Talk:Michael A. Hoffman II

Apologia for racism and far right extremism on Wikipedia

The tone of this article is clearly apologetic, and thus represents someone's Point of View (ie that of a Nazi or an apologist for such). A great many of the claims therein indicate a strong bias toward Mr Hoffman's far right views. Much of this needs to be re-written by someone who isn't a fan of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.184.213 (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, with your far left, supremacist views, you deny the Judeo-Bolshevik Holocaust against the Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.238.152 (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you trying to say here? This makes no sense 85.247.209.110 (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&q=defamation+truth

When stories are fully investigated by examining everything, the preponderance of evidence is usually NOT in favor of similar such organizations. To win, extra judicial measures (sometimes involving large nearly unlimited funds, state sponsored spy craft, etc) are brought to bear upon the situation that "could" involve corruption/bias of one sort or another. Oldspammer (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

holocaust denial

Is Hoffman involved in holocaust denial or not? If so of it not, some quotes would be helpful. Hmains 20:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The article represents his view thusly: "Hoffman doubts that six million Jews were killed by the Nazis and asserts that most of the Jewish deaths in WWII were from typhus, malnutrition and shootings perpetrated by some units of the SS on the Eastern front."

That is certainly denial of the known facts.

A friend of mine died a few years ago at the age of 96, he had been imprisoned at Auschwitz as a young man, and spent his entire adult life thoroughly convinced that his entire immediate family were incinerated in the Nazi crematoria, with no other explanation of their ends ever surfacing. See David Cole's version of the Holocaust. It is far more accurate.

How it is that Hoffman can claim to know better than those who were actually held in the camps is beyond me. Bustter (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And how does one in any way contradict the other? Of course they were likely cremated if they died in the concentration camps, this is not denied by any academic authority on the so-called holocaust; the dispute is whether or not prisoners were cremated alive, for which there is absolutely no evidence. If they died from typhus, which would be an entirely ilkely explanation, there would be little choice but to cremate them -- typhus breeds and spreads from the infected corpses of those it kills, like many diseases do.

216.185.250.92 (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

 http://web.archive.org/web/20061218133928/http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2006/12/iran-upholds-enlightenment-principles.html

the preceding is a post from Mr. Hoffman's weblog. I leave it to you to decide whether this constitutes "denial" Macdata 00:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - he is a very good writer. I can't understand why an obvious Wiki Holocaust Project article would give a link that gives such a good exposition of the denial viewpoint. But thanks anyway.159.105.80.141 11:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

He used to work for the New York Times, so I'd be surprised if he wasn't a good writer. He just also happens to be a fruitcake. Darkmind1970 15:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Whoever wrote this comment ^ is insane. Mr. Hoffman, who I have known all my life, never worked for the New York times and he is not a "fruitcake." Why would you put something false up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.136.126 (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Jewish propagandists have a long history of putting out exaggerated claims. Gittin 57b of the Talmud talks about the death of 4 BILLION Jews at the hands of the Romans in the city of Bethar (they term it "four hundred thousand myriads", a myriad being a synonym for the number 10,000). Are you so gullible that you believe 4 billion Jews were murdered by the Romans? This appears even in the censored version here: http://halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_57.html#PARTb

Also, Jewish propagandists were complaining about the plight of 6 million Jews since the early 1900s. In the American Hebrew, Oct. 31, 1919, an article appears entitled "The Crucifixion of the Jews Must Stop!", going on and on and on about the plight of 6 million Jews: http://www.codoh.com/graphics/crucifixion.gif

Remember that this was written in 1919. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.238.152 (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Do not use talk pages for WP:SOAPBOX. Spaceclerk (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MichaelAHoffman.jpg

Image:MichaelAHoffman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Editorializing

There is currently an editing conflict underway in that an editor who insists on using Mattias Gardell almost exclusively as a source, is being allowed to take control of Hoffman's page. Earlier in 2013 that editor removed material that has been in the Hoffman entry for years. Valuable information was deleted in favor of a truncated version lifted almost entirely from Gardell's decade-old book.

