Talk:Harriet Jacobs

Requested move 27 November 2019

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 Old history which was formerly at Harriet Jacobs can now be found at Harriet Ann Jacobs (closed by non-admin page mover) Wug·a·po·des​ 03:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Harriet Ann Jacobs → Harriet Jacobs – The middle name "Ann" is dubious. Her biographer and editor Jean Fagan Yellin consistently calls her "Harriet Jacobs". Not a single of the many documents cited in Yellin's Harriet Jacobs. A Life. has a middle name "Ann". Also the inscription on the tombstone simply reads "Harriet Jacobs". Rsk6400 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I think "Ann" can be added in the lead, that's what we do to lot's of other articles.--Less Unless (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Significant page history at target. Dekimasuよ! 09:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Did she have a middle name ?

She is often called "Harriet Ann Jacobs" (see the first footnote in the article), but I don't know where the middle name comes from. Yellin used "Harriet Ann" in 2000, but by 2004 she had changed to "Harriet", without giving an explanation. I am under the impression that the middle name was invented long after Jacobs's death, but by whom ? Can anybody help me ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Assessment

I spent some time re-writing the article, mostly based on Yellin's biography and Yellin's edition which seem to be the most extensive works on Jacobs. Now I hope the article is no longer C-class, and would be happy, if some other users agreed to call it "B". --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The cottage and other recent changes

@Sarahadkins001:, sorry again for reverting most of your recent changes. Let me explain my reasons: You took the story surrounding the cottage from the summary at docsouth. Comparing that source to Yellin's biography, I'm very confident that Yellin's biography is much more reliable (see WP:RS).

Jacobs definitely was no advocate. And "former enslaved woman" doesn't match the category "occupation".

I changed the order of the last two paragraphs, because I think Yellin's statement should remain at the end as the conclusion of the section. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I also removed the paragraph on the impact on recent discussions. The source you gave was written by a student who in part relied on earlier versions of this very article. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Image

Was lucky enough to find a scan of an original carte-de-visite of her. I think, given it's the only known formal photograph, it would be wise to keep the mount as part of its presentation - though we can always use {{CSS image crop}} in the article to crop out the mount in the article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 03:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

African-American or American ?

@Indy beetle: The question whether to call a person "American" or "African-American" is a sensitive issue. If it were not, we wouldn't have this discussion. Anyway, using an edit summary is considered normal and polite. Her being "African-American" was very important for her life and for her book. In 1864, she said in a speech that before the Emancipation Proclamation the American flag meant nothing to "us" (i.e. the black people). Her only book was published in 1861, so in the light of that speech we can assume that the US flag at that time meant nothing to her. In her native North Carolina, not even male African-Americans were full citizens (i.e. able to vote) at the time of her death. One anthology containing part of her work is called "Anthology of African-American woman writers". --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: I'm not contesting whether her being African-American is "important", it's the fact that it is an ethnic category, not a national one. It was important that John F. Kennedy was of Irish ancestry, yet we do not call him an "Irish American" in the first sentence of the lead of his bio. Heck, it is important to understand almost every president of the United States as white, yet we do not open those articles with "X was a white/European-American". Even the exception to that rule, Barack Obama, is not called an "African-American politician" in the first sentence of his bio. In summary, standard practice for the first sentence of the lead of bios is to identify people by nationality, not ethnicity or race. To do so is either to suggest that either someone is "special" for being not whatever the general ethnic expectation for their country is and thus deserves some sort of accommodation, or that they aren't "true" Americans/Brits/Kenyans/etc. and thus their national status needs qualification. The latter is the greater problem. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the example of Kennedy or other politicians is a bit far-fetched, since politicians should represent the whole nation. But in the case of an autobiographer like Jacobs, her whole work was deeply influenced by her ethnicity. That's why we speak of African-American literature and have an article about it, while we don't have an article about "African-American politics". I don't think there is a rule based on WP consensus that you could base your claim on that We define people by nationality, not ethnicity. The article and the lede have to reflect the individual life of the person described. In Jacobs's case her being African-American is surely one of the most important pieces of information that the reader of the article needs to get a basic understanding of her (and that's definitely not the case with Kennedy).

