Talk:Atlantic slave trade/Archive 3

List of nations
In case anyone finds it useful, here's the list that was removed from the article:

Below are 29 nation states by country that actively or passively participated in the Atlantic Slave Trade:


 * Senegal: Denanke Kingdom, Kingdom of Fouta Tooro, Jolof Empire, Kingdom of Khasso and Kingdom of Saalum
 * Guinea-Bissau: Kaabu Empire
 * Guinea: Kingdom of Fouta Djallon
 * Sierra Leone: Koya Temne
 * Cote d'Ivoire: Kong Empire and Gyaaman Kingdom
 * Ghana: Asante Confederacy and Mankessim Kingdom
 * Benin: Kingdom of Dahomey
 * Nigeria: Oyo Empire, Benin Empire, Igala, Hausa Kingdoms, Fulani Empire, the Kingdom of Nri, and Aro Confederacy
 * Cameroon: Bamun and Mandara Kingdom
 * Gabon: Kingdom of Orungu
 * Republic of Congo: Kingdom of Loango and Kingdom of Tio
 * Angola: Kingdom of Kongo, Kingdom of Ndongo and Matamba

Maybe later we can expand it into a corresponding list of nations from around the world that participated (as buyers/sellers/victims), but for now, agree that it's kind of odd it only reflects Africa. -- Joren (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe, Joren, maybe. But, if you genuinely 'agree' that this list is 'kind of odd', then why are you reviving, emphasizing and representing it on the talk page? And why are you asking if it is 'useful'? After all, if anybody wanted to revive the imbalanced, anti-African list, they could have just got it from the article history log. Do you think that using the talk page to represent imbalanced, white-nationalist point-of-view information might be interpreted as a cowardly form of edit-warring? Probably not, as I'm sure cowardly, passive-aggressive, white-nationalist edit-warring just isn't your style:) Ackees (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are assuming good faith, then why do you talk about what you're "not" accusing me of?
 * -- Joren (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As it stands this list should be intigrated into the article. It shows the distribution of the Atlantic slave trade states whcih I believe to be an important point. Many forget that Western Africa was not a contributer to the Atlantic slave trade but instead to a seperate Western slave trade. A full list of receivers would be helpfull as well.--130.63.102.218 (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article is a vast one. Including the list will probably unbalance the article, as would a list of European countries involved.  However, we might have a sub-article List of African counties engaged in Atlantic slave trade.  Perhaps there should be a similar European list, but any list (to be useful) needs to add something so that it is more than a mere list.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

African/European Involvement
These two sections were written be different people wishing to prove their own point. The first says Africans were not very invovled the second says Europeans were not very involved. Someone who knows what they are talkign about without a personal goal should rewrite this properly. Additionally source used by th African section is a personal blog without references.--130.63.102.218 (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is clearly the case that Europeans had the ships and coastal Afrcian tribes supplied the slaves, so that both were heavily involved. However, that does not mean that every person who invested in the South Sea Company should be classified as a slave trader, if they were not directly involved.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It might help if the article was more specific about which Africans and which Europeans were involved and how. That list of states on this talk page above at least refers to actual slave-trading states, whose elites were involved in it. It wasn't all Africans or all Europeans doing the same thing at all times, but very specific groups. You could describe the major slave trading nations, their role and the periods when they were most active and maybe something on how they were organized. Or maybe do separate articles on individual nations/companies/colonies and link to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.210.145.13 (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this sentence hanging on to the end of the section on African participation in the slave trade, and it is totally irrelevant to the article: "Ashanti King Agyeman Prempeh (Ashanti king, b. 1872) also sacrificed his own freedom so that his people would not face collective slavery." This sentence refers to a figure who was active in the very late 19th and early 20th century, and is not related to the Atlantic slave trade described in this article. The Atlantic slave trade ended in the 1860s, according to sources cited in this article. I am removing this sentence because it's not material to this topic. BobCSmith (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