Today I have been trying to restore material, correct errors and add citations and references that have been missing. Almost as soon as I make these changes, they are removed by the other editor.

Hoffman's page should be an objective summation of facts concerning his life, career and work, and not a soapboax for adversaries to present a distorted picture. I have retained the charge of Holocaust denial against Hoffman because it seems to stick, since he says no one was gassed at Auschwitz, but I have added, from his Amazon author's page, his own understanding of how the term has been politicized.

You don't use the subject himself as a source for a Wikipedia article. That's using a primary source. You don't do that.

I have also added documentation of his disputed Associated Press career, which is available from extant teletype dispatches from the A.P. wire in the years Hoffman worked for A.P.. Another Wikipedia editors continues to remove this documentation.

You have to produce actual dates. Blithely reporting that he worked for AP thirty years ago doesn't work. Sorry.

We have here a case of editorializing presented as a biography. Material not in line with the editorial line is repeatedly deleted. Wikipedia should not have an editorial line. Wikipedia entries should report facts and both criticism and and replies to criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Asimov (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

May 9, 2013: Previous editor (censor) removed reference to Hoffman's educational background and professors.

They are uncorroborated by anyone but himself.

The reference was a published source, yet it was removed.

It was a self-published source by Hoffman himself.

Previous editor (censor) removed reference to Amazon author's page while retaining the Nizkor page.

And I retained Hoffman's own page. Hoffman wrote his own Amazon page. I know this because I wrote MY own Amazon page. All authors do (or their agents). Want to try the gambit that Hoffman has an agent?

This is a a clear example of the extent to which editorialists want to control this page. The purpose of any encyclopedia page at Wikipedia is the expansion of knowledge, whether it is published source or a link to an author's Amazon page. Removing sources and links exposes the censor as an editorialist.

Sources have to meet certain criteria. The subject of the article him- or herself doesn't get to submit exclusive content. That violates NPOV in the most obvious way.

The editorialist-censor also added one-dimensional descriptions of Hoffman's colleague Willis Carto. He is described only as a Holocaust denier. This is the same one line definer by which Hoffman is described. Hoffman and Carto are holocaust deniers. That much is pretty obvious.

And that is the avocation for which they are both best known.

My objection as an encyclopedia editor is with defining a subject strictly by that trait alone. Carto has published extensively as a populist.

No, he has SELF-PUBLISHED on populism.

He founded the Populist Party and wrote a book called Profiles in Populism. He supported Obama for president, with qualifications. It's ridiculous to reduce his curriculum vitae to two words. I would say the same for Hoffman. He has written one holocaust denial book and six books on other subjects, but his holocaust denial becomes his defining characteristic.

Let me give you another example. James A. Garfield was ambidextrous. He could write different ancient languages with each hand simultaneously. But he's most famous for being a POTUS. So his one-line description is "president" not "ambidextrous learner of ancient languages."

This is not fair and more importantly, it is not accurate. The editorialists want to define Carto and Hoffman negatively so they choose holocaust denier.

They are what they are. It's not my problem.

This serves their propaganda, but does it serve the function of an encyclopedia? It looks like Hoffman is mainly a revisionist historian who happens to deny the holocaust, but he can't be defined mainly as a revisionist writer because the editorialists here see that as increasing his credibility, and their goal is to diminish it.

Nope. Hoffman is best known as a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite (I'll give him equal standing on both). He is a virtual unknown as a writer in general, particularly because he self-publishes all of his work.

My goal is to assess the facts: 6 books of revisionist history and one book of holocaust denial = revisionist historian.

I would boil it down to five books of rank anti-Semitism and two books of pseudo-history. But that's me. Let me ask you a question: Since Joseph Goebbels wrote a novel, do you think it's important that he be known as a novelist?

