Talk:Abigail (slave)

Changes of 27 Feb 2022

Sychonic: My problem with these changes is:

• The article originally used "enslaved" instead of "owned as a slave" because it's shorter and it emphasized that slavery was an ongoing process of subjugation rather than a mere state (especially in this case). This is standarrd practice in modern historical writing.
• I don't see the point of the long quote by Sarah Jay. It imparts no new information and is difficult to read because of the period language. Sandstein 18:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply:

The term "female African-American slave" would actually be even shorter than "African-American enslaved woman" by a few syllables, and the term "enslaved person" is longer and more cumbersome than the single-syllable word "slave", but I don't think brevity is the real issue. The problem I have is that the current fashion to use the term "enslaved" rather than "slave" stems from some belief that it signals a greater outrage at the condition. The term "slave" indicates an ongoing state of subjugation every bit as much as "enslaved" does. The problem rarely mentioned is that the use of the latter term comes at the cost of accuracy -- an "enslaved person" is a subset of "slave", it indicates someone who was free and in some fashion became a slave. The person described by the article was not "enslaved" by John Jay and it is misleading to say so -- the NY Times is hardly punctilious about such nuances -- he owned her, which should be bad enough from an ethical standpoint. An analogy is "freedman" and "free man" -- the former means a person who was once a slave and was "freed". The basic etymology of the term runs as follows:

enslave (v.): "make a slave of, reduce to slavery or bondage," 1640s, from en- (1) "make, make into" + slave (n.). Related: Enslaved; enslaving.

The longer quote is verbatim from the NY Times article from which this Wiki article largely derives. To think it too complex for the average reader seems to give too little credit. If one can navigate the Times, this shouldn't present too much of a hardship. I found the cutting and pasting to be distracting and confusing, and at first I thought the beginning was a typo -- with the "Abbe's" "attention ..." looking like one.

Sych (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sychonic, thanks for your reply. In my view, "slave" vs. "enslaved person" is a matter of style that should not be changed without compelling reason, similar to English/American spelling, see e.g. MOS:RETAIN. I also disagree that the shorter form of the quotation is more legible. I'll be requesting a third opinion at WP:3O. Sandstein 12:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I came here via WP:3O, where I have just posted a request. I agree with User:Sychonic on slave verses enslaved in the way it is used in the text. If I knew nothing about slavery in the USA I would assume that the owner had enslaved his slaves himself rather than purchasing people already enslaved. I understand enslaved as an antonym of emancipated and slave as the antonym of free. That is not to say that I would not understand an "enslaved person" is a verbose way to say "slave". However I think the current text reads better with the alterations to the words that Sychonic made (diff).

As to the quote I agree with User:Sandstein. This change is less than an improvement.

I do not watch this page so please ping me if you want my further participation here — PBS (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This was helpful, and would concede on the quote change, since PBS doesn’t see it as an improvement. I still believe the multiple quotation marks are confusing and the word “usefulness” is not a verbatim quote so is an error, but maybe that’s being too picky. I still believe the word usage is more than style and justifies the edits, as does it seems the WP:3O.

Sych (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks both, I agree with this outcome and have therefore reverted only the change in respect of the quotation. Sandstein 15:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Having read this more recent exchange. I think User:Sychonic is correct and the quotes ought to be taken of "usefulness" as it is a summary of the rest of the passage and not an extract from it. -- PBS (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)