dutch in the atlantic slave trade
This article does not give any information on the dutch involvement in the black african slave trade. Alot of african people assume that the dutch enslaved african people. Most school history textsbooks pretty much imply that it was the dutch who started the african slave trade. Is this true? If so how extensive was the dutch enslavement of africans? How does it compare with other european nations? Do black people hate dutch males? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt it was the Dutch who enslaved them, but coastal African chiefs who captured opponents in war and enslaved them. As the greatest European trading nation, the Dutch were certainly heavily involved.  I leave the question of who was first to experts.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In August 1619 a Dutch ship brought the first Africans to English North America, at Jamestown. Solicitr (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of some 34,948 slave voyages chronicled on the slavevoyages.org website, 1,241 were in Dutch-flagged vessels. The Dutch lost their larger colonies in the New World fairly early on, as Portugal recaptured northern Brazil and Britain took New Netherland (modern New York), leaving the Dutch only with Suriname and tiny islands like Curacao and Aruba, not enough to produce a large demand for slave labor.  The Dutch were definitely not the first to participate in the Atlantic slave trade; that dishonor falls to the Portuguese in the 15th century, before the Netherlands even became independent.  Pirate Dan (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Be Careful
I think we should be very careful of people who have an agenda, especially David Duke-wannabes. We must not let them and others try to rewrite history for their self-serving purpose and we must be vigilant in keeping this factual. B-Machine (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would second that. This article has been subject to frequent changes, some of which are the result of WP:POV-pushing.  Now that every one condemns slave-trading, achieving a WP:NPOV is not easy.  Equally, indirect involvement in the trade should not be used to tar people indscriminately.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Perspective?
I realize I must tread very, very carefully here, as this is a 'powder-keg' page; but it is very much the case that distortion can sometimes arise not just from what is said but what is not said; that a photograph can distort simply by framing some things out.

The McCavity here is no mention whatsoever of the simultaneous, longer standing and arguably even greater Arab/Turkish slave trade, across the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Eastern Mediterranean as well as overland. Unfortunately the impression this page creates by omission is that the only Africans kidnapped and sent abroad against their will went westward for the profit of Europeans. --Solicitr (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Checkout the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade#. This may answer your question, and have the data you note.(Dumarest (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC))