That's the equation of an encyclopedist but the editorializers will never allow it. They will continue to try to shape this entry to suit their political objectives. Really unfortunate for the credibility of Wikipedia. - Aaron Asimov (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Aaron Asimov.

May 9, 2013 (Supplemental): I am adding the following -- one is self-explanatory, being part of the stated editorial philosophy of Wikipedia. The other is the basis of any true encyclopedia. What I have tried to restore on this entry is what has been missing: a neutral point of view.

Bullshit. Using supporting evidence for the subject himself violates the very heart of NPOV.

I question "activist" editors who tweak these entries almost exclusively for the purpose of making the subject look as bad as possible and that's what's been going on. The second thing I want to say is that the purpose of a useful reference encyclopedia is not to make someone look bad or good. It's to help the people who access Wikipedia to read an author in the fullest context possible. Aaron Asimov (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As it stands now, the "Criticism" section seems to me to be only the expression of one editor's views. The quotations which open the section are not illuminating, so I suggest deleting the entire section; but I will express that opinion here for discussion (if any) because of the contraversial nature of the subject. 24.36.74.15 (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked in the UK?

The only source I can find for this claim is a user post at Hoffmans blog[1]. It's certainly not blocked countrywide as per Great Firewall of China, and gives a false impression of censorship. I'm removing this statement until it can be proven.--78.86.25.66 (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Censorship section off

This section is clearly a feigned attempt at objectivity from a single viewpoint and needs to be sufficiently edited or possibly entirely rewritten. The so called facts (claims) made here are not cited. Since Mr. Hoffman has copied all of the correspondence between himself and Amazon on his blog the author could have easily cited his blog as a first hand account ... unless however that evidence doesnt support the author of this sections claims. (----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uptomyknees (talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Corrections and Points to Consider

(1) Hoffman was born in Batavia, New York. He's 58 years old, which means he was born in 1951 — not 1954. (Source for place or birth is Gardell; sources for age are intelius.com and ussearch.com, which rely on credit card information — thus either reliable or an indication that the credit card holder has committed fraud.)

(2) In some fifteen years of dealing on and off with Hoffman, I've never been able to verify that he was ever employed by the AP. This doesn't mean that he wasn't; but the burden of proof lies with the claimant, i.e., Hoffman. Thus to call him a "journalist" when there is not yet proof of his ever being anything other than self-employed as one is taking things a bit far. Plus, journalists are supposed to be objective. On this point, if you self-publish a newsletter, as Hoffman does "Revisionist History," then you can call yourself managing editor, editor-in-chief, or Pope of the Edit, as far as the rest of the world is concerned. It doesn't actually make you a managing editor. I'd suggest changing this language to reflect this.

(3) Hoffman is half-Italian, as Gardell mentions and Hoffman himself has written (see his essays on John Gotti, e.g.).

(4) This "New York bureau" of the AP is boilerplate Hoffman. I have only one source to go on, and that person is dead, unfortunately, but I was once told that Hoffman worked for an AP bureau in upstate New York. Hoffman typically writes this line of his bio to make it appear as if he worked at the AP headquarters in NYC. He did not.

(5) Like many Holocaust deniers, Hoffman misunderstands Orwell and the term "Newspeak." If he believes that the term "Holocaust" is Newspeak, then it ought to be inserted elsewhere that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Orwell's own essay on Newspeak indicates not that new words are coined, but rather that words are eliminated from vocabulary.

(5) The whole section on the Holocaust requires a refutation, which I'd be happy to write.

(6) The quote from Genovese is poorly sourced and cherry-picked to boot. Ella Kelly does not describe the social strata of the slave era, but rather of the postbellum South. This is typical denial "scholarship."

(7) Jim Goad quotes Hoffman as many times (ten) as he quotes Howard Zinn. In a book of over 250 pages, I don't see this as "heavily" citing Hoffman.

