Talk:Irish slaves myth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Talk

This is where you're supposed to discuss these matters, ATL. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realise you were going to use caps. You need to discuss your change in order for it to be accepted. You haven't done that. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The irony of that is hilarious, a consensus has already been reached on the talk page of the page it redirects to. Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Moved from Irish slaves myth talk page Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sigh. Alfie, Claíomh Solais, Apollo The Logician, and myself all appear to agree that the Irish slaves myth page should be redirected to Irish indentured servants (but with the content preserved/improved as a subsection there). You appear to be the only one who opposes this course of action, so I'm not sure you're in a position to claim that anyone's actions were against consensus. I was really hoping you would see the potential for incorporating the "myth" part into a broader history of the subject (your opposition is puzzling to me, because the RS I am finding mostly support the idea that it's incorrect to think of Irish servants as "slaves.") Do we really need a formal move/merge discussion? The result is going to be the same... seems like a waste of time/energy for all concerned. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes we fucking do. You could have avoided all this bullshit if you'd had the courtesy to get in contact with the article's creator, it's not like you didn't know who that was. Why didn't you just create Irish indentured servants and then make the argument to have Irish slaves myth redirect there? It was a really dick move to first move the article, and then completely obliterate its content. Your coddling of CS' conspiracy theories and ATL's jingoism only sinks you lower in my view. You've acted in very bad faith. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Do everyone a favour and read this WP:CONSENSUS. Also what jingoism? Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok a) no one "obliterated" the article's content, it's still right there. b) please don't accuse me (or anyone) of "coddling conspiracy theories" or acting in bad faith. That is obviously not the case, and you're exhibiting ownership behavior here. Relax, we can talk about it and come to a resolution I'm sure - but the edit warring is disruptive, and might very well end up getting you blocked. Please stop. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not obliterating your content; I've left it alone. I've no problem with anyone editing Irish slaves myth in good faith, but what's happening here is way beyond that. Please relax, and stop: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Then we can talk about it. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, now you're making me nauseous, Fyddlestix. When you say my content is still there, you direct me to a completely different passage where your colleague presents Holocaust deniers as "revisionist". You can fuck right off with that. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Please WP:OWN there is no requirement to consult an article creator, or give that creator any special status ----Snowded ^TALK 19:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no requirement to follow WP:BRD either. I'm not looking for any special status and it's disingenuous to imply I am. I'm just bemused at the combined action of moving the page and completely altering the content. I could see the logic in one of them, even if I wouldn't agree with either. The combination of both I simply cannot understand. I don't notice you highlighting WP:BRD here; horses for courses, eh? Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I actually did think that the content was the same, but I see now that I was wrong - looks like it was altered after the move and I didn't notice (I'm certainly not the one who made those changes). Sorry. But I don't see how/why that requires a wholesale revert of the move, surely the solution is to work on that section until it's NPOV, rather than to wholesale revert the move. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot I don't admire about your methods, but I knew without checking that you weren't the source of that...whatever it is. If you believed there were POV problems with Irish slaves myth, was the solution surely not to work on it until it was NPOV, rather than a wholesale move? I agree there should be an Irish indentured servants article, even if I'm not happy with the state of it currently. I may even, at some point, agree that Irish slaves myth redirect there and its current content be a section of that article. But I'm not going along with a fait accompli. Try WP:BRD, and argue your case on its merits. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

As this change is controversial, a broader consensus should be solicited at WP:RM or WP:RFD. And let's stop the bickering. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

As Fyddlestix said elsewhere, it's probably best to talk things through first. Now that we've had a week off, I hope the discussion can be more fruitful than previously. Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

What I'd suggest is that Irish slaves myth is worked as it's own article (there is no problem restoring the content, per policy, as no RM or AfD was conducted), with an appropriate "see main article" link from the "American identity politics" section of Irish indentured servants. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This suggestion has already been shot down, it was almost universally opposed. No point in wasting anyones time with it again just because you donnt like the verdict. Apollo The Logician (talk)

That's good news about the policy, Bastún. I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It is still 4 to 2Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You're still new, Apollo The Logician, so can be forgiven for not knowing about or understanding various policies and procedures such as actually using merge discussion templates. It's also wise to avoid hyperbole. "This suggestion has already been shot down, it was almost universally opposed" - in an unadvertised "discussion" involving four people?

That said, Alfie Gandon, it'd require expansion beyond the three paragraphs and four references. Might be an idea to work on it in a sandbox prior to undoing the redirect? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Ironic considering your activity on the Euroscepticism in Ireland pagge. You deleted content without proper discussion. Take your own advice, pal Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Apollo, you're in a terrible position to talk about (1) irony, (2) deleting content without proper discussion and (3) taking your own advice. I'm open to that Bastún, but have never used a sandbox and have only contributed to one draft article, started by someone else. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Article improvement

Alfie Gandon, really good work on the improvements to this article. Well done! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Bastun. Alfie Gandon (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Montserrat

Your edit's a bit of overkill, Fyddlestix. You're giving a misleading impression that the author believed that this wasn't the case elsewhere, and Montserrat's already mentioned in the book title. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not overkill. Akenson is talking about comparisons between black africans and Irish indentures experiences in Barbados and starts that paragraph by saying "However accurate this may (or may not) be concerning the history of Barbados, it is crucial that it not be imported into the history of Montserrat..." In other words, that passage is very explicitly written to not be a statement about indenture in general, and to make it clear that he's not talking about Barbados (which is where people do tend to draw parallels between forced indenture and slavery). Fyddlestix (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, now it's clear. I suggest you import some text from the source to make it clearer there. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Neccessarily unreliable

I propose to partly source the explanation for the nature of the myth to daviduke.com and globalresearch.ca. Of course neither is a reliable source for facts, but we're not looking to them for facts, but a myth. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS says we can use unreliable sources as a source for their own opinions.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Good to know, thank you. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

BRD

Fyddlestix, given the latitude to make changes you've received here, it was unwise of you to take an aggressive approach to deleting other editors' changes. I'm reverting your changes; you can make the case for them here, per BRD. Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not how WP:BRD works. And I don't need "latitude" to make constructive changes. The fact that you would phrase it that way is further evidence of an ownership problem. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

And I very strongly object to this wholesale revert of numerous constructive changes. Why would you remove citation details? Do you realize that you just restored a BLP violation? Fyddlestix (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Your edits were constructive. No reason to revert them. 14:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You were bold, I reverted you, and now I'm ready to hear your case for the changes you want to make. I'm not the one acting like I own the article, Fyddlestix. Nor am I the first editor to revert and then cite BRD. Why don't we start with the BLP you mentioned? Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This isn't rocket science:

• Right now the article says that Hoffman is a conspiracy theorist and holocaust denier without citing a reliable source. That's a BLP violation (which I had fixed, but you restored).
• You removed author and publication information from numerous citations. I don't need to make a "case" for that, they are obviously constructive edits.
• You also restored stuff that fails verification (ie, the "liberal conspiracy" bit, which is not in the source cited).
• You restored an unreliable source without consensus, while removing a scholarly one without giving a reason or explanation.

You really need to read and take to heart both WP:OWN and WP:PRESERVE here, I strongly suggest a self revert. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, you really need to read and take to heart both WP:OWN and WP:PRESERVE here. I like some of the changes you've made and hope they're retained, but that doesn't give you the right to ride roughshod over BRD. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

He/she isn't the one who has again and again ignored discussions on talk pages just so he/she can push a POV. Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

ATL, please leave your own problems with Alfie to one side and stop with the personal attacks. In fact, that's advice that should apply to everyone editing the page. Including me. Less speed, more haste, on the edits. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, please stop edit warring and return to the discussion. If you really want to question my competence, please do it here. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm restoring the previous text, tweaked to take on board what you've pointed out. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You still re-inserted several things that aren't reliable sources (including one work of fiction), removed a bunch of valid reference information, and re-inserted things that you obviously don't have consensus to include. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Film columnist as reference (lol)

I cant believe I have to do this. Why do Bastun and Alfie think a film columnist is notable?Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Film correspondent is only one part of Clarke's job. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What Alfie said, Apollo The Logician Apollo The Logician. As evidenced by the fact that he wasn't writing about a film, there. Lol, indeed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Its just an opinion piece. Opinion pieces aren't used as sources. Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

No, they are. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Only if they are used solely to document the opinion of the writer and only if the writer's opinion is significant/due. I see no indication that this person's opinion is significant or why their opinion matters in regards to this topic. Why do you consider their opinion WP:DUE? Jbh ^Talk 13:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

How does this not need to be cited?