 * I understand. But there is no crosstalk or cross-reference, nor overlap text as is often found on Wiki in related articles For example, the section "human toll" creates the impression that the Atlantic trade, solely was responsible for various social and economic ills in Africa.--Solicitr (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I understand the concern about that... but we have to be careful to stay on topic, since this article is about the Atlantic slave trade specifically. If we give each slave trade it's own section, we'll end up with African slave trade, which has already done that.  Without diminishing that need to stay on-topic, I agree it would be nice to have more cross-linked information... perhaps like a table comparing the human cost of the different slave trades, or notes about how the trades inter-related, etc...
 * ...as to the "Human toll" section, what would you change? How would you propose cross-linking the trades?
 * -- Joren (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Notice how you can almost guess the race of the author by his/her objections. I fail to see how we need to compare considering the Atlantic Slave trade is so great, so long, so unique to history. And even what we have here doesnt do justice to it, we need to add more content on how horrible it was not fork out into what some Arabs did. Comparing pears and Porsche doesn't make sense. Especially when I fear the motive is to try and defocus what Europe did, has been doing, to African people. Go and try this on the Holocaust page and see real fireworks.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While I'm skeptical on the need for a change in the article's emphasis, I'd still like the chance to hear what Solicitr has to say without poisoning the well. Thanks for your understanding,
 * -- Joren (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this page just focusing on the Atlantic trade. The African slave trade article gives an overview of the Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Saharan, and internal slave trades. Halaqah is wrong when he calls the Atlantic trade "so great, so long, so unique to history." The Arab slave trade lasted longer and involved more people. - SimonP (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, the 'human toll' section should at least contain some mention of the fact that the ill effects on Africa were the result of the slave trade, generally; to mention that tahey were the combined effects of the Atlantic, trans-Sahara and Red Sea/Indian Ocean trades. As it stands, the section strongly implies that it was the Atlantic trade, alone; while I'm sure Halaquah would love that POV, it's not Wiki.--Solicitr (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, so... let's make this about the article, not the other editors. Now, before we can do anything, we need sources; otherwise we're just spinning our wheels.  The section as it stands is sourced - it would help if we could verify the sources to see if they are really asserting that the Atlantic slave trade was the sole cause of all this, or the major portion, or a contributing factor, etc.  We do have to follow the sources, so we can:
 * Verify the article accurately reflects the sources' conclusions
 * See if there are any other notable conclusions or perspectives drawn from verifiable, reliable sources not yet in this article.
 * Do you have any sources that can be used to supplement this article?
 * -- Joren (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the easiest and quickest would be a brief, brief paraphrase with cites of text borrowed from Arab Slave Trade. Quicker, anyway, than a trip to the library. Solicitr (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you wanting to paraphrase exactly? If you have a draft in mind, feel free to post it here and we can work on it...  I did notice straight away that the top of Arab slave trade gives (or tries to give) a numbers comparison versus the Atlantic slave trade to place it in context.  Perhaps we could do something similar.
 * I also did some poking around at #1. It seems that at least a couple (that I checked) of the sources being used here already place the Atlantic slave trade in the larger context of the African slave trade in general, but that the article was not using them that way, so that could be adjusted to better reflect the conclusion the source is drawing.
 * -- Joren (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am struggling to find out how an Arab slave trade with no confirmed agreed upon numbers (i mean no one can say either way - NO RECORDS) can be "greater" than the European trade in Africans. Longer doesnt mean greater. Look how short the British ruled the world and the impact that short rule created. (hence we are speaking English). I mean lets take a look at the two. Where are all of these Africans that went to Arabia? Cuz we see All the Africans that went to America - in prison. We have a page for Arabs we have one for Europeans and we have a white washed one for Jewish involvement (which reads like an ADL denial statement). Let this page speak about the subject without trying to balance it against something non-related. The best we should do here is stop pretending we are "just editors" clearly everyone has some agenda to defend.See the tone in the section below this. Had I made those remarks I would be up for review. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * we have a white washed one for Jewish involvement (which reads like an ADL denial statement). Yes, there are certainly political agendas at work here.
 * The fact of the matter, if everyone would step back and get some, yes, perspective, is that for 10,000 years of human history slavery has been the norm and not the exception. Even in those societies where full chattel slavery wasn't practiced, there was some form of unfree servitude (serfdom in medieval Europe and East Asia, untouchables in India).  The move by Europeans from the 19th century first to abjure slavery and then abolish it elsewhere is an historical anomaly, and it's absurd to start pointing fingers at this, that or the other slaveowning society as uniquely or exceptionally guilty. --Solicitr (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This may have been covered already, but why does Slave trade re-direct here, as though the Atlantic trade was the only time anyone has ever bought and sold people? 213.121.242.7 (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

blaming entire nations?
Why does this article blame the entire nations for enslaving blacks? I know the school history textbooks do it but wikipedia does not have to go along with mainstream historians generalization of history. It should be pointed out that only a very small percentage of people from each country were involved in the enslavement of blacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nations made enslavement an industry, a functioning business essentially. This only ceased when said nations officially outlawed slavery. The percentage of people actually involved is not particularly relevant.AlecTrevelyan402 (Click Here to leave a message) —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

Entire nations did not enslave black africans, only a few people from some nations did. Do you have a source that says that every person who lived in the countries listed on this page were involved in black african slavery or knew about it? Blaming all people for black african slavery is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.113.88 (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it is worth pointing out that the purchasing and owning of a slave, let alone many slaves, would be akin to a contemporary man or woman owning a modern, very high priced luxury item. In other worlds, you had to be quite wealthy to be a slave owner, and as we know, "quite wealthy" has always been the lowest number bracket in a population. Many white Europeans and Americans were simply too poor to afford slaves. Sadly, someone will probably try to tear this comment apart because they will construe it as diminishing the evils of slavery, if trends hold true...

