Talk:Slavery in Libya

closely connected with the wider context of slavery in north Africa
This, and the following sentence, is verbose and probably un-necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Illustration of article
I removed the image from this article, because it violates Wikipedia's image use policy. Here is a quote from the policy, for reference:

Not all legally obtained photographs of individuals are acceptable. The following types of image are normally considered unacceptable:
 * Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject
 * Those that are unfairly obtained
 * Those that unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life

All three criteria apply here.

I welcome suggestions for an alternative illustration which does not violate Wikipedia's image use policy. The article on sexual slavery comes up against similar moral problems, but it has several illustrations which do not violate the policy. Perhaps an image along similar lines could be used here. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * In fact, there are some images used on the Arab slave trade article, which could be appropriate here. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There is an interesting image and accompanying discussion here. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The point has been raised in an edit summary that the image was not deleted from Commons. However, Wikipedia is not Commons.  What is at issue here is whether this image should be used to illustrate this article.  I do not think that the image supports the text.  I think we should find an alternative which is both informative for this topic, and less ethically problematic. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

An IP editor reinstated this image earlier this month. I concur with Freelance Intellectual above that such use of the image is dubious and of bad taste, and have removed it. Deryck C. 00:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You may want to review the discussion here and also previously at User_talk:Freelance_Intellectual where Freelance Intellectual and I discussed this in much detail in 2019. Deryck C. 21:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. Its problematic that it is unknown if the woman was a slave or not. I assumed it was known. Had it been known, I would be certain that it deserved its place in the article (supplemented by more images of other slaves, if they are any). But since it seem not to be known, then I am more uncertain about the issue. I will not insist it remain in the article because of this reason, yiu may remove it if you wish. Thank you for directing me to that discussion.--Aciram (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)