"From the 17th to the 19th centuries, tens of thousands of British and Irish indentured servants emigrated to British North America. The majority of these entered into indentured servitude willingly in order to pay their way across the Atlantic, but at least 10,000 were transported as punishment for rebellion or other crimes, and then subjected to forced labour for a given period of years like those who had entered into contracts." It was extremely obvious I wasn't asking for the Atlantic Slave trade to be cited. So you "cop on"Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

If your weren't asking for the Atlantic slave trade to be cited, don't put a 'citation needed' tag immediately after "During this same period, the Atlantic slave trade was enslaving millions of Africans and bringing them to the Americas, including the British colonies, where they were put to work," which is what you did. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't make a difference. What I was asking to be cited was obvious.Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That whole paragraph needs citations. They shouldn't be hard to find though, I can add some later today (when I'm not on mobile). Fyddlestix (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Signatories of open letter

Why wouldn't we include the list of signatories? It's very relevant that 80 academics, writers and historians, including approximately 40 Doctors, Professors and university lecturers, actively wrote to debunk the myth. Why shouldn't they be identified? (And yes, I wrote 'ce' instead of 'ec' - mea culpa. It should have been obvious I was in the process of editing the article, though.) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Its fine to state that 80 academics, writers etc signed it but it is completely unnecessary to name them all.Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Naming all signatories is undue and would be even if they were all historians who specialize in the topic, in which case their work would speak for them. Just because someone has an advanced degree does not mean their opinion is notable or even valuable outside of their area of expertise. While it may be significant that many 'high status' individuals chose to speak out against the topic, who they were is pretty much irrelevant to the article. Jbh ^Talk 14:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Frankly shocked that we need to debate this, it's obviously not encyclopedic content. When do we ever include such lists, excepting major historical ones like this, which can obviously be sourced to a large number independent secondary sources and is a list of people who are themselves notable (most of the people in your list aren't). Fyddlestix (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest including the more notable ones. Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd actually have no problem with something like "signed by x number, including notable person 1,notable person 2, and a variety of other individuals" (or something along those lines). But the whole list is just clutter. We'd have to phrase it carefully, though, since as a whole the listed people aren't exactly elite scholars in this area (some notable scholars signed it, but so did lots of MA students, librarians, people in other fields). We would have to be careful not to imply that it has greater weight than it actually does. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Good. Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a reasonable compromise, Fyddlestix, thanks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

To return to this: something along the lines of "signed by including Michael Guasco, Associate Professor of History, Davidson College; Professor Liam Irwin, Head of History, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick; Dr Damian Mac Con Uladh, historian and journalist, and a variety of other historians, academics, journalists and writers."? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The only person in that list who might be notable is Liam Irwin and that assumes "Head of History" is something other than an administrative position. No one really cares what an Associate Professor has to say and, unless he is in some way notable either in the subject area or otherwise renowned a "historian and journalist" is not an opinion maker. (From a quick search it looks like he is a staff journalist in Greece.) Naming people who are not significant falsely implies that people should care about what these people have to say because their opinion is, in some way, more significant or authoritative than other people's opinion. Jbh ^Talk 15:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I would be ok with that Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined towards Bastun's list. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Chronology

I reckon we need to focus more on the article's chronology, it's a bit haphazard at the moment. Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I've moved some of the academic sources from the 'Academic response' section to 'Background'. I did this because none of these are academic responses to the myth's propagation; rather they discuss and compare slaves and indentured servants. The academic responses to the myth come later, and this material ought not be in that section. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

So what? There is no need to sperate them and even if there was it makes no sense to put it in the backround section. Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm making myself clear. Not all of the academic discussion concerns the myth now being propagated by the supremacists. Some of it concerns debate about the similarities and differences between indentured servitude and slavery, and while this is important for understanding the genesis of the myth, it makes no reference to the supremacists or their disinformation. I'm trying to put the article's material in sections that reflect the myth's chronology better. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

And? Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're reverting my changes. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I already explained why. It makes nosense to put academic opinions in the backround section when there is a propagation and criticism section. Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

They are sources for the myth's background, not its propagation. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What? So Robin Cohen saying some Irish in the caribbean were slaves isnt propagation? Please explain how that is not propagation and belongs in the backround section.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Saying that a few indentured servants out of hundreds of thousands were treated like slaves in a narrow sense is a far cry from pretending that all of them were treated as bad as or worse than the African slaves. It would defy statistical probability to insist that the worst-treated Irish indentured servants were still treated better than the best-treated African slaves. Alfie Gandon (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

And? What is your point? Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a massive difference between how Cohen and how John Martin describe the experience of Irish indentured servants. One's making an observation about how some IIS weren't accorded their full legal rights; the other's engaged in flat-out myth-making. Alfie Gandon (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

And? Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this the edit that you two are arguing about? If so, it looks to me like all of that content should be under the "academic response" heading since they're all different interpretations by scholars. It does seem out of place in the "background" section, but I wouldn't put the brady/cohen stuff under "propagation" either - those are reputable scholars writing in peer-reviewed books, they're not engaged in "myth-making" in the same way that O'Callaghan and others are. They just illustrate the range of responses that scholars have had to this subject. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I moved some of the academic sources from the 'Academic response' section to 'Background'. I did this because none of these are academic responses to the myth's propagation; rather they discuss and compare slaves and indentured servants. The academic responses to the myth come later, and this material ought not be in that section. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That is the edit yes. I guess it would be better to put the academic analysis all in one section.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Quote marks

I'm not a fan of quote marks in text, but the reference deliberately puts 'history' in quotes when referring to O'Callaghan's book. Alfie Gandon (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the ref uses scarequotes doesn't mean we should, they are still strongly discouraged. Please don't reinsert them. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Irish involvement in African slavery

I'm not happy with the change to "many Irish people benefited from the African slave trade" because I regard it as too passive. While it certainly applies to the merchants in Cork etc. who benefited financially from the trade without actively being involved in it, it glosses over those who were actively involved, i.e. the Irish directly involved in the slave trade and the Irish plantation owners, which is well sourced. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's what the source says. If you prefer a different wording, find a source that supports it (without engaging in WP:SYNTH, which the wording I removed did). Fyddlestix (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The lede isn't sourced at all Fyddlestix, but I'm certain one of our links in the body give the necessary details. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:American nationalism/Category:Irish nationalism

This is clearly an American nationalism. Overwhelmingly those who push it are based in the USA, where it was created and where it plays a role in political discourse and nationalism because of the racialised basis of the USA. It hardly features in political discourse and/or nationalism in Ireland. Fergananim (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

See above discussion on this issue. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:OVERCAT

There is White supremacy, Far right politics in the Unites States, White nationalism in the United States, Racism in the United States AND White supremacy. At least one of these should go. Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Category:Irish nationalism
• Category:Propaganda
• Category:White nationalism in the United States
• Category:White supremacy
• Category:Racism in the United States
• Category:Far-right politics in the United States

• These are all the categories currently. Why should any of these go? There's intersection between them, certainly, but they're not all-encompassing. I'm not seeing the problem here - Alison ^❤ 09:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

White nationalism in the United States is a subcat of Racism in the United States and Far right politics in the united states. White supremacy is a subcats of white nationalism.Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Follow up to AFD debate

Being away, I did not get an opportunity to contribute to the debate. My initial reaction was that this was close to a hoax, but reading the article, I see that it is in fact a serious article about what was in fact a wrong-headed academic argument. The consensus view is clearly that the theory was in fact based on rubbish evidence/misinterpretation. The article perhaps needs amendment so as to make that clear. I know that Scottish soldiers captured at the Battle of Worcester were transported to America; this was also done with some participants in Monmouth's rebellion, so that it may have happened to Irish rebels too. The difference is that convicts were required to serve for 7 years and then were free; I recently saw something indicating that they got a land grant when their time was up. This is very different from the lot of African slaves. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Nationalism

Fergananim, the sources say how Irish nationalists have promoted the myth. While I agree it's a mainly American construct, I don't agree that makes it American nationalist. Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Both American and Irish nationalists have promoted the myth, and as Alfie acknowledges, it'a a mainly American construct. Two editors at least believe American nationalism should be included. Please stop removing it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That is no grounds to add.it. Sinn Fein, who are socialists support it. Should the socialism cat be added?Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it absolutely is, obviously, grounds for adding American nationalism. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Then explain the differences between adding socialism and American nationalismApollo The Logician (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how American Nationalism is an applicable category either. Maybe if we had a source linking it explicitly? (I haven't seen one). Fyddlestix (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, reverted again. Sigh. Alfie Gandon, I presume you'd be willing to compromise, on this? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry folowing WP:CON upsets youApollo The Logician (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry you seem to have not actually read WP:CON; it isn't a vote, it's policy based. Please explain how an article that belongs to the categories Category:Racism in the United States and Category:Far-right politics in the United States wouldn't also, pretty much by definition, belong to American nationalism? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Because nationalism is not inherently racist as your comment presumes and this topic in particular may be a "talking point" or "touch stone" of some individuals or groups who espouse American nationalist views the views themselves are not inherently nationalist in character. Jbh ^Talk 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No, of course nationalism isn't inherently racist, and that isn't what I said; but there is a tendency for racists to be nationalist. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

However that nuance was lost in the arguement you made above for categorization - the difference between nationalism and the rhetoric used by a subset of nationalists. That nuance is what makes categorizing the article as American nationalism inappropriate. Jbh ^Talk 15:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The myth is propagated by white supremacists of many nationalities, including British, South African etc. I don't see how it's linked to American nationalism at all. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No. This myth is overwhelmingly propagated by white supremacists of one particular nationality - American. Therefore it is part of a particular brand of American nationalism - American white supremacist nationalism. By all means include Irish nationalism but if you do the main source of it must also be added. And that source is overwhelmingly (Irish-)American. Fergananim (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Got sources to support any of that? Seems like WP:OR to me. I haven't seen a single source that even mentions "American nationalists" in this context. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

This seems to discuss primarily American: [1] This mentions white supremacist and Irish nationalism.[2]. This mentions American White nationalists, in a quote by Hogan.[3] Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure you understand what American nationalism is. White nationalism and White supremacism have nothing to do with it. See American nationalism pageApollo The Logician (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The question was about sources for "American White Nationalism." Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems like there's some confusion here, the issue is whether the category "American nationalism" should be applied to this article. I have no problem with "white nationalism," and if "American white nationalism" was a category I'd have no problem with that either. But "American nationalism" (what Fergananim added) is something much broader, which clearly doesn't apply here. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

And on that basis, I removed the Irish nationalism category. If it cannot be categorised in an American nationalism category then it most certainly cannot be so in an Irish one. Fergananim (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The article describes how Irish nationalists use the myth. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed renaming due to policy breach

