Talk:Christian views on slavery

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

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}}).

checkY 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, 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]

 – 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)[]

Children could also be sold into debt bondage[edit]

Article says "Children could also be sold into debt bondage" and provides a reference to Leviticus 25:44 which is "As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves."

This verse does not appear to support the claim in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcostley (talkcontribs) 05:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[]

Why is Roger Williams not inlcuded?[edit]

The Section on America makes it seem like Abolitionism started with the Quakers in 1688 and starts it's Baptist timeline in the 1830s. Roger Williams opposed Slavery and banned it in Rhode Island from the start.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Slavery a Moral Defect[edit]

Being aware an act is wrong (according the law) and doing it anyway is widely used definition of moral defect.

If (according past laws of the United States) it was wrong to help a runaway slave, and I yet did I could be held as "morally defective" under the law.