We cannot ask her anymore about her own preferences, but she left us some pieces of reflection on her own identity. I already mentioned her views regarding the American flag. When she uses the words "our people" or "our race", she refers to black Americans. The very last event mentioned in her book is her uncle's death. Her uncle, a freedman who died before the Civil War in North Carolina, was called a "citizen" in an obituary in a local newspaper. Jacobs comments on this word: "So they called a colored man a citizen! Strange words to be uttered in that region!" In the next paragraph (the last but second of the whole book) she speaks of her employer "who pities my oppressed people", thus once again indicating that she doesn't belong to the American people, at least not in a simple way. "We the People of the United States" had excluded her from the American nationality, and the laws didn't even protect her life - she mentions cases of slaves who had been murdered, among them her aunt to whom she was close.

Yes, there was something special about Jacobs, and her literary work cannot be imagined without that "special" treatment she received. She called herself a "negro", and I think "African American" is the best translation of that word into modern English. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence in the lead is not about identity. Jacobs was American despite whether she wanted to be and despite what most of contemporary white America wanted her to be. Elie Wiesel is Jewish, and indeed his work cannot be imagined without his "special" status, and yet the opening for his bio is "a Romanian-born American writer, professor, political activist, Nobel laureate, and Holocaust survivor", not "a Jewish writer". -Indy beetle (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Also do be mindful of the trend. Godefroid Munongo was a Congolese from the Nyamwezi ethnic group, and in fact tried to rebel against the Congolese state at least partly with the aim of restoring some of the former glory of his ethnic groups social predominance in the southern Congo. To say "Godefroid Munongo was a Nyamwezi politician" would be meaningless to most people on this side of the globe and basically put ethnic category above his nationality, even if he eschewed it for much of his political life. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Nationality depends on the place where you are born, but it also depends on the law. That's why we don't call Ted Cruz a "Canadian politician". And it was not "most of contemporary white America" that denied her the nationality of the country of her birth, it was the law. That's why I cited the first words of the constitution. In many cases, a person has a complex identity. Why do you want to apply a simple rule ? Elie Wiesel was not denied American citizenship, but it was conferred on him although he was not born on American soil. I don't quite understand your point regarding Munongo. "African American" is a term that is understood all over the world, even by people who only have a basic knowledge of English, while most people outside Congo (or Tanzania) probably never heard of the Nyamwezi. I could imagine to call him "Congolese politician of the Nyamwezi ethnic group", because that might present more useful information to the reader than just "Congolese politician". We don't want to follow strict rules, we want to inform our readers. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Nationality is not Citizenship. I think almost everyone would agree that Jacobs was "American" in nationality. Various regimes deny people the rights of citizenship all the time. Mind you she remained in the United States after the Civil War in which any legal question of her citizenship on account of her color or previous status as a slave would have been absolved. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I know the difference between those two terms, and I meant what I said. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Problems according to MOS