Jews in the netherlands
I added that the jews who moved from Spain to the Netherlands made up a significant portion of the historian supposed dutch slave traders/owners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.113.88 (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And I removed it because you did not include a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources are in the wikipedia article Jews and the slave trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.113.88 (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Information in the lead of an article is supposed to be a summary of the material included in THIS ARTICLE, not some other article -- see WP:LEAD. This article has nothing in it about Jewish domination of the Dutch slave trade and even the article you refer to indicates that Jewish influence was limited to a very short period of time. I have also reverted this.  Please stop edit warring and reach agreement on this discussion page before adding the material back to this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Pointing out that jewish people were as significant part of the "dutch" slave trade is very important. The jewish influence was integral to the "dutch" slave trade. If jews had not moved to the Netherlands the Netherlands would not have enough people involved in the atlantic slave trade to merit mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.119.190 (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As Tom wrote, please see WP:LEAD. Also, please see WP:Reliable sources. We can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources are in the Jews and the slave trade article so it can be used. I am going to undo your change if you delete it again I will delete the Dutch from the list since the Dutch are not mentioned anywhere in this article except for the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.119.190 (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If there are reliable sources there, you need to cite them here. You can't cite another Wikipedia article as a source.
 * And I don't respond to threats, you antisemitic son-of-a-bitch. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not anti-semitic. Wikipedia can be much more specific than common encyclopedias. That is the reason why people like wikipedia and that is what I am doing. If you want a encyclopedia that is vague get britannica. Most all wikipedia articles link to other wikipedia articles-if you delete changes just because it links to other wikipedia articles to be specific then you would have to delete most of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.119.190 (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Contrary to your claim earlier, the Dutch as slave traders are mentioned in the body of the article although there are no references to the Jewish influence in that trade. As at least three editors have told you, simply referencing another wikipedia article does not replace the need for reliable sources IN THIS ARTICLE. Further, the other article that you keep referring to does not support the broad claims that you want to make in this article.


 * I suggest if you are actually interested in arguing your case that you start discussing specific sources and specific language that those sources support. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the Jews and the slave trade article implies that the historically supposed "Dutch" slave trade would not funtion or be small if jews had participated then jews are a significant part of the black african slave trade concerning the netherlands. The sources are in the Jews and the slave trade and I will cite them.
 * be aware that you do not WP:SYN take content and statements from multiple sources and put them together to make or imply a conclusion that none of the sources actually makes on its own. Active Banana    (bananaphone  20:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for verification
'Verify source' tag added to the following: "Under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, the state of Virginia in 1778 became the first place in the world to end the international slave trade; it freed all slaves brought in after its passage." The passage is followed by two citations (which I have not read), but I've been unable to verify this claim anywhere else in WP. WCCasey (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "In the spring 1778 session Virginia became one of the first governments in the modern world to abolish the slave trade. The bill, which in all likelihood Jefferson composed although the evidence is not conclusive..." says The Revolution in Virginia, 1775-1783 by John E. Selby, Don Higginbotham online at google. Julian Boyd (the editor of the Jefferson Papers) also conclude TJ wrote the law--as Gordon Wood says, "There is no direct evidence that Jefferson was its author. But as Julian P. Boyd points out, the spirit and language of the bill were very characteristic of Jefferson and reflected his position toward the slave trade." [Wood, Russian-American dialogue on the American Revolution p 160] Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

WP relate, very related
No idea why a relate would have been removed. To the aliens visiting Earth (and some of us in attendance) not everyone knows the obvious and direct relationship (not to mention cross over) of these 3 slave systems; Arab, African (internal) and TST. The Atlantic preyed off of the Internal African slave trade, but the African slave trade is in itself a separate topic.(but even when you read it, it blends into the Atlantic - very easy to separate at times) They are all connected and easy to confuse. Deeply related and very necessary. It would be therefore wise to stop jumping to remove editors contents on a quick stroke of a click. Moreover only greater clarity is gained by the hat whatever edit. And use the talk page before making major changes.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Dutch Jews
User:Toddsmith199 added the word Jews to the following sentence:
 * The shippers were, in order of scale, the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch Jews, and Americans.

