Talk:List of slaves

PCness?

Well, there has been some debate about someone being a slave & someone who is enslaved. Such as there being slight irritation that Lincoln freed the slaves but didn't free the black man. In other words, he freed them, but still considered them slaves.

That's why I chose the word "Famous People In Slavery" from the "Slaves" page. This isn't a major sticking point as the distinction is slight & from what I understand it isn't that big of a deal at this point. However, if we could start thinking in that direction, perhaps we'd find a better way to title this article? --Duemellon 15:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not about political correctness. It's about clarity in the English language. The appropriate way to define this list is closer to 'List of Famous Enslaved People". This is a list of people that other people have heard of. Regarding your point about Abraham Lincoln, I'm baffled. Whether Abraham Lincoln understood that the enslaved people in the United States were now free or not is beside the point. In practice, those people were freed. That's what matters. Notwithstanding the fact that Lincoln was shot dead not long after the conclusion of the Civil War, you seem to be giving too much weight to the confusions of a single human being. If you're looking for actual intelligent thought about slavery in the United States, you should look to Lincoln's contemporaries like Frederick Douglas, who was far more logical and sensible about the matter.

However, I agree that this page should be modified to reflect more on the experiences of people who were enslaved in the United States. It seems to have a euro-centric approach. It doesn't even talk about the earlier ethnic-based slavery, that of the Jewish people in Egypt. God commanded Moses to lead his people out of slavery and even drowned all the enslavers who pursued God's people, according to the Bible. The Bible may not be relied on as a literal reference, but it's generally correct about this issue at a high-level. That story is actually found in the evidence of the historical record. Private Person (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. Where did you get that there is evidence for the Exodus? Which part of "The consensus of modern scholars is that the Pentateuch does not give an accurate account of the origins of the Israelites, who appear instead to have formed as an entity in the central highlands of Canaan in the late second millennium BCE from the indigenous Canaanite culture." was unclear to you? Dimadick (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Disagree with list

Yes, slavery has been a fact in many countries through history, but it seems arbitrary to list people here from so many different cultures and different centuries where the circumstances are very different. Slavery as a "category" would appear to cover that aspect. Yes, I read the limited discussion on keeping this list.Parkwells (talk)

That is a narrow-minded and not very neutral point of view. Slavery is wrong no matter what colour of skin, and no matter which country you are from. People should be aware, that people of all nationalitys have been slaves. There is nothing wrong with the truth. --85.226.44.74 (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If we let all countrys mind their own matters, then we will have no information here on wiki about any other countrys than the English speaking ones. Your oppinion does not give the impression of NPOV.--85.226.44.74 (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly @Parkwells: has a point. Though I haven't fully reviewed the list, it seems that the list is comprised of people who were in slavery at a point when it existed as a legal institution in someway. The above IP is highly narrowminded with his comments. While certainly it is 2014 and Slavery is wrong by our Values, that is relatively modern. The IPs position also highlights a POV.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history of this discussion, User: Parkwells actually edited the first text in this discussion on 16 May 2014, years after the IP-number commented it, so the comment of the IP-number now appears to answer a totally different text than he/she did originally. The original first comment of this discussion was:

Quote: Most of the people listed seem to have some kind of fame or public knowledge. Is this just a list anyone can add to for names of :people who were enslaved? For instance, thirty-three people who were held by the Major James Bulloch family in Roswell, GA have been :identified by name (first name only) and memorialized on a plaque at the grounds of Bulloch Hall. So if I wanted to make the effort, they :could also be listed here, right? From reading a lot in this area, I think it's better to use the term "enslaved person/Africa/African-:American". Then you are reminded there was a person there, and that's why many historians have adopted that term. "Slave" is more abstract. :Yes, slavery has been a fact in many countries through history, but we shouldn't forgot what it has meant to the American experience, or :anywhere else. The development of slavery in the United States and changes through the years before the Civil War were too important to gloss :over as "everyone did it". Labor derived from slavery was a fundamental part of the economy, the slave trade contributed to wealth North and :South, unresolved issues of social justice are being worked on today. Did you know that in 1840 New Orleans was the third largest city in the :country and THE wealthiest? - partly because it had the biggest slave market in the country and also because of the huge shipping up and down :the Mississippi River, and import-export.Don't worry so much about not being US-centric that we lose a huge part of US history. I think other :countries can take care of their own discussions. Preceding unsigned comment added by :Parkwells (talk contribs) 14:41, 28 September 2007 End Quote.

