of outlaw individuals). It is listed under Contemporary slavery, but that article does not mention conscription, and in fact it doesn't seem to fit with the description of modern slavery described there. 
I removed the article from the template for that reason. It was restored, claiming that "The article mentions slavery in two headings--that qualifies it in the template", but that rationale seems to ignore how is it being mentioned. Including the conscription in the article would promote the minority viewpoint of small groups. --Cambalachero (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also direct you to the first discussion of 'Slavery' in the Conscription article which does not say that it is a position of "libertarians, anarchists and radicals" but that 'Military slavery' is a practice that has been used in various societies throughout history. So, to respond to your challenge: how it is discussed in the article is as a form of historical slavery. It is incorrect to say that the wikipedia article dismisses conscription as ever a form of slavery. Maybe, we find that its inclusion as a Contemporary form of slavery is unwarranted as military slavery has largely become fringe to a few countries and societies--but, regardless, the wikipedia article, RSs, and legal agreements all justify the inclusion of conscription somewhere in the template. AbstractIllusions (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conscription 

message: Is there a good stub template for slavery-related articles? I guess I'm just going to use US-hist-stub, but it seems sort of generic and I thought folks following this template might have a better idea. Thanks! —Luis (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery stub? 

message: Under Opposition and Resistance, I added 
* Colonization (American Colonization Society)
** Liberia
** Sierra Leone
These were immediately removed as "a bit tangential". But the colonization movement (sending former slaves to Africa, or sometimes some other place) was a really big movement. It wasn't as big as the Abolitionist movement, but it was far from tiny. It had distinguished supporters: Presidents Jefferson, Monroe, and Madison, among others. Madison was the Society's president at one time. It gave birth to two countries, though we tend to ignore Sierra Leone in the U.S. Do others share my view that this is not tangential?  deisenbe (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, and thanks for explaining this further. The topics do seem important, and their leads should include information which would allow the template to be placed on the page (and they may contain that language now), and that should work. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: p.s. When I removed them 'Colonization' directed to Colonization and not the society, thus the tangential reasoning. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my mistake. Sorry for the confusion. deisenbe (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonization 

message: I really think we need one. Opinions? deisenbe (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The sidebar looks good, and its usual position near or at the top of the page likely draws more readers to investigate the topics. I don't usually prefer sidebars but this one seems to draw the eye. Do you mean a footer in addition to the sidebar or a one-on-one exchange? Randy Kryn (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I was envisioning two, for different purposes. On one on the US one could mention specific things like the Emancipation Proclamation, Underground Railroad, or Missouri Compromise that don't belong on Template:Slavery. I’m thinking of something like Template:Lynching in the United States or Template:Indian Removal, to go at the bottom of pages as complex things typically do. Most articles wouldn’t have both. deisenbe (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Although 'Underground Railroad' seems to fit both templates as a prominent form of historical 'Resistance and opposition'. Thanks for pointing out those two other templates, they are interesting site-maps. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template (bottom of page), not sidebar on Slavery in the U.S. 

message: 115.178.193.95 (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2020 

message: There are currently two sections covering history of slavery: "Historical" and "By country or region". Most of the examples in "By country or region" are historical examples, like Field slaves in the United States, Slavery in the Carribean, Booi Aha,  etc. I think instead of having these two sections, we should organize by region and historical era.VR talk 03:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: "By country or region"

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved to Template: Forced labour. (closed by non-admin page mover)  ASUKITE 15:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Slavery →  – (Or Template:Unfree labour; don't care which, and both should work.) This template's scope has grown to encompass unfree labo[u]r that is not (except by fringe writers) classified as slavery, such as corvée (and it could also be applied sensibly at indentured servitude, impressment, and some others). So, both the name of the template and its heading should change to "Unfree labor" (and have a template parameter to switch it to "labour", or vice versa). An alternative, with regard to the heading, would be to change it to something like "Slavery and other unfree labor" (or "..labour"). Or, use "forced" instead of "unfree"; I don't really care about the exact terminology, so much as the scope being accurate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 May 2024