As a source, the editor cited Austen, p. 135 (I assume that's a reference to Ralph Austen's African Economic History: Internal Development and External Dependency), with the following quote:
 * "the only places where Jews really came close to dominating the New World plantation system were the Dutch colonies of Curaçao and Surinam.... but the Dutch territories were small, and their importance shortlived."

That sentence says that Jews did not dominate the slave trade except for maybe the small Dutch colonies, whose importance was short-lived. It does not say the shippers were Dutch Jews. The source for the original sentence, about "the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, and Americans", is Herbert S. Klein's Atlantic Slave Trade, in which the word Jew doesn't appear. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So why not just add what the sources say as oppose to deleting the entire content??? I could never understand this hyper sensitivity whenever Jew and slavery is mentioned and the policy across wiki to do damage control. It is an issue on the rise. is this reliable "Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial slave trade; indeed, the bylaws of the Recife and Mauricia congregations (1648) included an imposta (Jewish tax) of five soldos for each Negro slave a Brazilian Jew purchased from the West Indies Company. So the only issue is one word "dominated".--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The source indicates that "the shippers were, in order of scale, the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, and Americans". Nothing about Jews. Do you have something constructive to contribute, or are you just here to link to rense.com? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please observe wiki civil policy and refrain from commenting on my "constructiveness"- . Rense is a source that supports Toddsmith which came back from a basic google search (as if i have to explain why i post a link). I am however pretty certain that it will not be difficult for a source that supports this. And the content will not be so easily arbitrarily deleted if he comes back with a reliable source. That is his project so i wish him success in developing this article.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

All of a sudden
All of a sudden Kimani Nehusi is not a reliable source on slavery.

