Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 20:00 UTC, 1 December!

Category talk:Slaveholders

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The category Wikipedia refuses to have, because it would be too long, and includes too many U.S. presidents.[edit]

I think these articles would all fit the definition of slave holders: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Muhammad, Caliph, Pharaoh. Hitler should count even if he didn't have house slaves; however that opens the door to what the definition of a slave holder is. [1] Should corporations that run sweat shops count? If Hitler doesn't count, than wouldn't the Nazi's as a group count, and the Confederacy? Most ancient empires had slaves, should they all be listed?

Please don't tell me this isn't relevant to authoritarianism cause everyone was doing it and times were different back than. I was told robots weren't relevant to the mission goals when there's like 4 different AI pages; these examples will all be valid and individuals rather than organizations, it's just a matter of whether or not you want the category to exist at all. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Where was the discussion to delete this category?Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 21:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Here. BicyclewheelModerator 21:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The category had a few defenders and the reasons to delete seem mostly stupid. We don't know if all the ancients had slaves for sure, many historic figures didn't, and the category would help counter the "Jefferson-was-a-libertarian" argument.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 21:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
If someone owning slaves is relevant, there's nothing stopping you from actually adding that into articles, instead of relying on people reading the categories listed at the end. (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

With that argument, User:, why have categories at all?Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 21:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

For organizational purposes. If you want a category for the people where it's relevant that they owned slaves, then it should be called "People where it's of particular note that they owned slaves" or somesuch. We don't need a category that blurs together most human rulers and nobility of non-recent history, anti-abolitionist Americans and hypocritically slaveowning abolitionists. (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The key factor here is relevance to the mission and to the existing articles. As pointed out above, we can simply point out Jefferson's and other's slaveholding as it becomes relevant, but unless there's a systematic set of articles discussing slaveholding, it's not that relevant. An analogous of category might be "white US presidents" - where it's relevant it can be discussed in the article, but there's no need for a category. MarmotHead (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

All presidents save the last were white, only a minority of presidents were slaveholders. Also "3.Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism." I figure that there is some overlap in the issues of slavery and authoritarianism.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 21:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not always relevant. Someone who kept slaves in a time when it was legal isn't really a matter of note; it only applies when someone owned slaves while arguing for (their own) liberty - and that's really a tiny number of people. It's also a matter of the hipocrisy rather than the slavekeeping. BicyclewheelModerator 21:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
You've just accidentally made a great argument for a need for Category:Hypocrites Ikanreed (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Hmmm... why *don't* we have that category? There's also the unspoken thing that we were trying to stop Exiled Encyclopedist adding shedloads of irrelevant category cruft, and whining endlessly when told not to. I can say this now he's gone, of course. BicyclewheelModerator 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite. A otherwise moral drunken priest lecturing you on the evils of alcohol is also hypocrisy, but it doesn't, at least for the most part, hurt others.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 21:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
But what about chickenhawks? And Category:Hypocrisy is a thing, I just found. BicyclewheelModerator 21:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I for one wouldn't mind extra categories. There might be room for both hypocrite and slaveholder categories.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 21:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)