(8) The Gardell quote in "Criticism" is heavily cherry-picked. Gardell also indicates that Hoffman is an anti-Semite and identifies him as part of a white separatist counterculture (see Gardell, p. 98).

(9) The criticism section badly needs citations of people who have refuted Hoffman's writings on Judaism, e.g., Gil Student, David Maddison, and Harry Katz. Furthermore, as he is a Holocaust denier, plenty of quotes can be brought in to bear on this point. Again, I can provide these.

Kindly refrain from adding material to my post. It's rude.

Aemathisphd (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Source for "AP" claim

Source for the A.P. claim is hard copy dispatches from the A.P. wire bearing Hoffman's byline, 1982-1983. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Asimov (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reliable source that Hoffman worked for the New York bureau of the AP? If not, this claim should be removed. Spaceclerk (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As this claim remains unsupported nearly a year after his question, I have removed it. Goodwinsands (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Minus actual dates of publication, I'm removing/editing this out. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemathisphd (talk • contribs) 04:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

To be clear on an old point: Hoffman worked for an upstate NY bureau of AP —- the phrase “the NY bureau of the AP” is designed to imply that he worked for the main bureau in NYC. There is zero evidence that he did.

NPOV still disputed?

Is the neutrality of this entry still disputed? If not, at the end of November I will remove the POV warning at the top of the entry. Spaceclerk 13:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceclerk (talk • contribs)

As there was no reply to his question for nearly a year, I have removed the NPOV banner. Goodwinsands (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Absurd categorizations

This BLP is already categorized as category:Critics of Judaism and category:Holocaust deniers. Why does Galassi insist that it should be in category:Antisemitism? That category is not intended for biographical articles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This perfectly appropriate, as Holocaust Denial is a subset of Antisemitism.--Galassi (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand the category system. It seems that you want to use it to brand this guy as a VBP (very bad person). That is not what categories are for. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:GOODFAITH?--Galassi (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it. The article only needs to be in the subcat. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Article is Substandard

"Michael Anthony Hoffman II (born 1957) is an American Holocaust denier and conspiracy researcher/theorist." What!?!? I would love to know when Hoffman ever denied the Holocaust.

Virtually everything he's published on the topic denies it. Do you really want URLs? Because I can give you about a million. You need only ask.

Please, cite it. Since no one will be able to, why is it here? The only thing Hoffman has said is that he believes that the number said to have died is highly inflated, and any serious inquiry into the subject will lead the editors here to a similar conclusion, or at a minimum, leaves the question in very serious doubt.

Yeah, no it won't. First of all, saying the number said to have died is "highly inflated" and saying there were no gas chambers, which Hoffman has said, is blatant, unadulterated Holocaust denial. You can try to float that bullshit someplace else, but not here. OK?

More Jews would have been killed than actually lived in Germany prior to the war, even before many fled the country.

What are you, twelve? Anyone who's bothered to look ever briefly at the topic knows that the vast majority of the Jews who were killed were citizens of Poland and the USSR.

However, putting that aside, the assertion alone that fewer than 6 million died does not make him a "holocaust denier," a handy label effective only at stifling honest discourse. Why use a tired label with all kinds of baggage, as obtuse and nonspecific as it is, when you can simply describe what it is about mainstream historians' account that he disagrees with regarding the holocaust? There is absolutely no reason to whitewash his disagreements via the term "Holocaust denier" other than to obfuscate his specific disagreement. So, why is the article written so? It certainly does not belong in an encylopedia.

Yes, it does.

"Conspiracy theorist" is nearly as tired a phrase. Just write what he theorizes and get on with it. No need for baggage-laden terms, this isn't Fox News or MSNBC. Is there an editor here who knows how an article is actually supposed to be phrased and written? Or are we all thought police? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.192.14 (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Text must reflect the sources

The article previously stated:

Hoffman was born to a Catholic family in 1957 in Geneva, New York. His father, the chief of physical therapy at Clifton Springs Hospital, was German-American. His mother, the owner of a hotel chain, was Italian-American.