Irish slaves myth -> Irish slaves controversy. The title is clearly POV pushing. It is also in breach of WP:LABEL which states: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term."Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

What's the Irish slaves controversy, exactly? Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The controversy over whether Irish indentured servants were slaves.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'd oppose this. I know I sent the article to AFD as a fork, but "contoversy" would place too much weight on the idea that there were Irish Slaves, when that's a minority - and in many cases FRINGE - position. If we're to have a separate article on this (I still don't think we should, but what can you do) then the current title seems like the most appropriate choice. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Not if it's made clear in the opening lines that it is fringe opinion. either way the current title isnt appropriate. Do you have any other suggestions?Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm stumped as to where we go from here. Cross-link the articles and focus this one narrowly on the modern-day "myth" part while the other one focuses on broader history and historical debates I guess? Like I said, I'm happy to hear suggestions but if this article is exist independently then I can't really think what else to call it. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

How about something like Allegations of Irish slavery?Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This article isn't about "Allegations of Irish slavery", it's about the Irish slaves myth. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

True but we could just change the wording around a tinny bit. This way policy won't be breached and the content will be retained.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• (ec) Oppose any move. There is no "controversy". If you feel the fringe position isn't made clear enough in the opening lines, make it cleared, don't rename the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Either way its POV pushing and in breach of WP:LABEL. It needs to changeApollo The Logician (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose move for now. As others have said, the article is about the myth. Am I incorrect in understanding that it is indeed a myth that Irish people were slaves in the sense of African/Black chattel slavery? I mean, Irish slave propaganda might work. But not controversy as that elevates a fringe belief to the level of what is now academic consensus. It's not a debate or a controversy or disagreement. It's a conflation at best, propaganda with White nationalist goals at worst. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. The "myth" terminology isn't used much in the academic sources, but they do largely agree that these people weren't slaves (especially if we add "in the sense that Africans were. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - based on the fact that this article focuses on the myth specifically, and that there is no actual controversy at the core of all this - Alison ^❤ 00:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Suggestion: How about Irish slavery meme? This places the topic squarely into the popular culture. The article is not about a legitimate debate of where to put the phenomenon on the slavery/indentured servitude continuum, but about a pop culture phenomenon. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldnt have a problem with that.

• Oppose - Myth is far more descriptive. It's also how reliable sources are describing it: [4] . Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hofmann as holocaust denier

Describing Hofmann as the above reeks of POV pushing. Introducing Hofmann as a holocaust denier is like introducing Trump as a xenophobe and sexist instead of president. I propose describing him as a conspiracy theorist. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

What POV? Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Trying to discredit him by stating something completely irrelevant about him. I dont think he is anything more than a joke btw in case you suspect me of agreeing with him.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you believe Holocaust denial is irrelevant to promoting other racist myths? Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Jews aren't a race. you can't be racist to Jews. Just like you can't be racist to christians.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

See racial antisemitism. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that it is a POV, it isn't presented as fact. To implicitly call Jews a race is POV pushing which you are known for.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Except Hoffman's Holocaust denial is a fact in his work. His Wikipedia page opens up with the fact that he is "an American conspiracy theorist and Holocaust denier." Trump's xenophobia is a matter of POV, while Hoffman's Holocaust denial is a fact, a matter of record. He has denied the existence of gas chambers, advanced anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and contended that "the real Holocaust of World War II was deaths caused by the Allies," therefore he is a Holocaust denier. He denies the Holocaust happened. That is not a POV, it is a fact. And it is certainly relevant, in that it establishes a pattern of behavior and influence on his work regarding "Irish slavery." Perhaps editing it to "conspiracy theorist and Holocaust denier" might be preferable, but it's not a POV to call him what he objectively is.

To put this another way, it's the difference between calling David Duke a Klansman or a bigot. It is a matter of objective record that he is a Klansman and has been a leader of the Klan, whereas "bigot" is subjective and arguably POV.

EricSpokane (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree, also the quibble raised over antisemitism is just ridiculous. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Irish in the African trade

Leaving this here for now, Rodgers, Nini, The Irish and the Atlantic slave trade, 15 Irish History 3 (May/Jun 2007). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• This edit[5] reverted a well-sourced sentence ("Many Irish, like the British, were heavily involved in and benefited from the trade in African slaves.Rodgers, Nini. "The Irish and the Atlantic slave trade". History Ireland. 15 (3: May/June 2007). Dublin: History Publications, Ltd.), on the basis the the background is "out-of-place." That's entirely wrong, given the last sentence of both the current introduction ("to obscure the fact that many Irish people benefited from the African slave trade.") and of the article("to gloss over the ways in which Irish people beneffited from the African slave trade"). The reverted edit also better sources the entire background section. The sentence should be restored and not removed based on the obviously poor whitewash reason given. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Its redundant and out of place.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Also whitewash? What on earth? Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It's the background. The introduction facts are suppose to be re-told and supported in the article body. It's neither redundant for the background facts, nor out-of place in the background facts. Don't whitewash the background facts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Repeating it almost word for word is pretty pointless. If it was elaborated on then I would not have a problem with it.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Then you should have improved it, not removed it - removing well sourced, relevant facts is bad editing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

So is repeating the exact same thing almost the exact same way only a few lines later.Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Not even in same league with your silliness -- by supporting the lead, per WP:LEAD, and giving the reader good source material, the addition is an improvement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Repeating the exact same thing a few lines later is not an into improvement at all. Either way lets drop this as it is a pointless discussion.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Fine. But no, it was not the exact same thing, and it was also now, well sourced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing references

Apollo The Logician please do not remove references from an article. You know better than that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bastun: What are you talking about? Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, @Apollo The Logician:, that should have read 'Alfie Gandon'. @Alfie Gandon:, please do not remove references from an article. You know better than that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I've no problem with the references, but they ought not to be in the lede. Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Those references you removed are repeated, and thus you produced a code error -- if you do not understand what I am talking about, do it again in preview only (don't save) and look what happens - if you want to do that kind of thing you have to move the code down. Not that I think a totally unreferenced lede has to be that way, necessarily, see, WP:LEADCITE. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It strikes me that the part of the lede that's currently referenced is the part that's least likely to be challenged. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

AnomieBot would rescue the references (move them down) after 10-20 minutes. I agree with Alfie that eventually we should try to move refs out of the lede, but I also think that in the short term (while the article is still new, stabilizing, and being debated) that it's better to leave them in for now. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Obfuscating and misleading text which suggests that Irish slavery was actually thing

One user really wants to keep this text, describing the sources as "notable"[6]. The sources for the text are:

• A two-page entry by 'Kevin Brady' in an Encyclopaedia of World Slavery which uses "Irish as Slaves" in its entry title but says in the body of the entry that most were not slaves "in the strictest sense". Also, history is not my field so I can't vouch for "ABC-CLIO" press (which I have never heard of before), but I don't get the sense that this is a peer-reviewed, serious press.
• A one-page book review "Robin Cohen" (note that book reviews are not peer-reviewed) which says in passing that "a few" were slaves in the strictest sense. The author of the book review mentions that the peer-reviewed publication that he's reviewing does however reject that there were Irish slaves.

To add these sources to the text as a rebuttal to the overwhelming consensus among historians (per every reliable source) that Irish slaves were a myth is undue weight. Have these authors and the publications been covered by secondary reliable sources? Do these authors flesh out and substantiate their arguments beyond a single mention in passing in a one-page or two-page pieces? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Simply saying a very tiny group of academics say some where slaves in the strictest sense is not saying the Irish were slaves. It is just stating an opinion, that is the purpose of the propagation section.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"The first academic cited rejects that the Irish were slaves, saying that most were not in the strictest sense slaves. The other mentions it in passing. It's erroneous to say that the former believes that the Irish were slaves, whereas it seems highly undue to mention the second academic who only mentions it in passing and only says "a few" were slaves. To be honest, both of these sources seem like the kind of thing that proponents of the myth have been actively fishing for, and all they came up with was a two-page blurb that rejects the Irish slavery myth and one line in a one-page book review. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"The first academic cited rejects that the Irish were slaves, saying that most were not in the strictest sense slaves." <--These two statements are contradictory. Whether it is in passing or not is irrelevant.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The author of that piece never explicitly says that anyone was a slave. The only mention of slavery is when he explicitly rejects that "most" were slaves. That you interpret his use of "most" to "aha, that must mean SOME were!" and add text that says "some academic sources say that some were slaves" is not only a dubious interpretation of the source but strongly undue (if an academic can't come out on say it in explicit terms, why should Wikipedia?). The author of that piece may very well have been of the opinion that "most" were not slaves but took on an agnostic position on the rest. Who knows? It's a two-page entry in an encyclopaedia by some in-the-wilderness book press. The author doesn't flesh out his opinion or substantiate it in any way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Robin Cohen explictly says some Irish were slaves. He says some where slaves in a "sensu stricto" meaning of the word.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that source in the comment that you're replying to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You are talking about the World Encyclopedia of Slavery? The title is "Irish slaves in the Carribean"Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the title is "The Irish as Slaves in the Caribbean". The two-page article never explicitly calls them slaves in the entry itself. It does however feel it necessary to mention that most were not slaves in the strictest sense of the word. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

What is the difference between the sentence with an as and without one?