@Drmies: In your edit summary a few days ago, you said Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout. there are problems here--the abundance of citations to Yellin, Harriet Jacobs, when the book is cited in the "Further reading". These many citations should be abbreviated and the book listed in a bibliography section. - Regarding citations, I only found Editors may use any citation method they choose. Are there other problems you see, apart from the citation problem ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Rsk6400, if you're suggesting that because you chose something, it should stand, that's not what the MOS proposes. Having a book cited in the notes AND listed in "Further reading" makes no sense. Having the same long citation, "Jean Fagan Yellin: Harriet Jacobs: A Life. New York 2004, p. 126" in the notes some 55 times (I may have lost count) is...sorry, it's ridiculous and a serious burden to the reader. And I note that sometimes the title is not italicized. There's also the citations to Yellin's The Harriet Jacobs Family Papers (which also occurs at least once with unitalicized title), a long and burdensome citation, and there are citations to "Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. Written by Herself, p. 253, retrieved September 19, 2019", which for some reason are NOT given a full-length citation like Yellin's book and have an unimportant and distracting "retrieved" date in them. And is that the same text as what I find in note 94, "H.Jacobs, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. Ed. J.F.Yellin, Cambridge 2000"? (With no italics, faulty spacing, etc.) So if that is your system, it's inconsistent and confusing and does the reader no service. The solution is easy: a system like in Charing Cross tube station, to pull the first FA candidate I could find. Nikkimaria, how does the citation system in this article strike you? Drmies (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Agree that we shouldn't have the same book being cited and also listed in Further reading, and that there are many inconsistencies in the formatting of citations. As to the larger question of repeating long citations: technically that is permissible, but for the reasons articulated by Drmies I would suggest using a different style here, whether {{rp}}, {{sfn}}, or just manual short cites. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Drmies: I'm not suggesting anything. I asked in good faith, hoping to get an explanation by a very experienced editor about an edit summary the meaning of which I didn't fully understand. While I agree with you that the expression "enslaved by" is appropriate, I disagree on the appropriateness of calling the work of many hours "ridiculous". --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• That's all you got out of my message, which took me a half an hour to research and write? I repeat, one of the main problems with the article is its arcane, inconsistent, and cumbersome system of citations. You have just been offered some good advice on what system to use by someone who has reviewed and written hundreds of GAs and FAs, and following their advice will improve the article. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your addition stating that her freedom, in a free state, had to be bought: I now understand why you think it important and totally agree with you. Still, I changed the order of the statements to match the order of events, changed "a benefactor" to "Mrs. Willis" because her husband is mentioned and also because I don't know whether she really acted as a benefactor or if she was fulfilling the promise she had given to John S. when she convinced Jacobs to accept the position. How shall we call Norcom's daughter ? I feel that "legal owner" has the advantage of reminding the reader of the barbaric nature of the laws of that time. But I'm open to other solutions and I also have some doubts whether N.P.Willis was important enough in her life to be mentioned in the lede. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Just shortened some references, will do more in the next days. I'm aiming at MLA-style, because I've been hating author-year short footnotes for more than 30 years now. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Frustrating discussions with a user who has been blocked indefinitely shortly afterwards

