This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
Members of this project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The Abolition page takes one possible way of talking about abolitionism, a mere historical list that accounts when slavery was banned in various places. This avoids the difficulty of the argument of evangelicals vs deists/agnostics.
Crimes against humanity always promote weird split ideas. Europe mostly banned slavery within its borders by let's say 1500, and moreover a person, even a person of 'lesser race' could not be a slave in many European countries. Yet outside, the lesser races were 'blessed' by inclusion via slavery.
As to slaves offshore, there was a debate. For example, the Catholic Church was split as to whether these men had souls and whether they could be enslaved. Over the course of about 500 years, the Church rocked back and forth as liberals and conservatives succeeded one another in power. What actually happened historically was that the Barbary Slavers had taken about 2 million people from England, France, Spain, Italy, Greece and Circassia to be slaves in the Middle East along with their burgeoning African trade. The English and others simply took up this trade when they developed naval might, because slaves were the goods that African Empires offered them.
In the period say 1730-1830 roughly, the Europeans learned that some lesser races -the Indians and Chinese, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists- had produced works of thought that greatly exceeded anything Europe had produced. There was acceptance, interest, rejection and reaction. (There still is. You find many, many Arts academics who know nothing of,and have no respect for, Eastern thought. The Guardian recently produced a list of 'the 100 greatest non-fiction books in history' that was just about all Europeans and Anglophones of 1700-2000 with barely anything outside Europe or not written in English. Even Classical civilizations got barely a nod. And the British say they are the greatest literary nation in history when they can't even come close to the Chinese.)
Anyway anyway. When slavery was abolished, every mainstream church except the German Lutherans were in favour of slavery (just a bit later in Australia, the German Lutherans were the only ones that did not accept and process aboriginal child abductees - slaves in all but name). I don't know if it affects it that these churches were all setting up lucrative child-kidnapping exercises in Europe at the time. The people that were against it were the Quakers and Evangelicals, and the people that didn't dare go public about their religious views, but were anti-Christian or anti-church. Abolitionism was greatly enhanced and empowered by people like Rousseau and Voltaire and Franklin. My point is that these Deists and such had huge power. The Evangelicals and Quakers were mostly powerless. Pitt, a Deist or Atheist, hived off the job of promoting abolitionism onto Wilberforce, a nobody. The actual power came from Pitt - and Fox, probably the most left-wing leader ever to sit in an English parliament. People had to be careful what they said. For example non-Christians were not allowed at Oxford or Cambridge until about 1870 or so. These men had to hide their beliefs.
A lot of these anti-church people hid behind the Evangs and Qs and abolitionism was basically about attacking church power, I believe. I can see that the churches were making a lot of money out of supporting slavery somehow. I can see how it would be channeled in the present day but I can't get my hands on it back then. Now it is the same. Churches have become right-wing, and their voices of skepticism about Climate Change are supported by massive money from people like the Koch brothers. It's the same process.
On the Wikipedia page about Christianity and anti-slavery there is or was the ridiculous statement that abolitionism was something that 'could only have come about within Christianity'. I pointed out to them that Jainism, the Han Court, Buddhism and the Upanishads had forbade slavery 2,300 years before. The great support of slavery was Islam and Christianity paid a large part too.
Christianity has somehow hijacked the debate and made out the dialogue as the exact opposite of what really happened. It is the same with Women, Children, and Human Rights, which the churches opposed with gritted teeth all the way while the anti-Christians pushed it. This shocks me. As a devout Buddhist, I expect Christian churches to be full of people of genuine spirituality. I know and like one bishop of Melbourne. The Anglican church has been most helpful with my projects. But then, the people I know mostly represent liberal tendencies that are being suppressed in a conservative Church.
So to sum up, my inclination is to rout out this whole page on Abolitionism and design a whole new one. We need to completely change the way this period is seen. The way it is being presented is wrong.
It is the same with Early Christianity. It was very cosmopolitan. Jerusalem was a bustling cosmopolitan city, probably as multicultural as it is now. Buddhist monks for example would have often passed through there and the Christian monks are undoubtedly based on them. Jerusalem was not the east of the west, it was the west of the east of the third most populated area in the world (after India and China).
Abolitionism requires a great deal more research, because I didn't know that slavery had been banned within so many European countries much earlier, and I have to find out what religious influence was on that. Five years ago I wold have dived right into it. But now I am old and so ill that the best I can do is make the suggestion. You who really understand European History will no doubt see that I am but a tyro in these matters.
Indigocat (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigocat (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The following RfC may be of interest to members of this group: [1]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#RfC about the first sentence, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. We could really use some outside input. – Anne drew 19:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in an RfC at Talk:Antifa_(United_States)#RfC to add a new section Atsme Talk 📧 04:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The RfC located here may be of interest to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
this RfC may be of interet to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
What are current practices (and opinions) about references to holders of offices where change is probable? Wouldn’t be wise to fetch names and links from Wikidata (e.g. using ((LinkedLabel)))?
Two cases where the currently dominant system of “hard-coded” wiki links performs poorly:
Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
A new WikiProject has been proposed where your knowledge and competence could be very useful.
You are invited to join the discussion about this proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Technical standards. Thanks. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
There are multiple requests for move and other discussions open about naming of some articles about communism that might be of interest to members of this project:
Thanks. --MarioGom (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
A request to re-title an article which may be of interest to members of this project is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Human rights is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human rights until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 19:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion which may be of interest to members of this project can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
A formal request has been received to merge: New Conservatism (China) into Neoauthoritarianism (China); dated: 17:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC). Input from interested editors' is requested >>>Here<<<. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 17:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, |
There is a discussion happening at Talk:Right-libertarianism about whether to rename or delete or merge or otherwise make major changes to that article, which seems to me that it is really about libertarianism more generally and so needs eyes from a wider selection of editors than just those who happen to be watching that article. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Any major legislation that's on an interesting topic like drug policy or gun control will tend to be reported on in national media, but is that enough? Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
We have a number of very long lists of endorsements of candidates. Many of the entries in these lists are primary sources - tweets by the endorsers themselves, for example. As we tick over towards the next US election cycle, I think it would be worth establishing a guideline for endorsement lists that follows Wikipedia's content policiees: no inclusion unless there is a reliable independent source to establish the truth and significance of the endorsement. I doubt anyone in the world cares if a party hack tweets support for the party's candidate in any particular race, this is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information, right? Jon Favreau (speechwriter) tweets endorsement of $DEMOCRATICCANDIDATE: Nobody is surprised, nobody cares. Jon Favreau gives an interview to the NYT in which he endorses some specific policy platform of $CANDIDATE: Interesting and encyclopedic. Simply listing every party-aligned individual who self-publishes support for any candidate is not encyclopedic, and can safely be left to the campaign website itself IMO. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
stalled debate regarding a merge of Anarcho-tyranny into Samuel T. Francis as a neologism invariably invoked in reference to its originator. Could use third-party opinions. Articles tagged. >>>Discussion Here<<< czar 02:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC) Samuel T. Francis
Need your thoughts on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)#How_soon_can_someone_post_about_the_next_election? Thanks. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)