Category talk:American slave owners

Criteria for inclusion
After the recent discussion about the potential deletion of this category, the need for the development of criteria for inclusion within this category seems to be needed. Current Wikipedia definition for American. Expanding from there as basic criterion should be acceptable:
 * The subject of the article's ownership of slaves is mentioned within the article with citations.
 * The subject of the article must meet with Wikipedia's guidelines for notability.

From there, we could go with a broad approach, a narrow approach, or somewhere in between. The number of slaves the subject owned is not really a workable criterion imo, but could be if a consensus is reached.
 * The subjet's ownership in article is more than just the fact that they owned slaves and a mention of the number of slaves they owned.
 * The problem that could develop with that is how slavery has been poorly documented beyond those basic facts, and how resources beyond a few post-modernist history works ignore prominent individuals' status as slave owners.

CaptainStegge (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Subcategorization
As this category gets more populated, it appears there will soon be a need for subcategorization. Most if seems pretty straightforward. Follow the established pattern with US geographic state names. One problem that I am having trouble finding a precedent for it anachronistic geographic subdivisions.
 * Category: Indian Territory Slave owners
 * Could work for post-removal slave owners within the Territory.

Pre-removal seems to be where a problem could form. Existing similar categories treat pre-removal in various manners. Some categories use the ceded territory as the base geographic subregion. Others use whatever nation as the base, but those are poorly subdivided and really only seem to exist for the Cherokee. Until those categories are developed, it would be easier to stick with the ceded land subcategorization scheme. CaptainStegge (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Notability
It is not the notability of the person, but the particular notability of their slave-owning (like owning a notable slave) that should determine inclusion in this category. Otherwise the category becomes as wide and meaningless as 'Horse riders' or 'People with moustaches'. Valetude (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I thoroughly disagree. The financial benefits brought reaped by the people in the categor through from owning slaves help to contribute to their status as being notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Owning another human being is not in any way comparable as far as notability as to being a rider of horses. Furthermore, owning slaves is a pretty rare occurrence in human history. Wikipedia has categories for Category:American people of English descent, Category:1809 births This is an encyclopedia. By your same logic, we should only include people in the 1809 category if them being born in 1809 is somehow notable in itself, or if their English heritage is somehow particularly .CaptainStegge (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)notable for the other category.
 * Yeah, no. He's just wrong. Slave owners weren't a category as broad as "women with children" or "carbohydrate eaters" even at the time. Similarly, silly as it might be to ethical relativists such as himself, proven slave ownership is a hugely relevant issue to many readers regardless of the figure's reason for being notable generally. — Llywelyn II   10:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

'Modern' slavery
There seems to me no virtue in separating-out modern slavery from traditional slavery. The sharing of the lists with people-smugglers and drug-gang bosses is quite logical. Valetude (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, this idea is almost unspeakably silly. Drug mules and even trafficked migrants are entirely distinct legally from chattel slaves, apart from the huge cultural differences you'd propose to ignore. — Llywelyn II   10:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

New subcategory
I've created a subcategory for people who brought enslaved people into nominally free places, like the Wisconsin Territory (where slavery was theoretically forbidden by the Northwest Ordinance), and kept them in slavery. Sadly, the first two items to populate the category are from Wisconsin: a governor and Senator; and a politician who was later elected to office as a Republican! Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Before we get into an edit war over white supremicy...
Per your edit comment : "Those are but a few exceptions to the rule which is acceptable per WP:SUBCAT". Can you point out the exceptions you're referring to?

Because my reading of the policy is that "If two categories are closely related but are not in a subset relation, then links between them can be included in the text of the category pages."

My argument is that these categories are non-nested but closely related. Specifically I wrote : "It isn't central to the category classification. I agree with you that they're strongly related as concepts, but white supremists aren't nested in the category. There are non-black slaves; and there are non-white slaveowners" Mason (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SUBCAT specifically points out that with "possibly a few exceptions" the entries in the subcategory can be exceptions to the rule, e.g. the non-white slaveowners that you referred to. Thismess (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, it seems that we are talking past each other. It sounds like you are arguing that the category is nested and that the non-white slaveowners are the exception.
 * Can you walk me through your reasoning for why they're nested and not just closely linked? Because I don't see white supremacist as a defining feature per Defining. (I'm always hesitant to make exceptions when applying WP:CONTENTIOUS labels.) Mason (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is described as such in the article White supremacy: "In the past, this ideology [white supremacy] had been put into effect through socioeconomic and legal structures such as the Atlantic slave trade", "Prior to the Civil War, many wealthy White-European Americans owned slaves; they tried to justify their economic exploitation of Black people by creating a "scientific" theory of White superiority and Black inferiority". Thismess (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you digging that up. So that information for me, just makes the case that the categories are strongly linked, but not that they're nested. The American slave owners category includes Americans who aren't "White-European Americans". If there was an equivalent category called White-European American slave owners, I'd be onboard with the nesting of categories. However, as it stands, I disagree with applying it the the entire subcategory for the reasons I already stated. Mason (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As I have stated several times, per WP:SUBCAT it is perfectly acceptable for there to be a few exceptions to the main nesting in subcategorization. Your argument violates this policy. Thismess (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that you and I are talking past each other. I have different definitions of a "few", and don't feel like this exception is a small one. There are multiple categories with a large number of people in them that your argument doesn't address other than to say that it's inconsequential and a policy violation. I can be convinced, but you're not making a convincing case. Mason (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Right now, there are: Category:Black slave owners in the United States (32); Category:Hispanic and Latino American slave owners (5+9+6); Category:Native American slave owners‎ (14+10+10). That's 86. Mason (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)