Excess detail, often confusingly worded There's too much of an effort in this article to include every detail of the Harriet Jacobs's saga perfectly, and instead the story becomes quite confusing. I would suggest simplifying the whole thing. Summarize rather than trying to include every twist and turn in the story. Also, the he/she references are often unclear but that is partly a factor of trying to say too much. Tbobbed (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC) @Tbobbed: I don't know if this is meant as an explanation for the maintenance tags you set. Both tags refer to WP:EPSTYLE, which says The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate. It doesn't say anything about excess detail, nor about unclear pronouns. On the contrary, the next section states that Different readers want varying amounts of detail. This means that, while some readers might profit from your idea, others would loose the chance to find the details they need. Please remember that this article is listed as level-5 vital (admittedly, I put it on that list, but it has stood there uncontested for a year now), and that Jacobs has become a popular classroom subject. Please remember that tag bombing is a form of disruptive editing. Before re-adding the tags, I'd like to ask you to read WP:RESPTAG. That said, I also want to point out that I think that two of your recent edits pointed to real problems (i.e. the book should be mentioned in the first sentence and "Mrs Willis") and that I'd be thankful if you could give an example for the pronoun problem you mentioned. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC) "Classic", "enslaver" and other issues of the lede @Tbobbed: Why did you remove that her book is called a "classic" ? The lede should summarize the most important points of the article, including those that establish her notability. On the other hand, I don't see a reason to include her early literacy. The age at which a future writer became literate is not normally included in the lede of their article. The use of "enslaver" in the sense of "master" may be a new development in the English language, but it is much simpler than willed to a minor in 1825, she came under the legal control of a married man. I originally used the word "master", another editor changed it to "enslaver". I checked the use in Ibram X. Kendi's "Stamped from the beginning" (2016): 88 times, mostly in the sense of "master" / "slaveholder". I also removed Willis from the lede. The reason for this was that you pointed out the awkwardness of "Mrs Willis", while I didn't like the expression "Willis's wife", because she was much more important to Jacobs than he was. Since many persons who played a more important part in Jacobs's life (Douglass, the Post couple, Child) are not mentioned in the lede, Willis shouldn't be, either. Why did you change "autobiography" to "autobiographic work" ? And, yes, let me be frank: I don't think you should have changed the lede in the first place without even reading what the article said about her grandmother's house and her relationship with Norcom. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC) I don't want to get bogged down with every complaint you've made here but I'll respond to some of them. Jacobs's early literacy is important because most slaves didn't learn to read and write at an early age, in fact MOST FREE people in the early 1800's didn't learn to read and write at all. Thus the fact that she became literate early in her life gives the reader a clue as to how she was able to produce a notable literary work; one, incidentally, which didn't need to be ghost-written as some might otherwise suspect. I changed "autobiography" to "autobiographical work" because the book was written about halfway through her life, so it is far from a FULL autobiography. I think you will find that a lot of writers use terms such as "autobiographical work" rather than "autobiography" when referring to works that focus on a slice of the author's life. I included the "willed to a minor ..." introduction to her sexual harassment to concisely show that, as a slave, she was subject to be sold or willed to another master, that this is what happened to her, and that it was this new master who sexually pressured her. Simply saying that her "enslaver" sexually harassed her doesn't get those ideas across. Finally "enslaver" is just plain awkward and I would avoid using it in any case. Tbobbed (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Just adding one more thing. Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl is a notable work. No need to puff the product. Avoid peacock descriptions. Tbobbed (talk) For solving the question whether a word can be used in a specific context, a search at Google Books is often useful. You didn't restore "autobiographical work", still you might want to look at the results of these searches: "Harriet Jacobs autobiography", "Harriet Jacobs autobiographical". For the use of "enslaver": "Harriet Jacobs enslaver". For the use of "classic": As I already told you at Talk:United Daughters of the Confederacy, WP follows mainstream scholarship. For a claim that in most cases is uncontroversial, one source should be enough, escpecially when coming from a distinguished scholar. That Yellin is Jacobs's biographer is no justification for assuming that she is biased, but makes her an expert, thus increasing her authority. Finally, if you look at the examples given at peacock, you should notice that all nearly are adjectives and pretty difficult to define, while "classic" in our article is used as a noun and also has a scholarly definition. Ironically, "notable" is in that list, while "classic" is not. I'm not sure whether you noticed the sentence Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance. - the word "classic" is attributed to Yellin. Her literacy: The lede cannot anticipate all suspicions a reader acquainted with the situation of literacy in the early 19th century might have. The importance of her early literacy is also diminished by the fact that her daughter had to correct her orthography and Child had to do some editing. Her being willed to a minor: Neither Jacobs nor Yellin emphasize this point. The lede already contains at least two facts showing the enormity of the crime of enslaving human beings: The threat to sell her children and that her legal owner had to be "paid off". Of course, if you want to answer to the above remarks, I will read and consider your answers carefully. But please remember that I'm free to answer or not to answer, and that my possible silence will be no reason to assume that I consent to your views or proposed changes. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC) @Tbobbed: Please note that the word "enslaver" was used by two other editors of this article, one of them a very experienced one, here and here. It was rejected by none except you, so I think we can assume consensus that the word may be used. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Rsk6400: Your message to my talk page was ridiculous. It is obvious that you want to exert ownership over this article and dislike getting advice, so I'm not going to waste much more of my time with you. "Classic" is not a big issue, but it is definitely "Peacock" and thus gratuitous. This is an encyclopedia article not an opinion piece. "Enslaver", especially in the context it is used, is a poor choice of words. Jacobs, in fact, did make a point of having to go from one mistress who treated her humanely and helped her learn to read and write, to another master who would sexually harass her. So a brief lead reference to her earlier slave life in contrast to the one which began with Norcom is fine. Happy editing. Tbobbed (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Note that Tbobbed has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. --Rsk6400 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline at the end of this article is... quite nonstandard. I'm not sure if it is appropriate to include. Further, I would note that the listings are mostly based on a single source, footnoted only once, and open to potential accusations of copyvio. Additionally, because it is not footnoted line by line, there is a strong chance that well-meaning editors would add information not provided in that source and, therefore, the integrity of that footnote and the entire section is compromised. Unless someone can provide samples of recognized quality biography articles with a similar timeline, I would propose removing it entirely. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Addendum to my own comment: I suppose not removing it entirely but providing the original source as an external link would allow the information to remain accessible here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Midnightdreary: I'll catch the opportunity to ask your opinion on something that I've been confused about for some time now: Proper usage of slave / enslaved person and master / enslaver / slaveholder / owner. In my understanding all of these terms are acceptable, although the use of "enslaver" in the sense of "slaveholder" is a recent development. I want to keep language simple, but I also see the need of reminding our readers of the humanity of the enslaved human beings. So I try to use "enslaved person / enslaver" at least sometimes, but not consistently. I'm not a native speaker and I've been criticized from both sides. I'd really appreciate any advice.