The actual wording adds doubt and is framed more as a question than statement. This is followed up by a rejection in the body of the entry itself. Do you believe that text sourced to a two-page entry in a 1997 encyclopaedia by a rubbish press, the meaning of which is disputed and never actually said by the source, belongs in a Wikipedia article on a subject that has been studied in-depth by a large number of scholars and gained the attention of prominent media outlets? Is this the best we can do? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, whether it's in passing is absolutely relevant as it has bearing on whether it's undue weight or not for Wikipedia to recite it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You may well have weight and vagueness arguments for a brief (and rather old) encyclopedia entry, or others on misrep, but I do not think your general "rubbish" critique on ABC-CLIO holds-up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Weight is indeed the bigger issue here. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

A book review is most certainly not a WP:RS. Agree with the weight and vagueness arguments with regard to Encyclopaedia of World Slavery. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It certainly is a RS - it's published in an academic journal, and written by an established expert. Whether they have enough weight to be included is obviously debatable but let's not over-reach: both of the sources being discussed here are obviously RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is a RS, but regardless, the weight issue applies. It's a one-sentence remark in the context of a book review. It's placement in the article was bizarre - situated in the middle of a section discussing O'Callaghan's book, there's suddenly an out-of-context sentence saying, essentially, "In my opinion, strictly speaking, some Irish were slaves" - which then goes back to discussing O'Callaghan's book. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bastun:How on earth isnt a book review published in the peer reviewed Journal of Ethical and Racial Studies not a RS? Not really, It is making the point that some aademics believe it to be true. It is needed for the sake of balance. If WP:UNDUE applies to anything it applies to only academic opinions that oppose the myth being included in the article.Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The book review doesn't address the Irish slavery myth in any comprehensive way! That's not what the review is about. It's literally one line, one which Cohen doesn't clarify or substantiate in any way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You have got to be joking. He is reviewing a book about the Irish slavery myth.Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The book, from its description[7] and from the book review itself does not seem to revolve around the Irish slavery myth at all, but rather about the ways that racial categories and identities are social constructions. Variations in attitudes towards the Irish is used in the book as an example of how racial identities are fluid. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously Irish slavery is touched upon in some detail and Cohen is critiqueing it. Either way why does him "only briefly touching upon" irish slavery make it undue?Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the user is trying insert "balance" into this article should be a warning signal, as it seems that he's scouring obscure sources for off-hand remarks to give the false impression that there is a debate when there is none in the scholarly community on this issue. Seems like a very clear and intentional case of undue weight. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I am seriously staritng to question your comptetence.Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I think book reviews by scholars are RS but the big problem with this inclusion is undue weight: (I) Book reviews are not peer-reviewed. This doesn't mean that the Cohen text isn't a RS, but it does bear on whether his remark is due weight. After all, this is a subject that has been covered by experts on slavery and been treated by multiple peer-reviewed publications. To add an off-hand line from a non-peer-reviewed text misleadingly gives the impression that this is an issue of debate in the scholarly community when in fact every reliable source refers to it as a "myth" and as rejected by historians. (ii) The Cohen remark is only said in passing. Cohen does not flesh out what he means, does not substantiate it in any way, does not compare the situation of "a few" of the Irish to chattel slavery, and so on. Cohen might use a definition of slavery that's distinct from that used by other scholars. Cohen might not have a clue what he's talking about. We have no way of knowing this, because an off-hand line in a one-page book review. Googling "Robin Cohen" and variations of "Irish slavery / Irish slaves" leads to absolutely nothing besides this Wikipedia page, so this is clearly not an issue that Cohen has extensively covered or something that other scholars and reliable sources have deemed worthy to analyze. (III) The only thing that's peer-reviewed in the book review is the book in question, and Cohen notes that the book rejects that the Irish be considered slaves. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: The book review was published by the peer reviewed Journal of Ethical and Racial studies. Not really, It is making the point that some aademics believe it to be true. It is needed for the sake of balance. If WP:UNDUE applies to anything it applies to only academic opinions that oppose the myth being included in the article.Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

What academics believe is irrelevant, what have they actually argued and "proved" is more the standard. This Book Review line is off-hand and actually very vague (we are even left to totally guess what "a limited sense" means in that review), in that it is an aside not even attempted to be examined. (It's also extremely odd POV to take a review's aside, over the actual book's analysis). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Apollo The Logician: even if the journal is peer reviewed, book reviews are not. Research is the part that gets reviewed. Other stuff like essays, commentary, and book reviews only get editorial oversight. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: It being published in an academc journal makes it a RS per WP:RSApollo The Logician (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Which just leaves the question of WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. Including a single sentence from a book review is indeed a really odd shoehorning in of an opinion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It is just meant to show that there are a small group of academics who support it besides widespread criticism.Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not questioning its reliability. Just pointing out it's not peer-review. And honestly, you never cite book reviews in academic work. They're meant to either fill you in on something you're a bit interested in or to let you know if the book is worth buying. I agree that pulling out a single sentence from a book review is UNDUE. Either cite the original source or find another one. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

But it doesn't show that "there are a small group of academics who support" the notion of widespread Irish slavery; it shows there is one academic who states, in a review of a book that rejects that the Irish were slaves, and without offering any evidence, that he believes "there were a few who were stricto sensu slaves." Consensus is clearly against including this, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

NYT article

This NYT article should help increase the quality of sourcing. I'll add some refs to it next week if no one beats me to it. It's a much higher quality source than much of what's in the article right now. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Fyddlestix (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I added both a NYT and AP fact-check of the Irish Slaves Myth to the article but both were reverted. The content of those articles should definitely be incorporated somehow. That the myth is being debunked by prominent media outlets is in itself notable IMO and deserves mention. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Apollo The Logician since they reverted. The wording was a problem but claiming the sources are an issue (not notable and not academic were the reasons given) is incorrect. These are reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

fair enough but the wording is still POV.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Two other new sources: this CBC news story looks very useful, and this PRI story is in the article (once) but I think under-utilized. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree we should use those sources more (but note the CBC, is the AP source which is already in the article). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

This article is, in my opinion, not written neutrally. Although I'm not saying Irish slavery was real, I am saying this article doesn't describe the myth in an objective fashion. For example:

The myth is also employed by some Irish nationalists, both to highlight historical British oppression of Irish people and to obscure the fact that many Irish people benefited from the African slave trade.

This isn't relevant to the myth itself, and is an assertion without a citation, even though this is not something that could be considered 'common knowledge'.

Another example:

usually in order to undermine contemporary African American demands for equality and reparations

Again, this requires a citation. There is no doubt this sometimes happens, but to say that it is 'usual' is a much stronger statement. Furthermore, there could very well be a lot of people who honestly believe this myth, and statements like the two above implicate those people in some sort of rightwing, white supremacist conspiracy in which they have no part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.123.207 (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

So, what do you suggest? El_C 10:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest these sentences are either removed or citations be provided to support the claims made — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.123.207 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

These sentences are in the WP:LEAD, a section meant to summarize the article and this do not require citation. Based on the sourced content of the article, these sentences seem to be accurate summaries. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." UaMaol (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources are in the body - this one supports the Irish nationalist angle, and this one supports the "undermining black activism" angle. I can see an argument for rewording some of these phrases or making other changes but I don't see an issue that would justify an article-wide POV tag at this time - and I say that as someone who thinks the article is far from perfect, and even tried to get it deleted/merged elsewhere. If you can explain where/how you see a POV issue a bit more clearly, I'm sure it can be addressed - the tag is not meant to be used as a "badge of shame." Fyddlestix (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the verifiability of such claims or such that should be used in the manner which you stated. On the matter of neutrality, the name alone is biased. Firstly I've consider changing it to "Irish alaves controversy" or something similar. "Myth" is not neutral! Next, from the categories alone, this article appears to have been created as a direct attack on the far-right. Whilst not a member of the right, I do have a problem with political bias, even if it favours myself. Wikipedia is no place for politics and bias. Another issue I have is with sources. Some are questionable at best whilst other do not go into enough detail. Emphasis needs to be shifted away from this being a "meme" and a "myth". I don't know if you're awareof the phrase "one man's myth is another man's religion". This applies here in part. UaMaol (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I have so little energy for this... Sources call it a myth. Title is fine. If it appears to be an attack on the far right, that's because the sources dispute the wire supremacist crap the far right supports. WP:TRUTH. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel like the title issue has kind of been run into the ground already (see the AFD link in my previous comment, and all the discussions above). I doubt there will be much support for opening that can of worms again - and Evergreen is right that a whole lot of sources (including the recent NYT article) do call this a "myth."

I'm sympathetic to concerns about sourcing and such (I started the AFD because I felt strongly that the article needed more context, and leaned too heavily on one author's writings), but it's also clear as day that next-to-no non-fringe sources actually assert the existence of "Irish Slavery," so I would still oppose a move to cast this as a "controversy." It's not perfect but I don't think we are going to be able to do much better given the sources that exist and the scope of the article (which was settled at a very recent AFD). Personally I'm hoping that more, higher-quality writing on this are going to get published over time, and that that will allow us to drop some of the lower-quality sources and take a somewhat more nuanced approach to the topic. In the meantime, though, I don't think the existing issues merit a POV tag. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The article appears to be attacking the subject instead of simply having an unbiased informative position. I am going to restore that POV tag to let other users know as this issue has clearly not been resolved! UaMaol (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Your bias is what's on display, here. It's 80-some historians that call it "racist ahistorical propaganda"[8] and multiple reliable sources in the article call it a "myth" and discuss why it acts as propaganda - so, that is the unbiased way to write about it, not write about it as you want just because you don't want to believe historians. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. This has all been hashed out, at length, and quite recently at that. Sources are fine. Title is fine. Article is neutrally written. Article can still be improved upon. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Claims misrepresent source

I saw that section on the origins of the myth made the following claim:

The book continued Hoffman's themes and introduced the concept of Irishwomen being forcibly bred with African men in order to produce mulattos, who are represented as being more valuable than slaves of purely African ancestry. It is not made clear why this is the case, or why it wasn't possible to achieve the same result with the physical union of European men and African women, a far more frequent interracial union.