It was changed to:

Hoffman was born in 1957 in Geneva, New York in the Finger Lakes region. His father, a hospital worker, was German-American. His mother, a secretary, was the daughter of Italian immigrants.

The information about being born to a Catholic family, his father's occupation and position, and his mother's occupation was removed, but all of it appears in Gardell (p.98 and 363). Gardell does not state that his father was a hospital worker or that his mother was secretary or the daughter or Italian immigrants, so Gardell can not be used to cite that material. I have reverted that change. Location (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Text must reflect the sources, part 2

The article previously stated:

Hoffman was reportedly taught at an early age about William Morgan whose abduction and disappearance in 1826 resulted in the formation of the Anti-Masonic Party. He said that he learned from his maternal grandfather that elections in the United States were rigged by organized crime. From this, Hoffman was said to have deduced that "[n]othing is at seems to be", which in turn led to a "life long vocation, researching the subterranean workings of the occult cryptocracy's orchestration of American history". He worked on the projects of Willis Carto, David Irving, Tom Metzger, Ernst Zündel, and the Institute for Historical Review.

It was changed to:

Prof. Abu-Jaber alerted Hoffman to the case of William Morgan whose abduction and disappearance in 1826 resulted in the formation of the Anti-Masonic Party. Gardell claims that Hoffman said he learned from his maternal grandfather that elections in the United States were rigged by organized crime. From this, Hoffman was said to have deduced that "[n]othing is at seems to be", which in turn led to a "life long vocation, researching the subterranean workings of the occult cryptocracy's orchestration of American history". He worked on the projects of Holocaust denier Willis Carto, German-born neo-Nazi Ernst Zündel, Lutheran Pastor and Holocaust denier Herman Otten, alternative publisher Adam Parfrey, and the Institute for Historical Review, where he served as Assistant Director

The information about Irving and Metzger appear on page 98 of Gardell, so that material should remain in the article. Gardnell does not state that "Prof. Abu-Jaber alerted Hoffman to the case of William Morgan", so Gardnell cannot be used to cite that material. I am changing it back. Location (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Recent edits

A number of recent edits have been made, obviously attempting to downplay Hoffman's well-known views (namely antisemitism and holocaust denial) and violating NPOV. If anyone has the energy to systematically go through these, go for it. Blackmetalskinhead (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP concern re denier label

Can we get some additional sources supporting the assertion that Hoffman is a Holocaust denier? I am concerned about calling anybody this without a great body of evidence.

I affirmed by checking that Michael Barkun certainly sad this about him in 2003, although I am having difficulty affirming the idea that the 2002 book by Robert Jan van Pelt does similarly. Perhaps this is due to preview limitations on google books, but I tagged as template:unreliable source? requesting that the quote from the book supporting it be clarified as the only mention I found of Hoffman on page xi is some strange comparison to parables.

Surely it should take more than two people's say-so to condemn someone as a denier. Ideally: do we have this in Hoffman's own words? A BLP subject self-describing as a denier would certainly settle things better than having others call them that.

If for example a BLP subject rejects the accusation of being a denier, shouldn't we note that, and be more particular about citing sources which do so?

Plus... it's 13 years after 2003, so even if someone had in the past been a denier, is it still correct a decade later to describe them that way? What if their rhetoric changed? Wouldn't "was a denier" be more accurate than "is a denier" when talking about older reviews? Ranze (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

New edits undoing old changes

I reverted several relatively recent edits today that returned old material long changed in reflection of points of view here. If there is an argument for changing the text previously agreed upon, please post it here. Aemathisphd (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Please keep your personal opinion off wikipedia, the article is presented in a fair and neutral tone, next undo will be reported to the Administrators watchlist, you've been banned before, be careful. Ramsin93 (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and report it. As noted, you are making significant changes to material of long standing on the page without checking the discussion here first. He quite simply is a Holocaust denier. He quite simply is not a scholar of anything. 11:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Aemathisphd (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