To be honest, I created the timeline when I still had very little experience, and even today I don't know of any other biography article with a similar timeline. Still, I can answer to your specific concerns: The left column is based on the "Chronology" given in Yellin's 2000 edition, but certainly no copyvio, since it is much shorter. The right column is not really based on the reference given at the top (that's why I'll remove the ref right now, keeping it here for one-click access), but the source helped me in some cases to chose which events might be notable and which not. Even where I followed the referenced source, I changed the wording. E.g. the source has The Supreme Court refuses to grant freedom to Dred Scott, a slave living on free soil in Missouri Territory, our article has Supreme Court ruling on Dred Scott: Blacks had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect". As in other timelines, verifiability is provided by links to the respective articles. Since the source contains some errors (cf. the statement on Dred Scott), I'd also be reluctant to have an external link to it. BTW: The source doesn't mention The Raven - horrible fault ;-)

Timelines as such are common in Wikipedia, they help our readers seeing developments and parallels ("Didn't know there was slavery at the time of Moby-Dick, now I understand that Pip character") and also not to get lost in the confusing events of a person's life. A life-context-timeline in a biography article is admittedly a novelty, but why delete it if it might help our readers ? Of course, further advice is welcome. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid one of my biggest concerns is not addressed in the above response: What prevents anyone from editing this timeline to the point where it no longer has any connection to the cited source? Ultimately, it's entirely cherry-picked anyway and, therefore, 100% subjective and potentially unencyclopedic. Further, I question your comment, "timelines as such are common in Wikipedia". Can you provide examples? I do not recall seeing any featured or good biographical articles that utilize a timeline like this (and I should note my bias that I have been the primary editor on several and have never used a timeline). I understand some might find it "useful" but that does not make it standard practice. As for your other comment, "enslaver" and "enslaved" are relatively new usages and, as such, I think are taking some time to get a foothold universally. Nevertheless, I value the reasons for their usage and would highly recommend adopting the terms. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

When mentioning "timelines as such" I was thinking about Timeline of voting rights in the United States and the like (feel free to correct me if my usage of "as such" was not correct). Those timelines share the problem of potential cherry-picking. What is notable enough to be included in such a timeline ? Of course, it's a subjective choice to include Jackson and Lincoln in our timeline, but not Fillmore. Still I don't think 100 % subjective, since most editors would agree that the former two presidents are much more important than the latter. As I understand it, that's editorial judgment / common sense.

I'm not sure whether I understood you correctly regarding the "cited source". I thought you were talking about the xroads.virginia.edu one, which I should never have added. If you were talking about Yellin's Chronology, a possible solution would be to reference each line (except lines where the base in the article is clear, like birth dates).

Thanks for your advice on "enslaved". I'll follow it. Would you also recommend dropping "slave / master / slaveholder / owner" completely, or is a mixed use preferable ? Change "slave narratives" / "Nat Turner's slave rebellion" to "... of enslaved people" ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems the conversation has veered from my original intent. I will no longer pursue this point. Thank you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Gilbert Studios photograph of Harriet Jacobs.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 7, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-03-07. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 11:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

La Wally is an opera in four acts by composer Alfredo Catalani, to a libretto by Luigi Illica, first performed at La Scala, Milan, in 1892. The story is set in the Austrian Tyrol where the heroine Wally is in love with Giuseppe Hagenbach. However, her father, Stromminger, wants her to marry Vincenzo Gellner. The opera concludes with Hagenbach and Wally pledging their love for each other, but being killed by an avalanche. La Wally was Catalani's last opera. This 1892 illustration by Adolfo Hohenstein depicts the Act I costume design for the title character Wally.