The claim that mulatto slaves were considered more valuable than those of pure African ancestry according to the Irish slaves myth is unsupported by either source, and SPLC instead claimed that the belief is that Irish slaves were the ones considered less valuable than African ones. In addition, the second sentence about children of European men and African women was found no-where in the source, which instead dealt with the first sentence as well. I edited the paragraph to remove the second sentence and edit the first one so that it matched the claim from the source. My edit was reverted by User:Bastun, whom I invite to respond here and explain their reasoning. I have also tagged the disputed sentences with {{failed verification}}, linking to this discussion. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, Joshua Isaac, I was too quick with the 'Undo' button. I've changed the first sentence back to reflect the claim that mulatto slaves were considered more valuable than Irish (rather than African) slaves. The second sentence is, as you point out, not backed by the source, but still makes a valid point. I've therefore moved the reference forward as it also supports the first sentence. Again, apologies - the article has attracted quite a lot of unconstructive/vandal edits in the recent past, but I should have been more careful, especially with an edit from a longstanding editor. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Cats

@Bastun: Do we really need to have a racism in the us, white nationalism in the us AND white supremacy? That seems like WP:OVERCATApollo The Logician (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed the one that was already a subcat of another. The remainder are all valid. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The sources are clear that the myth is deeply connected to racism in the us, white nationalism in the US and white supremacy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Rawstory.com

@Bastun: Rawstory.com is an openly bias politicised source. Just look at their wiki page.Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The one that says they've broken news stories and won awards? I can find nothing in the usual places saying RawStory isn't to be counted as a RS, but in any case, what's being referenced isn't disputed and hardly requires cast iron referencing from The Times of London or similar. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

A Greek national tv show supports the theory

• http://www.mixanitouxronou.gr/mechri-to-1839-i-vretania-ekane-exagogi-irlandon-sklavon-se-olo-ton-kosmo-tous-ekegan-zontanous-gia-timoria-ke-ipochreonan-tis-kores-tous-na-zevgaronoun-me-afrikanous-mithos-i-pragmatikotita/

They also claim that indentured servitude didn't exist, but museums have original documentation.

I don't comment any theory. Please find why Greece does that.

The number of editors fluent in both English and Greek is likely quite small so there won't be too many checking the source, I'd imagine, but in any case, a Greek entertainment TV show is just as likely to get things wrong as, say, Irish Central, and if it's dismissing the documented existence of indentured servitude, it needn't be regarded as any kind of reliable source. It may warrant inclusion as a footnote in the spread of the myth, though, if that's what you mean? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Unclear, seems militant

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not too sure what this article tries to disprove... That they were not "whites slaves" in the New World? And that is a myth? Or only that no Irish were white slaves? That indentured servants had a much easier time than slaves? The article claims indentured servitude was voluntarily, that is patently false (see below). Why does this article basically cites a single author which can easily be dismissed?

What about other books like White Cargo? Also written I supposed by an Holocaust denier and self-published?

«From Publishers Weekly High school American history classes present indentured servitude as a benignly paternalistic system whereby colonial immigrants spent a few years working off their passage and went on to better things. Not so, this impassioned history argues: the indentured servitude of whites was comparable in most respects to the slavery endured by blacks. Voluntary indentures arriving in colonial America from Britain were sold on the block, subjected to backbreaking work on plantations, poorly fed and clothed, savagely punished for any disobedience, forbidden to marry without their master's permission, and whipped and branded for running away. Nor were indentures always voluntary: tens of thousands of convicts, beggars, homeless children and other undesirable Britons were transported to America against their will. Given the hideous mortality rates, the authors argue, indentured contracts often amounted to a life sentence at hard labor—some convicts asked to be hanged rather than be sent to Virginia. The authors, both television documentarians, don't attempt a systematic survey of the subject, and their episodic narrative often loses its way in colorful but extraneous digressions. Still, their exposé of unfree labor in the British colonies paints an arresting portrait of early America as gulag.»

https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963/ref=la_B001JP46EG_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503132881&sr=1-1

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stack, Liam references

There seem to be many references to this resource but none include a page number. Ideally sfn would be used for these with p= and pp= where appropriate. I didn't feel like tagging the top of the article about this, because other references are more precise, it's not a general issue. Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 21:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, if this is really only an article link rather than a more complete book, please disregard. — PaleoNeonate — 22:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This just in

Should anyone care to add this - http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/22134360-09101056. Fergananim (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The author is already mentioned in the article but this is a better source then some of the poor sources in the article right now.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hoffman, Holocaust denial and Hogan

The fact that Michael A. Hoffman has argued that the Holocaust denial movement should be given the freedom to assert their claims (that is the level of his actual involvement in that field, as a fellow traveller of Ernst Zündel, not a "theorist" himself) is completely irrelevant to thw scope of this article. Hoffman's relevance to the article is his work They Were White And They Were Slaves: The Untold History of The Enslavement of Whites In Early America, which is not primarily about Irish indentured servitude but mostly the wider British practice and its effects on the British poor. Adding the irrelevant words "Holocaust denier" before a passage about something unrelated to the Holocaust, wreaks of straw man and is very synth-y. It is a clear attempt to diminish Irish indentured servitude by trying to sneak in reference to the Holocaust.

The article relies heavily, almost exclusively, on the claims of Liam Hogan who is presented as an "independent researcher" (cutesy language, which translates into English as a man who is not a qualified professional or a peer-viewed author). There is no evidence, for example, that O'Callaghan's work (which IS about Irish indentured servitude) was in any way influenced or derived from Hoffmans as the article suggests. Nor does the article mention in the prose that Hogan's claims were propagated in openDemocracy; a British publication (ran by figures directly linked to dodgy British imperialist "think tanks" and political parties). openDemocracy has a direct vested interest in downplaying the legacy of British imperialism in Ireland. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

i agree, his apparent holocaust denial is not even mentioned on his wiki page so the validity of that claim is questionable. a lot of the sources are not great either, you have listed some poor ones, they need to be greatly improved.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably because you're not looking at the right Michael Hoffman article. Deny harder. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

i am looking at the one linked above. it could be wrong. no need to be so toxic in your response by the way.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It is wrong. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hoffman is indeed (or was) a fellow traveller of the Holocaust denial movement, that cannot be denied. The book he wrote about the topic is called The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for the Right to Doubt the West's Most Sacred Relic. Which as the title suggests, gives a sympathetic account of Ernst Zundel's antics, rather than positing a "denial" thesis itself. Regardless, this fact is completely irrelevant to the article and is simply cherry picked to obstufucate the issue of Irish indentured servititude by connecting it to something dubious like Holocaust denial. Hoffman's book about indentured servitude is not a pro-Irish book, in fact it downplays the Irish aspect a little to highlight the general British application. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

i am in agreement with you here but this has already been discussed before (see here and the consensus was to include it.Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Myth"

When even Snopes rates this as "mixed" and wikipedia pushes the myth agenda. There are [even books on this subject]. You guys are epic. 188.27.39.113 (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You didn't even read the link in question, did you? Nice. 98.80.197.213 (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional material

https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-irish-were-not-slaves

Fergananim (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Mis-Representation of Irish Cultural symbols by Racist Groups.

The Irish slave cultural "myth", is a product of the Irish cultural identity being misused by racist groups. There were Irish slaves by the way - in addition to the thousands under indentured labor conditions- working for nothing, as there were hundreds of thousands of innocents murdered by the Cromwellian Genocide and Potato famine.

Small groups of racist people in America (stormfront.org uses an Irish cross as it's symbol) and others have used the Irish as slaves as some sort of racist agenda excusing the crime of slavery.

The reality is the Irish were at the forefront of the union movement for a decent minimum wage, worker's compensation and womens' rights around the world.

The last time I posted this wikipedia refused to post it. You sent me an insulting message.

STOP Telling people who talk about Irish enslavement and indentured labour that they are racist.

These things are accurate, you are not

Conor

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.194.254 (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Slavery in Ireland, as with most of Europe, ended centuries before the growth of the African slave trade for plantation workers in the Americas. Yes, there were indentured people and criminals sent to the Americas and other colonies, during that same time frame, but they were generally dealt with a bit better than the conditions of the slave; and unlike slaves, their children were free born. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

What's the evidence for the following statement:"but they were generally dealt with a bit better than the conditions of the slave..."? 105.8.0.108 (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

[9] EvergreenFir (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

The edit war involved pure vandalism, Cmk1234 is heading to being indeffed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Niall O'Dowd and the Irish slaves myth

The lengthy quote from a diatribe on Medium is not relevant to the section topic "Academic criticism and responses."

The material Bastun restored is not a previously-stable part of this article. It was added on July 4[10] by Fergananim who has worked hard to add negative material about Niall O'Dowd not only to his BLP but also to other articles, see for example [11] and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Niall_O'Dowd_biography.

None of the articles proposed as evidence of his villainy was written by O'Dowd. None makes light of the horror of African chattel slavery. O'Dowd's attitude is clear in 2017 op-ed where he says:

The controversy has arisen because some far-right groups have claimed that the experience of Irish slaves was interchangeable with (or even in some cases worse than) the experience of black slaves, and have used that as justification for an array of abhorrent racist statements and ideas. To be clear, there is no way the Irish slave experience mirrored the extent or level of centuries-long degradation that African slaves went through.

