Category talk:American slave owners: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Notability: new section
Line 26: Line 26:
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.
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.
[[User:CaptainStegge|CaptainStegge]] ([[User talk:CaptainStegge|talk]]) 21:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
[[User:CaptainStegge|CaptainStegge]] ([[User talk: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'. [[User:Valetude|Valetude]] ([[User talk:Valetude|talk]]) 04:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:27, 11 April 2021

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]