Painting credit: Adolfo Hohenstein; restored by Adam Cuerden

Recently featured:

• Tirumala limniace
• Mohawkite
• Isambard Kingdom Brunel

Too many images

I think there are too many extraneous and tangential images cluttering this article. Agree or disagree? --Animalparty! (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Which are the ones you'd like to remove ? Rsk6400 (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

'Delilah Horniblow, enslaved by the Horniblow family'

This sounds to me as if the Horniblows had been the ones who originally made her a slave. I presume that she had been born a slave and that the people who originally made her ancestors slaves (had 'enslaved' them) were some West African chieftains and/or European slave-traders. The Horniblows were just her owners at the moment. Maybe this wording is meant to be a way to make their ownership of a slave sound more violent and thus more blameworthy or something? In any case, it seems to blur the distinction between different meanings and different factual claims. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiktionary has the definition "To make subservient; to strip one of freedom; enthrall."[1] Since human beings are not subservient by nature, people like the Horniblows had to use a lot of openly or covertly violent methods to make them subservient. And, yes, these methods were considered blameworthy even in those days, that's why enslavers so often used euphemistic language and outright lies. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

What Wiktionary gives is not a definition, but synonyms, and the first one of them expresses the figurative use and not the literal one. Here's a real definition given by the online Oxford Learner's Dictionaries: 'to make somebody the property of another person who they are forced to work for and obey'. To 'enslave' someone really means to make someone a slave, and 'slave' isn't just anyone subservient, it's a legal social status that a given society officially ascribes to an individual, just as 'slaveowner', 'serf', 'vassal', 'nobleman', 'king', 'employer', 'employee', 'servant' etc. are such statuses. The maintenance and management of all these statuses occasionally requires violence, but that doesn't mean that the people in question are constantly ennobled, crowned and employed anew. It's a basic fact of history that, until a certain period, being a slaveowner was neither illegal nor generally 'considered blameworthy', and neither was the use of violence to make your slaves subservient.

Specifically, the status of 'slave' means that the individual is the property of another person according to the laws of the society in question. You are legally made a slave when you are first given the social status of property. Whatever violent methods your owners subsequently use to make you subservient are legally just forms of managing their property, not ways of making you their property in the first place. You would still be legally their property even if, theoretically, they chose to let you not be subservient at all. Thus, 'enslaver' is just not an accepted synonym of 'slaveowner'.

We can't act as if slaves during all the existence of slavery were just modern people kidnapped and held illegally, by sheer violence, by some gangsters as e.g. in present-day human trafficking and forced prostitution. Ignoring the laws of the society and period we're talking about and adopting new word uses to express the norms and moral judgements of our own is inappropriate. Our views of human nature and its implications for what is appropriate in social structure are no justification for that; these, unlike different societies' actually existing laws and norms, are always subjective and debatable. By the same logic, we could refer to any king of the past as 'a dictator' (since their rule wasn't democratically legitimate from our point of view), to any feudal lord as 'a robber' (since their inherited privilege was also unjust), we could use 'rape' to refer to all sex in marriage from before the late 20th century, when laws against marital rape were adopted (because the wife was in no position to withhold consent before that time), and ditto for all historical sex under our modern age of consent, we could even call all capitalists 'thieves' if we're Marxists, etc. Such confusion of social criticism and actual legal reality is just ahistorical and unreasonable. Things like replacing 'slaveowner' with 'enslaver' look like some kind of pointless and symbolical linguistic political activism forcing an already open door. Everyone has long agreed that slavery was bad, there's no need to change the language use now to express that, and the important and urgent issues to deal with lie elsewhere.--87.126.21.225 (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Odd use of idiom

"...the distance as the crow flies between the two houses was only 600 feet (180 m)." Any reason why this sentence uses a WP:IDIOM? Why not just say the distance between the two houses was only 600 feet? Muzilon (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The two houses were on different streets, so walking distance was considerably longer. So I used that idiom in order to stress that it was not walking distance. But I'd welcome any suggestion for a better wording. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How about "The distance between the two houses was (at the shortest point) only 600 feet"? Muzilon (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure. To me, "at the shortest point" sounds like "between the south-east corner of Norcom's and the north-west corner of her grandmother's house". Rsk6400 (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)