Talk:Q10076267
Autodescription — slave owner (Q10076267)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “slave owner” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
slave owner⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Sv:
[edit]@Sturban: Några invändning om jag byter mellan slavägare och slavhållare, så det första blir label och det sistnämnda blir alias? 62 etc (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
use with social classification (P3716)
[edit]Follow-up of Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2022/09#Occupation=slaveholder of which I notify the participants: @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Emu, Tagishsimon, DrThneed, MassiveEartha, Animalparty: @Gamaliel, Infovarius:.
I think P3716 is a strange choice and overall worse than occupation (P106). I agree with Animalparty's classification of slaveowning as a means to an occupation or task but the argument works against social class as well as agains occupation; "tractor owner" is not a social class either. While being enslaved is a social status, being a slaveowner works differently because slaveowners can easily stop being that by selling their slaves, on the reverse people from the social classes that include slaveowners (like bourgeois and aristocrats) can easily become one by purchasing slaves. IMO "slaveowner" describes not an absolute a status (which would imply more stability) but a status relative to specific other people, in a way analogous to "employer", "father", or "enemy".
Then what makes it weird is that because P3716 is a relatively little used property, in most cases people will get "slaveowner" as their only social status which is not at all representative of their overall place in society. For example Muhammad (Q9458). Honestly seeing "status = slaveowner" in his infobox looks like an intentional attack on his reputation (which was nobody's intent, but this is the effect).
I do not know a perfect solution, but by default I would suggest moving to subject has role (P2868) as there is a precedent with holocaust victims, with reverting to P106 as a second choice. GrandEscogriffe (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- My first question would be if social classification (P3716) is really so bad and subject has role (P2868) so good that we should reverse the current consensus. If both are rather lackluster fill-ins because we lack a better property or a better modeling solution, we might as well keep the current system. If display issues are the problem, just change the programming of the infobox. --Emu (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what I have just done on French wikipedia's Infobox Biographie2. This item specifically is now excluded when found in P3716.
- I'm not sure subject has role (P2868) is much better in itself. It has less impact because it does not make "slaveowner" fill a place where the user might expect something else (in the case of social classification (P3716), an actual social class).
- To elaborate on the point that slaveowning is a status relative to specific other people: maybe there is room for a property "has held as slave"? It would be especially useful when there are individually notable victims of slavery. When not the value might be "unknown value" or a generic item for enslaved people. GrandEscogriffe (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)