O'Dowd publishes journals aimed at an Irish and Irish-American audience. His focus on and interest in the sufferings of Irish people should not be conflated with white supremacy. It is striking that this article currently contains a long attack on O'Dowd but lets actual white supremacist websites take a pass. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You should probably fix your sig. I too was concerned about BLP (and UNDUE), when I toned down the reference and cut out much of the initial edit - but I was reverted. Nonetheless, I find it hard to credit the rest of your point that it should not be mentioned, at all. If an academic on the Myth has a critique of the Irish Central site (which you appear to claim is an influential site) and argues that that site spread the myth, then it certainly seems relevant, especially when we can quote O'Dowd, too. (You don't have to agree with that critique of Irish Central for it to go, here). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

A very quick google fit Irish Central in this way: "The most popular online article that falsely equates indentured servitude or penal slavery with racialised slavery is hosted by the Global Research website. It has been shared nearly one million times. The online diaspora website, Irish Central, published an article based solely on this source, which has, in turn, been shared more than 149,000 times." [12]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your heads up about my sig Alanscottwalker. The article on AlJazeera purports to link to an article at IrishCentral that is based on a fake post at GlobalResearch, but the link no longer works, I hope because IrishCentral decided to take that post down. IrishCentral is not an academic website and neither is Medium. I will be agreeable to seeing a balanced NPOV section added about Irish-American use or misuse of the meme, but the polemic I reverted is not that NPOV treatment of the matter. Also, highly POV articles from RawStory are not generally WP:RS.[13]HouseOfChange (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact is you're deleting referenced material because you don't like it. Per BRD, I've Restored it. Now we Discuss - rather than you edit warring over it. That's WP:BRD. Fergananim (now pinged, you hadn't given him the courtesy of doing so) added relevant, sourced material, a few weeks ago. You would certainly be within your rights to add O'Dowd's response - in fact, I'll do it after this edit - but you are not within your rights to remove highly relevant, sourced material. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The section "Origins and Propagation" begins with a highly POV sentence sourced to RawStory, which is not WP:RS.[14] (I removed the sentence but was reverted.) The next sentence cites an opinion from historian Liam Hogan, yet neither of the 2 references attached to that sentence includes the statement by Hogan. This article needs work, and it also needs more useful NPOV RS references, for example this NYT article (which also criticizes IrishCentral) and could provide some helpful less POV takes to this article. BTW I did ping Fergananim in my very first edit to this section. Please AGF. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, you mentioned him, and me, with square brackets rather than the user template (which looks like {{u|Username}}), which doesn't result in a notification to the person (or, at least, I didn't get a notification that you'd pinged me... Looking through the RS archive search you linked to, I'm seeing editors saying Raw Story agreeing and disagreeing that it's a RS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, Bastun, it was my intention to ping Fergananim rather than to mention him. I agree with you that he should be pinged for this discussion, and it was my intention to do so. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The use of square brackets actually did in the past, or does now, ping users. That's the reason why Template:Noping was created. But Wikimedia keep changing things around. MPS1992 (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is another article from RS, (PRI) where Hogan appears to cite a different origin point for misinformation about Irish slaves. That article also criticizes Irish Central. Info from WP:RS is a welcome citation to Wikipedia articles. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not "relevant" to the extent it is played-up, here - it's actually bizarre, the amount of text devoted to this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It will make sense to create four separate sections about the propagation of the myth. First, the seminal sources of misinformation, including academic criticism of false claims. Second, propagation of myth in mainstream sources such as Scientific American, DailyKos, and Irish Central. Third, misuse of the myth by white supremacists. I believe this would provide more clarity for our readers. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Folks as I said from the outset I was happy to see the input of any other editors. That remains the case. Plainly other editors hold I contravened rules concerning bios of living people. That was NOT my intention - but I accept that it was seen as such, and though not intentional, actually so. Very well, I take responsibility for that. My reasons were as I said, that these issues are part and parcel of O'Dowd's public life and deserve to be a part of the article. Nevertheless, as a gesture of goodwill and remorse towards other editors, I will not do any further edits on this article for the forseeable, and will abide by any topic ban imposed on me. Sorry. Fergananim (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't think you've anything to apologise for, Fergananim, and your contributions were positive. No breach of WP:BLP occurred - just reporting on what secondary sources had said. It'd be a real shame if genuine editors can be scared off articles but in fairness to HouseOfChange and Alanscottwalker I don't think they had anything like that in mind! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Under WP:BLP we must always be careful with presentation of accusations against a person, the same of course is not true with accusations against a website. Here, for this article, what matters is not so much the person as the website, that's all - it's a matter of proper focus, extent, and tone. (As for his biography article, that will have different considerations, which need to be discussed at that article's talk page). And if you are under a topic ban, I know nothing of it, and I never suggested it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, because I did stay away. Some of my edits have been quite amiss, but they are honest blunders. Glad to have your input and will still stay well away from it for a while. Fergananim (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• The long polemic about Irish Central not removing material about Irish slaves is now out of date, as a search of the site will reveal.[15] I would also like to mention that the (now dead-linked) article Hogan claims O'Dowd linked to "approvingly" was in fact hyperlinked by O'Dowd from italicized words in the following passage: "some far-right groups have claimed that the experience of Irish slaves was interchangeable with (or even in some cases worse than) the experience of black slaves, and have used that as justification for an array of abhorrent racist statements and ideas." This context does not support Hogan's "approvingly" claim. I am revising the section and bringing it up to date. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Wait, what? Yes, O'Dowd writes "To be clear, there is no way the Irish slave experience mirrored the extent or level of centuries-long degradation that African slaves went through," but then immediately states "But the Irish did suffer tremendously and there is a clear tendency to undermine that truth... Some would even call it slavery" - and then goes on to argue that indentured servitude was directly equivalent to slavery. Restoring. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Bastun Rather than restoring now-inaccurate text in full, I wish you will consider my reason for changing it: 1) The Irish slave articles are now completely removed from Irish Central,[16] 2) the NYT reference you removed with your reversion is a useful source for information as opposed to polemic about this topic, 3) the long, highly POV and personal quote from Liam Hogan had been altered by somebody to make it even more POV and personal by inserting the full name of Liam O'Dowd (and a link to that article) twice, where Hogan referred to "O'Dowd" and later to "he." The name and article link are ALREADY in the section. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, something needs to be included - the point is that the removal was belated. I'm happy with the changes subsequently made by Alanscottwalker which represents a good compromise, IMO. Are they acceptable to you, too? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping Bastun. I agree that something needs to be included. The changes by Alanscottwalker are excellent. I think this material in this or similar wording would also be a good addition to the much-disputed Niall O'Dowd article.HouseOfChange (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Comparison to indentured servitude article

This article would make one think that any close comparison of the conditions of Irish indentured servants to African slaves represents a completely unscholarly and ideologically motivated effort - and that's what I took away from this article until I read the article on Irish indentured servants, which include these more nuanced quotes:

According to Kathryn Stelmach Artuso, even historians such as Hilary Beckles – whose work Artuso calls "seminal in the field" – have drawn "surprisingly close parallels between the experiences of Africans and Irish in the Caribbean."[15] Beckles has referred to some Irish indentured servants as "temporary chattels" who were kept in "slavelike conditions" and lived in a state "nearer to slavery than freedom." Beckles stops short, however, of suggesting that Irish servants were "'slaves' in the sense that blacks were."[16]:6[4]:49 Similarly, historian Nini Rodgers has written that Irish indentured servants "were not slaves," but nonetheless argues that the "difference must have seemed academic" to many of them.[17]:147 According to Rodgers, this was particularly true in places such as Barbados, where high death rates sometimes "cancelled out" the primary difference between slaves and servants' experiences: that slavery was permanent while indenture was temporary.[18]:37 Rodgers notes, however, that there were other differences between the experiences of servants and those of slaves: masters provided servants with meat but denied it to slaves, servants received European-style clothes (including shoes) while slaves did not, and the two groups slept in different quarters. According to Rodgers, masters sometimes worked servants harder because they only possessed their service for a limited time, and this fact underscores "the complexity of making comparisons" between slavery and indenture.[18]:37

Crucial quotes used in that article such as "was so very different from black slavery as to be from another galaxy of human experience" are re-used here, but the above is not. It's basically the other article but with all the uncertainty cut out. So what is the point of this article?

I think the Irish slaves narrative and especially its political abuses ought to be treated with hefty degree of skepticism... at the same time too much enthusiasm is taken in "debunking" — an annoying and condescending development, remember when we had "refutations"? a noun, more descriptive than prescriptive, what is described as a refutation is not necessarily "correct", it too can be disputed and refuted. Debunking is crude and childish, reflects a simplistic positivist outlook really — leads to overlooking more salient aspects of a particular idea. It's reaction rather than measured consideration. Maskettaman (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Challenge on Neutrality

This is a complex, contentious topic that is ill served by this article. There is considerable Cherry Picking going on. Example "Historians note that unlike slaves, indentured servants willingly entered into contracts with another person" yet one of this article's own references, Liam Stack's March 17, 2017 NY Times article, clearly states "Without a doubt, life was bad for indentured servants. They were often treated brutally. Not all of them entered servitude willingly. Another example is the Irish Central Article cited is severely bowdlerized, the author Niall O'Dowd doing what this article should have in examining both sides of the issue, both denouncing the hijacking of Irish History for racists memes while at the same time rejecting the minimization of the suffering of those forcibly transported and required to give involuntary labor for the profit of another often for no other crime than being Irish and Catholic.