He is now edit warring and will not submit to mediation. Aemathisphd (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

So are we going to discuss this now, Ramsin93? Aemathisphd (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Aemathisphd Please just go ahead and edit it how you see fit, I agree that maybe scholar should be author instead, and maybe just remove the former AP reporter since it's not notable enough. Apart from that I don't think it's unreasonable to start the article, not as a culmination of his views, but rather the biography of a person. Ramsin93 (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, brother. This is not the week for it (very busy), but I'm get around to it eventually and will try to keep your edits where appropriate. Aemathisphd (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Planned removal

A section with the title Khazar Myth contains two sentences.

The first sentence asserts that the subject is an advocate of this myth. The second sentence asserts that the subject engages in hyperbole and includes a quote.

There is a source cited at the end of the second sentence.

I once saw a suggestion in Wikipedia that references should clearly indicate which facts they are supporting. That suggestion is not policy, and sounds unworkable, but that doest mean in situations such as this, that there is not immediate clarity whether the source provided is covering all of the assertions in the preceding paragraph, or only some of them.

It looks to me like the source is providing evidence of the quote.

An attempt to search the book for the word Ashkenazi provided the response "no results found in this book for Ashkenazi". I can't imagine how someone would make the case "most Ashkenazi Jews are not descended from the Biblical patriarchs" without using the word "Ashkenazi", so I think it is reasonable to conclude that the reference was used to support the existence of the quote, but does not support the initial sentence.

I don't quibble with the assertion that the quote constitutes hyperbole, but if evidence of hyperbole qualifies for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, we are going to need bigger servers. In a more serious vein, the opening sentence appears to be the item of importance, and it is not supported. I think it makes little sense to remove the opening sentence and leave a section that essentially says the subject has engaged in hyperbole, so I think the best action is to remove the whole section.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Edits possibly needed

There is a section with the title "Irish slavery myth". Wikipedia has an article about the subject: Irish slaves myth.

This section discusses a book written by Hoffman. I examined a snippet of the Kindle version of the book which has "Irish slaves" in the table of contents, so while I did not read the book it seems reasonable to conclude that there is discussion of (alleged) Irish slaves.

However, does the choice of "Irish slavery myth" as a section heading leave the impression that the book is primarily about Irish slaves? Does the use of the phrase "white slavery"/Irish slaves myth leave the impression that the Irish slaves is another term for "white slavery"? I'm on the fence regarding my first question, but my understanding of the / in "white slavery"/Irish slaves myth leave the impression that the two terms are being treated as, if not identical, very comparable.

I'd like to see some editing to provide some clarity. For example, it is demonstrably true that the book is not predominantly about Irish slaves, but more broadly about the concept of white slavery. It is also true that we often discuss a notion in a book, and there may be nothing wrong with discussing the notion without leaving the implication that the entire book is about that notion. It seems plausible that the point of the section heading was to say that the subsequent discussion is not a complete survey of the contents of the book, but a discussion of one aspect of the book.

I am a little more troubled by the "white slavery"/Irish slaves myth construction. The Wikipedia article on the subject appears to conclude that the claim about the Irish is false, but that doesn't mean historians think there has never been any white slavery. The evidence is sufficient to say that the notion of Irish slaves is a myth, but that doesn't mean that the notion of white slavery is a myth. There must be a better way to write this section.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

After little bit of thought, my current plan is the most parsimonious – to simply remove "white slavery" that is, change "white slavery"/Irish slaves myth" to "Irish slaves myth". the existence of the/can be interpreted in multiple ways but in context it appears to leave the impression that the two terms are virtual synonyms. it doesn't make a lot of sense to suggest that the fact that white slavery existed should be equated to the specific myth regarding the Irish. I think the section reads better if the edit is made. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)