This text above is what IP 85.226.44.74 originally commented on, not the text Parkwell has pasted in 2014. This must be pointed out: It must be clear what the IP originally commented on. When I saw Parkwells edit, I was close to reverting it, and wondered if it was truly according to rules to make such an edit, which discredited the whole discussion and made it appear different from what it was. My opinion is that a list consisted of only people enslaved in the united states is certainly narrow-minded, breaks NPOV and damage the use of Wikipedia as an international Encyclopedia. Thank you--Aciram (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to discredit the discussion but to emphasize my main point, which had changed in 7 years. Here, I'm repeating my comment that a list of individuals from different places and different times, whose only reason to be on the list is that they have been documented as slaves, is not very useful. It takes individuals out of context and meaning to add them all to such a list. What is the point of this list? It doesn't tell you how slavery compared over time, or by time and place/society, etc. I don't think a list of persons enslaved in the US through three centuries is very useful either. As someone noted, an issue of classification can be satisfied by a category, rather than a list.Parkwells (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You should not have removed your edit and replaced it with a new one, when your old comment had been answered by some one else. That action gives the impression that the answer to your first comment was in fact the answer to your second, and unjustly gives a completely different meaning to the whole discussion, and further more, it discredits your fellow editors - IP or not - which now appears to have answered a completely different question than was originally the case. This is not acceptable, could be regarded as deceitful, and it actually deserves an apology from your part. I suspect I could even report this edit of yours to Wikipedia. I trust you will never repeat such a thing. The correct thing would have been to start a new discussion which reflects your new opinion, or simply to make a new comment on this one. Your behavior in this discussion did not give you credit. As for the list, I can see no harm in it, and as long as it does exist it should include slaves from different nations and circumstances, which in my opinion rather makes the differences within the concept of slavery more clear. Thank you--Aciram (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo

Gave me a good laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.51.4 (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

hey 102.90.44.238 (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is kind of worded badly.

"To be included in this list the person must have a Wikipedia article showing that they were slaves, or must have references showing that they were slaves and are notable."

This seems like something you might post at the top of the talk page but it really seems out of place on the article page.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Placement

Jermain Wesley Loguen is under "L". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEBA:2F80:BC4C:E8DD:62E8:52EF (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Why Genghis Khan is not in the list?

Why Genghis Khan is not in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorberino (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Qutb al-Din Aibak.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2021

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: There is consensus to move these back — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

---

• List of enslaved people → List of slaves
• Treatment of enslaved people in the United States → Treatment of slaves in the United States
• List of last surviving American enslaved people → List of the last surviving American slaves
• Breeding of enslaved people in the United States → Slave breeding in the United States

– This is a request to revert various undiscussed moves from titles using the term "slaves" to those using "enslaved people". I recently performed those reversions, but Drmies reverted my reversions. (There is also related discussion on Drmies's talk.) From the article titles policy, titles should be recognisable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent. I believe that the term "slave" is more concise, more natural, and more common than "enslaved person". For example, on Google, there are 1,030,000,000 results for "slave", but only 39,100,000 results for "enslaved person", much of which are about the term itself. It appears that some arguments for "enslaved person" are that it emphasises that slaves are people, but I think this is pointless: a slave is defined as "someone forbidden to quit their service for another person (an enslaver) who treats that slave as their property" (bolding applied; from Slavery). I also believe that people in other conditions are generally referred to with a noun for people in that condition, if there is one. Sincerely, Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – Courtesy pings to Drmies and Deisenbe since they performed the initial moves. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see why "List of last surviving American enslaved people" should belong here - the suggested new name includes the term "enslaved people". Also, the last article seems to be a different case, since "slave" is used as a modifier like in "slave trade". --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Rsk6400: That was a mistake; I've fixed it. As for the last article, that was where it used to be, but I'm also fine with "breeding of slaves...". Thanks. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Close as malformed. User:Tol I suggest you have these all reversed at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requests to revert undiscussed moves, then Drmies can open requested moves as per usual process rather than move-warring. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Ivar the Boneful: As I said, I reverted the moves, but Drmies reverted by reversion. I don't want to continue move warring, so I won't revert again without consensus for it (or at least no consensus for the new/current titles). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  Tol, your reverts of Drmies' WP:BOLD moves were well within process, and Drmies' reverts of your reverts was contrary to Wiki policy. Just FYI...since anyone that has only been editing for a year is likely to be aware of every single one of our convoluted nuanced rules. We shall assume good faith, that Drmies simply forgot what the policy was - admins are human, too. I echo what Ivar the Boneful suggested to you above, though. Consensus needs to be gained in favour of moving all these "slave" articles to "enslaved people" articles, not the other way around. I will also note generally (to anyone that happens to be participating here) that WP:RGW is also a policy; Wikipedia is not to be used as a tool to engineer the English language. The English language as it is actually used is to be employed. If editors are disgruntled with the state of the language, they need to get the Anglosphere at large to implement those changes, then they will be implemented here. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:515:ADE:B2DC:BDFA (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. When you say a person was a slave, they are in a category, it was something they were, they were born that way, they die that way, maybe they can escape the category and become an ex-slave or a former slave, but that's what they are. It's genetic, they were 2nd-class beings who were naturally inferior. In contrast, enslaved persons are still persons, that's a more fundamental category than slave. "Enslaved" is a situation, like "afflicted" or "sickened". It's not the person's essential character.
  
