Ireland Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Caribbean Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• (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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

I wouldnt have a problem with that.

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• This edit[4] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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