This is a poorly presented article. Captured rebels of all the British nations were transported and had indentured servitude imposed on them. This applies to Scots captured at Battle of Worcester; English captured at Battle of Sedgemoor; and well as Irish captives of Cromwell. The people concerned were guilty of treason and liable to execution, so that servitude was in fact an act of mercy. At the end of their indenture, they were often granted a piece of land to cultivate for themselves. In each case, the people concerned were on the losing side in a civil war. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

It was easy to edit the minor issue you raised by adding a "most" or something similar. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Not all transported were captured, soldiers. Priests were transported under the Penal Laws. Women and young girls were transported "Irish women, as being too numerous now…(are to) be sold to merchants, and transported to Virginia, New England, or other countries, where they may support themselves by their labor" "Licence to merchants of Boston to pass to New England and Virginia where they intend to carry 400 Irish children directing a warrant to be granted provided security is given to sail to Ireland and within two months to take in 400 Irish children and transport them to those plantations a When Cromwell found that it was impossible to carry out " Calendar State Papers Sept 6, 1653.

Again, this article should present both sides of the question per Wiki rules § — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.9.55 (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Sources say 'Irish slavery debate' not myth: As suspected, the so-called "myth" viewpoint or "slaves meme" is also called "Irish slaves debate" in broader coverage. Several sources discuss the myth/meme wording as strongly promoted by a librarian named "Liam Hogan" (not the athletes "Liam Hogan"), while some sources quoted, from 1600s, refer to Irish, English or Scottish prison labourers as "slaves" or enslaved. Other sources confirm the Irish servants being re-sold, by labour contracts as effectively selling the person, as "time-bound" chattel slavery. Also sources discuss the myth/meme term as an attempt to claim Irish-Americans are racists (refuted), rather than realists, in noting the suffering of captured Irish indentured servants, forced away from their families, many older not speaking English, persecuted as Irish Catholics, whose new children were outcast as "not hereditary" as not required to live within their owner families. Comparisons could be noted with U.S. negro slaves also counted (3/5ths) as "persons" (not "livestock"), with legal rights to remain with new-born children until later years, plus compensated emancipation or age-based freedom of teenagers, as a form of U.S. term-bound slavery not being denied as if a "myth" of slavery when not lifelong bondage. Hence, many sources can be used as evidence of actual "Irish slaves" in the 1640s-1690s, as called "slaves" by writers in the 1600s, but the in-depth coverage would justify this separate article about the Irish slaves debate, and how the myth/meme viewpoint was propagated as deniers about "Irish slaves". Many sources will be needed as cites for the various related issues, and the updates to the page might require weeks or months of revisions. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Some sources say debate, not myth. Many sources describe the myth as just that. That involuntary indentured servitude on a large scale took place is not in question and is not challenged by this article. The facts in the article are well sourced. I would suggest reading the references and re-reading the 'Common elements' section. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

And of course some of the sources referring to Irish slaves are completely erroneous and bogus- as correctly pointed out by Liam Hogan... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

As this article doesn't challenge the fact of involuntary indentured servitude and the original IP's neutrality issue was addressed by Alanscottwalker, I'm removing the tag. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Because this comment cites no sources as is generally what WP:TALK suggests, this comment is unhelpful and almost comes across as a WP:NOTAFORUM violation. There is not a place to begin good discussion, without knowing what sources you are claiming, eg., what sources make you think the WP:COMMONNAME is any different than what this article is already titled, and is used by the sources in the article, repeatedly. (And we need your sources to examine in full for every one of our content policies, including WP:NPOV, for example, you vaguely refer to primary sources from the 1600's, ones that we cannot generally use). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Citations

I went through and read the citations that the author of this article provided as their sources. None of the sources are honest sources. The majority are biased articles, blogs, etc and written and published by Black Supremist Organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debranise1225 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

^Thats because they want the monopoly on slave-guilt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:D21:4080:F8D5:15B0:BF37:10AC (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2019

Change the tone of the article to sound more like an encyclopedia rather than an opinion essay. The article is very well-sourced and adequately makes its case, but reads (to me) as being quite bitter. It feels unprofessional. The actual content needs no change, but the tone certainly isn't academically appropriate. Sawses (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Support for the "myth"

The article misses support for the claim of white slaves from Ireland. It claims all support comes from racist websites and racist people. However the claim is backed up by some of Irelands top academics, and historians in both Ireland and even the President of Ireland appeared in a documentary on Irish slaves "The Irish Sugar slaves of Barbados".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY4rDnb11bY

The documentary is years old, but has the highest sources one could imagine, so why in the origins of the myth is a racist website listed, and against it a newspaper and people on geanology websites? The whole page needs to be re-written or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillydallyer (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Over-reliance on single source in article (Stack/NYT)

Currently, the article relies almost entirely on Liam Stack and his personal opinions which he put forward in an article in the New York Times (that single opinion piece is cited 19 times!) and the other is Liam Hogan of OpenDemocracy who is cited throughout the article. Previously the article introduction claimed that "many historians" have criticised the idea that Irish people were slaves is a myth. Where is the evidence for that? We have Stack and Hogan who have wrote most prominently about it, but neither are historians or even academics, both are just writers/journalists for liberal publications (who have a vested interest in minimising the issue and dancing around with semantics for political motivated concerns). Andronine (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, in his New York Times article the supposed list of "large number of Irish historians" provided by Stack, isn't exactly that.

It is headed up by Susan Amussen of University of California, Merced, who is a "gender and race" historian, who has never authored a book about Irish history... her letter simply states that she dislikes that the concept of Irish people being slaves in the 16th century is being used be her political rivals today. It doesn't debunk the claim, just says that she dislikes it and feels a need to condemn it.

Her public Twitter profile confirms a clear ideology bias in favour of the far-left of the Democratic Party and conformity to almost every ultra-liberal frumpy cat-lady baby-boomer stereotype going; her name on Twitter is literally "Dr & Prof Amussen hates patriarchy". The feed itself is mostly her ranting about how much she dislikes white people and men and, of course, white men (hardly an impartial source to give too much credence to). Most of the rest of the people she chased up to add their names to the list through a mass spam email chain are not even historians, a lot are just graduates or at best people who work in random (non-historian) university departments, who are not specialised in this subject area (she herself is not). Andronine (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

First you falsely claim that there are not cites for number of historians and then because what you claim is false, you try to level personal attacks against sources you disagree with. Your arguments reveal an interest in promoting whatever agenda you have. There are forty cites in the article, so it's silly to claim that there is only one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Definition of slavery

It seems to me that the whole debate depends on the exact definition of the term "slavery", so it might be advisable to expand that point. I'm only a layman with regard to this topic but as far as I understand it, while the treatment of the Irish was in no way chattel slavery as Africans usually experienced it, it can still fall under broader definitions of slavery that are also common among experts (as also illustrated by the clarifying compound term chattel slavery).

Quote from the intro paragraph of the article Slavery: "Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property.[1] A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration. Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalized, de jure slavery. In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against their own will. Scholars also use the more generic terms such as unfree labour or forced labour to refer to such situations.[2] However, and especially under slavery in broader senses of the word, slaves may have some rights and protections according to laws or customs." --Ubel (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The “see also” edit warring going on

What’s going on here? Dbspencr (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020

references and links to The Cromwellian settlement of Ireland, letters between Cromwell and Secretary Thurloe people can read further. Interesting this page is locked and tend to quote the same sources then lock down a page.

https://archive.org/details/cromwellian00prenrich/page/272/mode/2up Gemmathegael (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Should globalresearch.ca be called a "conspiracy theory" site...

Should globalresearch.ca be called a "conspiracy theory" site, as this article currently does?

Over a decade ago a rogue administrator improperly conflated it with infowars and Andy Jones other sites. He told me he had considered blocking me, without warning, for using what he regarded as an Andy Jones site as a reference.

I'd never heard of infowars or Andy Jones. That administrator never acknowledged going off half-cocked, but the outcome was that globalresearch was recognized as an RS, in the context in which I had used it.

Of course a site that was okay a dozen years ago might have evolved into a bad site today.

I'd like the contributor who used this phrase to return here, and explain themselves more fully. Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Then you might want to ping them? The globalresearch.ca article calls the site a conspiracy site, and is reasonably well referenced... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bastun and Geo Swan: the issue isn't who added text here but the article on globalresearch.ca. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Geo Swan, who was the Administrator? And I'm not finding an RSN discussion that said it was ok to use over a decade ago.[17] Doug Weller talk 13:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal

@Acroterion: User-generated content sites like Medium, various other online blogs, tabloids and partisan campaign websites and other self-published sources clearly do not meet the criteria for WP:RS, especially not for an article discussing a historiographical controversy where ideally only scholarly sources should be used. St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You removed substantial amounts of content with no discussion, including material sourced to the SPLC, which is generally regarded as reliable when properly attributed. Wholesale deletions of that kind require discussion and consensus, particularly in topics relating to fringe points of view. Note also that when properly attributed, opinion and self-sourced content may be used to support individual expressions of opinion from prominent people in the field. Don't delete 5K of sourced material without getting consensus for your changes, especially in controversial areas Acroterion (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible stalking issue... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The content is presented as fact, not "individual expressions of opinion", at numerous points in the article, and the idea that the SPLC, a far-left partisan organisation that in addition to spreading deliberate falsehoods and race hate propaganda openly employs violent extremists, is reliable, is ludicrous, but I suppose only to be expected from the administrators--or should I say Commissars?-- of this site. And I notice you haven't addressed the other tabloid/blog "sources" (Jezebel, Atlanta Black Star, OpenDemocracy and co.), which if their slant was conservative rather than feminist/black supremacist/leftist would be purged without a second thought. Anyhow, if I understand you correctly controversial material (from extremely dubious sources) can be added without consensus/discussion but not removed? That seems rather perverse. I would have thought that if there was any doubt about the veracity/suitability of a source/content the default action would be to not include it. --St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The SPLC is explicitly regarded as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Jezebel less so, where we recommend to generally avoid it, especially on BLPs. This isn't a BLP, though, and it is used as a reference for quoting Matthew Reilly, a postdoctoral Fellow with expertise in the history of slavery in Barbados. It also quotes what John Martin has said, so... If you have issues with the other sources you mention, please raise them at WP:RS/N, but they are not currently considered unreliable. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite

This entire article reads like an angry ranting blog post argument against a strawman position. If this is truly a noteworthy subject, the article should discuss the subject, rather than presenting a persuasive essay against the subject, which is what we have here The Yar (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

We can't write on fringe topics without saying they're fringe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Citations and references needed. Statement it is a myth is an opinion. 80.233.36.189 (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the 41 references? Every line is cited, apart from the lead paragraph, which, as is standard on Wikipedia, is a summary of the referenced body of the article. Acroterion (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

This is wrong 109.76.119.171 (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

This article is biased and one sided. This is why Wiki Pedia lacks credibility 2600:1006:B110:D309:6DDA:3F14:3413:6EA2 (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Change James II to James I. Correction to the dates is needed and reference in the articles is to James I (1566-1625) 65.94.135.123 (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The reference appears to match the source, and it is correct at James II. Do you have any reliable sources you want others to look at, if you have something you wish to add about James I. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Whole article is trash

First, this whole article's existence is a violation of NPOV. You don't have articles with titles like "why scientologists are wrong about the age of the universe" or "why the Romans were clearly the bad guys in the second Punic war", and this is no different.