  Now that I've got started, I want to speak against deciding policy questions, and whether you like it or not this is a policy question, by Google search counts. Note that Tol has added the words "and more common" to WP's policy on titles. "Russia" has 3,000,000,000 hits, "U.S.S.R." only 90,000,000, but you can't, or shouldn't, conclude from that that we should replace U.S.S.R. with Russia. deisenbe (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Deisenbe: For your first paragraph, I fully agree that "slave" is a category and not some inherent quality, but this is also the same for other categories (such as "victim of slavery", not "person who was victimised by slavery"). As for Google search counts, they aren't the arbiter of what's more common, and perhaps I should have clarified that in my point. "Russia" and "U.S.S.R." refer to different countries (though Russia was a core component of the USSR), while "slave" and "enslaved person" refer to the same concept. A more fitting comparison would perhaps be "Russia" and "Russian Federation". The policy that I was referring to is at WP:UCRN. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  When you say a person was a slave, they are in a category, it was something they were, they were born that way, they die that way, maybe they can escape the category and become an ex-slave or a former slave, but that's what they are. - that is an excellent description of the system of American racial chattel slavery present before 1865. I'm not sure why that is an argument to not use the word "slave" in articles describing that system. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment since I am not an English speaker, I don't feel I can vote in the issue. But I would like to point out that the page was originally moved from "List of slaves" to "List of enslaved people" without a prior discussion (at least as far as I'm aware), so its seems odd it that the move back to the original title "List of slaves" must have such a discussion, when it is really just a revert (albeit several months later) of an non-discussed move. This may indeed be a language issue, but it seems odd to me that the word slave is so sensitive, and it seems to be an ideological issue that it is. I don't see why the word slave must be intepreted as being something "genetic", as Deisenbe seem to say. A slave is the same thing as an enslaved person: they are synonyms. To view them as different from each other seem to assume a lot of things that does not have to be true. Perhaps this is an American issue, but as the list shows, slavery was far from just an American phenomena. Everyone I know would agree that being a slave is nothing genetic or natural; whether they were born in slavery, captured in to slavery, freed or escaped from slavery, it is taken for granted that this person is regardless a person foremost; a slave or an ex-slave is simply what they are subjected to or have been subjected to, and a word used in the context of their enslavement or former enslavement. Perhaps the word slave is so closely associated with genetics, as Deisenbe say, in an American context, were slavery was so closely associated with race. But Wikipedia is not an American Encylopedia, and slavery and race were not globally so closely associated as they are in US. Wikipedia should have a global and not an American perspective. From a non-American standpoint, the word slave appears to be a neutral synonym to an enslaved person. --Aciram (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• There is nothing "natural" about the word "slave". No, "slave" is not "closely associated with genetics"--it's closely associated with oppression, and in the US and other former enslaving countries, it's closely associated with systemic racism. "Enslaved person" is really common parlance now, and not just in the US; in the Netherlands, the term "slaafgemaakt" ("made into a slave") is now used widely across the media and the publishing industry. As for the "undiscussed move"--we don't have to discuss every single thing on Wikipedia, and one of those articles was moved a year and a half ago already. Pinging Swampyank, who made one or more of these moves.

  Anyway, "enslaved person" as common parlance: "Column: Language matters: The shift from ‘slave’ to ‘enslaved person’ may be difficult, but it’s important", "Slave or Enslaved Person? It’s not just an academic debate for historians of American slavery (and that's from 2015 already), "The Vocabulary of Freedom", "Language of Slavery", "Four hundred years after enslaved Africans were first brought to Virginia, most Americans still don’t know the full story of slavery", "Who Were America’s Enslaved? A New Database Humanizes the Names Behind the Numbers", and I could go on. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  I would just like to point out that the meaning of "natural" which you used ("closely associated with genetics") is not the same that is used in policy or my nomination argument. I meant the definition used at Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title, which says: "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." This is the meaning I was referring to. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  I would just like to point out: I don't know that much about this English language issue. I come from a country which did not have much slavery in its history, so to me, this was something that made me puzzled and I did not fully understand it, other then that I found it strange if Wikipedia should focus so strongly an an American language issue around this subject. I am not an American and I am more familiar with slavery in other parts oft he world which did not have this racial dimension. So I was curious around this issue, but I am not some sort of fanatic who absolutely want to have this or that title. I am not an English language speaker and did not grow up in the US. This appear to be a very heated and aggressive discussion. I appologize if I have offended anyone in some way, and I will leave it entirely since I an uncomfortable with the aggressive tone in it.--Aciram (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support. These pages should never have been moved. The word "slave" does not dehumanize those it describes; it and "enslaved person" mean the exact same thing in this context, and "slave" is more concise and more common. O.N.R. ^(talk) 01:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. RS are increasingly using 'enslaved people' rather than 'slaves'. —valereee (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support all of these. The three articles other than List of enslaved people are fairly clearly better off using the term "slaves" in the title. Less convinced here, the academic arguments regarding the preference for usage of the term "enslaved people" are more relevant here. But this is a disaster of a list anyhow, there is no reason that "Billy, a 7-year-old black boy captured by Creek raiders in 1788; he passed through several hands before being sold at auction in Havana, Spanish Cuba." should be listed even if there is a source for it. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, for List of last surviving American enslaved people, the section heading List of last survivors of American slavery is possibly better than either title proposed. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed; I also like List of last survivors of American slavery. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - While I do assume, and also do sincerely hope that these types of efforts are being done out of only good intentions (e.g., the stated goals of ending systemic racism), everyone needs to be aware that many, many of us simply do not see the problems you are seeing with the common English form. We all know there is systemic racism; trying to fix it by replacing the word "slave" with "enslaved person" honestly looks like an example of throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping some of it will stick. I also will point out, that it was the SLAVERS that generally tried to avoid the use of "slave": they called them "servants", or just "negroes". It was the activists fighting against slavery who used "slave" as much as possible. Slavery is an ugly thing: do we REALLY want to replace the words for it with softened, euphemistic language?
  More importantly... despite the noble intentions, the amount of hostility and devisiveness that this type of thing brings about - especially when editors who disagree face railing accusations of racism and are told to "fuck off" as a consequence - that is disruptive and tendentious, and we can all do better than that. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:8587:7569:D2D3:9186 (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This should have never moved from the long-standing names, and WP:ONUS lies on those arguing for the change. Drmies' handling of this was extremely poor, and he should come off the moral high ground and be less fucking patronizing (profanity intended). As the plethora of academic material could witness, there is nothing wrong with using the word "slave" for the condition, and "enslaved person" looks like a typical product of the euphemism treadmill. "Enslaved person" is not common, it is not concise, and there is nothing morally wrong or with the plain English word "slave". No such user (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and No such user's rationale directly above, and additionally to revert an undiscussed but obviously controversial move. This also means that if this discussion were to close as "no consensus", the long term status-quo i.e. the old titles should be restored. Lennart97 (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This article has been called "List of enslaved people" since July 2020[1], the second one was called "Treatment of the enslaved in the United States" since September 2020‎[2], that's well over a year in both cases. So I can't see any problem in Drmies's actions and I see no reason why "no consensus" should lead to restoring the name they had 16 / 14 months ago. I can't see that "enslaved person / people" is an euphemism, because it underlines the barbarity of enslaving persons. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support for List of last survivors of American slavery, Neutral on the rest because I'm not a native speaker. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support all and also support List of last survivors of American slavery - Concise, accurate. Whilst I can see that the previous move was performed out of noble sentiments, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, nor is it clear how the previous move was supposed to address historical racism unless there was a serious belief that people are generally unaware that slaves were also people - but this is not so. Generally people understand that slavery, enslavement are horrific crimes. The use of the term "slave labour", "enslavement" etc. to describe, for example, the Nazi enslavement of those they saw as sub-human, is entirely condemnatory of the Nazis and not at all a diminishment of their crimes. FOARP (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Aciram: Wikipedia should have a global and not an American perspective. From a non-American standpoint, the word slave appears to be a neutral synonym to an enslaved person. Move #3 to List of last survivors of American slavery per 力. feminist (t) 11:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• abstain this issue seems to be related about American politics, political correctness, being "woke", being left, being right, among others. I am neither familiar nor fond of that stuff. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2021 (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.