Second, it attacks an absurdly specific controversy ("how comparable was the enslavement of people X to the enslavement of people Y?") that I don't think meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Third, about half of it is original research and opinions, with claims like "even though some of the Irish were forced into labor and never signed a contract, that was still indentured servitude and not slavery because (insert BS reasons)"

Just take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk • contribs)

The venue to propose articles for deletion is articles for deletion. El_C 15:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Irish nationalists and their plastic-paddy cohorts across the pond should be ignored in the same fashion as Polish nats pushing "Polocaust" clap-trap. "The Irish Examiner removed an article that cited John Martin's Globalresearch.ca piece from its website in early 2016 after 82 writers, historians and academics wrote an open letter condemning the myth" OOOoooooo not a myth, aye? This is so strongly reminiscent of the "Polocaust" rubbish.--2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:D01D:3102:1F36:E811 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Over at the Juneteenth article, there's a forming consensus that penal labor constitutes "slavery." If that's the case, then the title of this article should be changed - since what is described in the article clearly fits the definition of "slavery" being advanced at the Juneteenth article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not for WP, still less one very local page, to define the meaning of words. We use sources. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I just find it interesting that Wikipedia has one page that says it's incorrect to equate penal labor with slavery - and even calls this equation a "myth" - and another page where editors are arguing strongly that penal labor is slavery. These two pages are on closely related topics and are in the same WikiProject. These are two completely opposite editorial lines within the same WikiProject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

What? Here, the article talks about the difference between heritable chattel slavery, and other time-bound, not-heritable arrangements and a large part of the myth is the rhetorical conflation. The thirteenth amendment did get rid of heritable chattel slavery.[18] To the extent it did not get rid of penal labor, that is still consistent with this article because it did get rid of chattel slavery, marking the substantive distinction in law and in fact, which the myth, as sourced in this article, tries to erase. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no "editorial line" on Wikipedia, even for Wikiprojects, for one. And see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Eniagrom (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Title of page is deeply offensive.

It is historically proven that Irish People were enslaved under any description of slavery, and it was undertaken because fundamentally white British regarded the Irish as racially inferior. Although some have tried to use these historical events to undermine the issue of African Slavery, it does not negate the experience of the Irish Slaves, or the historical impact even if it does not compare to the industrial African Slave Trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raytbarry (talk • contribs) 10:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a gross misrepresentation of reality.

This does not reflect any known history. Irish slavery was not a myth. Slavery is not a myth. Draven123657 (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll see that it is about the pseudohistory that has constructed this myth. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistency

This page implies that no Irish were slaves ever based on the fact that Irish as slaves is a myth, and it gives many sources.

But the page for St. Patrick says that he was a slave: " According to the Declaration, at the age of sixteen, he [St. Patrick] was kidnapped by Irish raiders and taken as a slave to Gaelic Ireland."

I'm not a historian so I'm not sure which is which.

But Wikipedia here is high inconsistent.

We should either remove the citation that St. Patrick was a slave or change the title of this page to Controversy which is more neutral point of view anyway seeing as there are many historians who had evidence of Irish being slaves such as St. Patrick. ItalianRake (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell's page also lists the notion that the Irish were enslaved: "On the other hand, the worst atrocities committed in Ireland, such as mass evictions, killings and deportation of over 50,000 men, women and children as prisoners of war and slaves[73] to Bermuda and Barbados, were carried out under the command of other generals after Cromwell had left for England." Again, assuming that this page is correct, this page should also be corrected. It's almost as if one editor of Wikipedia is not respecting the other pages on the site.

I vote to delete this page as it's not actually documenting anything historically relevant. If the Irish were not slaves, I'm not sure that's noteworthy. I mean, there are so many people in so many other countries who are also not slaves. ItalianRake (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

(after ec) Did you get past reading the article title before writing the above, never mind the first sentence? "The Irish slaves myth concerns the use of the term Irish "slaves" as a conflation of the penal transportation and indentured servitude of Irish people during the 17th and 18th centuries." That the Irish were slaves, had slaves and were slavers is not in question, and the article does not make that claim.

St. Patrick, by the way, was Welsh. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency in the Cromwell article. That's present and referenced to a book also discussed in this article. Plainly that book is not a reliable source. I'll remove it from the Cromwell article now. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Surely the concern about neutrality stands though. This article seems to suggest that indentured servitude isn't slavery because it's temporary, which is of course ridiculous. Chattel slavery isn't the only form of slavery. If it were, the word "chattel" would be useless. CamdenQ (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

No, the concern doesn't stand. The article goes to great lengths to explain that indentured servitude and chattel slavery are different concepts which should not be conflated. Indentured servitude is not the same, in scale or in brutality, as chattel slavery, or to "slavery" as the term is commonly used. Blurring this line is precisely the purpose of this myth, and knowingly contributing to that confusion is not appropriate here or anywhere else. To put it another way, relying on word games is not persuasive. Grayfell (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The term "slavery" refers to involuntary servitude, which included indentured servants. The phrase "indentured servitude" is itself a euphemism that serves to minimize the evil of the practice. If the line has been blurred, it is by people who, like yourself, refuse to accept anything other than chattel slavery as slavery. But, as I pointed out above, the existence of the phrase "chattel slavery" shows there are forms of slavery besides that. Saying that indentured servitude is a form of slavery does not equate it in any of the scales you mentioned to chattel slavery. It says nothing of the scale nor the brutality.

More importantly, titling this a "myth" takes a stance on a highly controversial moral and linguistic debate that is far from settled. We're not arguing whether the Irish really were forced to work against their will at a significant rate. We're arguing whether that counts as slavery. That's the core issue and that's a matter of opinion. This page is clearly not compliant with the NPOV standard. CamdenQ (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the very first sentence? "The Irish slaves myth is a pseudohistory that falsely conflates the penal transportation and indentured servitude of Irish people during the 17th and 18th centuries with the hereditary chattel slavery experience of Africans That's the point, the false equivalence of the Irish and African experiences. Acroterion (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course I read that, which is why I specifically mention that the disagreement is what counts as slavery. "Irish slaves myth", as a title, is not a neutral stance on the topic, nor is it "pseudohistory" to acknowledge that the Irish were subject to involuntary servitude in significant numbers. The ONLY thing being objected to is whether that counts as slavery and if it does if it's comparable to the slavery experiences of Africans. The issue here is the failure to adhere to the NPOV standard and instead taking sides in an ongoing debate. CamdenQ (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The subject is that conflation of the two distinct kinds of servitude. Can you find academic sources that consistently describe the Irish as goods and property? It's trivially easy to find for slaves of African descent. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The evils of indentured servitude should not be minimized. This is a quite horrible article.

Landrumkelly (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Did Wales exist as an entity at the time of saint Patrick?

Where did he live in Wales? Bianchi-Bihan (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

St. Patrick isn't exactly pertinent to this talk page lol but since you asked, no Wales did not exist as an entity at the time but was part of Roman Britain, where it is agreed Patrick originated, but exactly where is unknown. The local population of Roman Britain were the Celtic "Britons", whose closest direct descendants are the Welsh.OgamD218 (talk) 06:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Name Change

I have read the "inconsistency" talk page section and the entire Wikipedia page. I believe we should rename the article. Everything is properly cited. But to title the article as "Irish slave myth" while we have multiple articles talking about the slave trade in Ireland throughout history and indentured servitude, the title gives the impression that no slavery existed at all in Ireland, to the naked eye. While the substance itself is accurate and sourced, the title deserves a new name in line with the article itself. New title should say for example "The Irish slave myth in conflation with African chattel slavery" quite a mouthful, could use trimming, but should be titled after the substance and meaning of the article as to lesser confusion, and not discredit historically accurate events. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The header for the entire article reads:

This article is about the conflation of Irish indentured servitude and African chattel slavery. For Irish taken as slaves, see Barbary slave trade. For the history of chattel slavery in Ireland, see Slavery in Ireland. For the general history of Irish indentured servants, see Irish indentured servants.

It seems like this resolves your issues of confusion and historical accuracy better than your suggestion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, the assertion about alleged confusion seems illogical: Frontier myth does not mean no frontier; National myth does not mean no national; Kosovo myth does not mean no Kosovo; Megahertz myth does not mean no megahertz; Rommel myth does not mean no Rommel; Political myth does not mean no political. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)