Once again: List of the last surviving American slaves

@MSGJ: I don't think that you determined consensus correctly regarding List of the last surviving American slaves. Four editors (including myself) supported List of last survivors of American slavery, and nobody opposed it. I just fixed it, of course everybody is free to undo and / or discuss my action. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

For the record, even though I was strongly for revert of the previous title of this article, I'm not against that one, so I endorse your move. No such user (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The Cherokee

I recently made an edit to remove many definite articles from this page in the interest of clarity and brevity. Another editor reverted it. I propose that we change phrases like "a white girl who was enslaved by the Cherokee" to "a white girl who was enslaved by Cherokees". First, it's simpler and shorter, and we should try to keep entries concise in a list as large as this one. Secondly, it's more accurate. She was enslaved by some Cherokees, not by the Old Cherokee Nation. It's like writing that Sally Hemings was enslaved by the United States (or the Americans), rather than by Thomas Jefferson. pburka (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You gave two different reasons in your edit summaries, the other one being that we should not treat groups as "monoliths". Slavery was not based on the actions of individuals, but on laws and customs. Meaning, the whole group (e.g. the Cherokees) saw and treated them as a slave. This is also normal usage in English language. There is no need to use uncommon wordings just for the sake of brevity. BTW: The barbaric laws of the U.S. made Hemings a slave. So, we might say that she was enslaved by the United States. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I simply mean that we shouldn't write as if "the Cherokee" is some monolithic, centralized organization rather than a complex society. While the customs of the Cherokee permitted and encouraged slavery at the time, enslaved people didn't become the property of the state; they were treated as property of individuals or families. It's simply incorrect to say someone was enslaved by "the Cherokee", and we don't write that way about European nations. We might say "the British emancipated Cato Perkins", but that was the state acting. We wouldn't write that "the British enslaved Samuel Sharpe", because it wasn't an act of the state, even though the state's laws and institutions facilitated his enslavement. I don't think it's awkward or surprising to read that someone was enslaved by Cherokees or Creek people; it would be confusing to many readers if we wrote that someone was enslaved by Great Britain or the United States. pburka (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

According to the list, Annika Svahn was captured by "the Russians", and that's (or should be) a European nation. If a nation or an ethnic group acts as a group (especially in war), we normally use the definite article. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the usage is common when talking about wars or battles (which are acts of states), and in these cases I think the context implies that "the Russians" or "the Cherokee" refers to an army or military unit. Would you agree to removing "the" in the cases where there's no indication there was a war or battle or other act of state involved? pburka (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No. The term "state" is not normally used for the Cherokee nation, but still the Cherokees fought wars as a group. And to check each individual case whether somebody was abducted by two Cherokees while lost in the forest (no war) or captured during a raid (possibly understood as part of a war, possibly not) seems a total waste of time. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The great thing about Wikipedia is that we're all volunteers, so I'll choose to waste my time as I see fit. I'm going to continue removing "the" where there's no context to support a state or nation as the actor. Please discuss individual cases you disagree with on this page. pburka (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Simply reverting changes because you dislike them is disruptive. I asked you to discuss individual cases you disagree with. Let's start with Antonia Bonnelli. Our biography of Bonnelli says she was captured by Miccosukee Indians. Please explain why you prefer the version that says she was "enslaved by the Mikasuki tribe", which has a different meaning. pburka (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't simply revert because I dislike something. See WP:AGF. If you want to discuss each individual case, you have to give a specific edit summary for each case. Regarding Bonelli: What our article says is pretty irrelevant. WP:RS is what matters. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)