^ Thornton 1998. pp. 15-17. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 13. ^ Chaunu 1969. pp. 54-58. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 24. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 24-26. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 27. ^ Thornton, page 112 ^ a b Thornton, page 310 ^ Thornton, page 45 ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 28-29. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 31. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 29-31. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 37. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 38. ^ a b Thornton 1998. p. 39. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 40. ^ Rodney 1972. pp. 95-113. ^ Austen 1987. pp. 81-108. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 44. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 35. ^ Thornton 1998. pp. 40-41. ^ Thornton 1998. p. 33. ^ Thornton, page 304 ^ Thornton, page 305 ^ Thornton, page 311 ^ Thornton, page 122 I have Throntons books, there are good, but not that good to be used this many times. You do not need to say "Thornton say," three times. What he said is not a unique opinion exclusive to Thronton. So the reference to him is enough. Neither is what Nehusi says "Reasons to go to war" in any mainstream dispute.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't question him, I questioned the website (http://www.africanholocaust.net/) that is being used as a source. I can't find Nehusi's name anywhere on the site, but every instance of the word "Jew" is linked to http://www.jewishslavetrade.info/ To me, that says a lot about the site. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There was an edit conflict. See above issue with thornton. so that is your issue, what about the actual page in the link which talks about slavery. I dont care about Jews when we are discussing this topic (U cant sensor the world because a site has links you dont like, whats that about?). How many bad comments on Muslims in this page, and what I call Anti-Islamic sentiments. For years this site was here, I also see a link to Arab to Arab slave trade (which doesn't make it unreliable) | (not one single objection).  Plus it is sympathetic to the Jewish Holocaust. In any event I am really interested in any dubious, crappy, bad scholarship specifically on that particular page in question. Nehusi is also in the video right next to the comment. I actually moved the remark from later down in the article.  --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My chief issue, aside from the site's antisemitism, is that we don't know who wrote the website, except you say it was Kimani Nehusi. I trust you and all, but it would be nice if the website actually had Nehusi's name somewhere on it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will delete it in the interest of peace. And I agree it would be better if his name was stated overtly. But I passionately disagree with the charge of antisemitism, I have just browsed it and while it is certainly hostile to Israel (No escaping that and it doesnt even attempt to) it is very very respectful to Jewish people. I got the impression it was making the case that Jews by virtue of being Jews cannot be attacked for slavery. "To suggest a specific relationship between Jews and Slavery is problematic, "--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether his name is mentioned or not those kinds of private websites are not permissible sources for anything.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Who's to BLAME?
Who are the main people to blame for the enslavement of black africans? Who should feel the worst? How do europeans pay for the enslavement of africans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is purely a matter of opinion. The question is incapable of having a single encyclopaedic answer, and cannot properly be dealt with in this article.  It might possibly be dealt with in a sub-article concerned with the Historiography of blame in the Atlantic slave trade, but count me out of contributing.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You ask about "people to blame". That is not what history is about, but there might have have some underlying subjective comments here. Moreover, those people are not alive. Why would you think otherwise? If you are trying to blame a race or a culture, then you are clearly racist & bigoted, & your input is not welcome here. 76.102.100.72 (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, all the people involved in the slave trade are dead centuries ago. Secondly, West African slave traders were as much guilty of the slave trade as the colonial powers. Thirdly, you should not generalize that either Europeans or Africans (or any people of a continent) committed and responsible for the slavery; the peoples involved were mainly from 5 Western European colonial countries (Portugal, UK, France, Spain, and Netherlands), the USA, and several Western African nations. Even in these countries, few people were responsible for the Atlantic slave trade, and most of population of the country had no awareness or influence on the slave trade at that time. 64.189.103.116 (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Effects on Economy of Europe
Recent edit warring has occurred between myself and user Malik Shabazz regarding the wording of the section "Effects on Economy of Europe." The argument he is making is that both the statements of Eric Williams, who is said to have argued that profits from the slave trade financed Europe's industrialization, and David Richardson, who provides data that domestic investment in Britain's economy of slave trade profits was less than 1%, are equally valid and should be presented on equal ground. This user (Malik Shabazz) has done the same thing on the African Slave Trade page. One will observe, however, that the statements made by Eric Williams are unsourced, while the statements made by David Richardson, along with the statement pertaining to slave trade profits never exceeding 5% of Britain's economy, are sourced. Yet we see the Williams' statements completely untouched and unscathed and unquestioned by Mr. Shabazz, while the Richardson statements, as well as the Digital History link to the University of Houston (the source of the 5%) reworded and labeled as unreliable. Now, think about this for a second- what does it look like? What would cause someone to leave one set of statements (the Williams statements) unquestioned, despite no source being provided for them, but yet raise a brouhaha about wording and reliability about another set of statements (the Richardson and Digital History statements) that contradicts the first? Probably one thing: bias. Mr Shabazz realizes that he cannot outright delete these remarks, even though they likely do not fit in with his worldview, so he does the next best thing: make them less forceful by making them appear as opinions instead of facts. That way, both Eric Williams' unsourced contention that the slave trade financed Europe's industrialization and the opposing sourced statements by Richardson and Digital History (University of Houston) that it did not both are equally valid. This, children, is how history is rewritten and chipped away- slowly, through an edit here and an edit there. Please review the edit history of the article yourself and you'll notice exactly what Mr. Shabazz is trying to accomplish. I am barred from reverting his edits at the present because of the 3 revert rule, which I will respect. But at the expiration of 24 hours (perhaps a little longer since I do not want to appear to be gaming the system), I will correct Mr. Shabazz's edits to the more factually defensible position. Please comment here. And remember: the Williams statements have no source, yet they are are allowed equal footing with sourced material that makes use of established, tangible data. Even if the Williams material were provided with a source, would it matter? No, because I've read Eric Williams' statements on the slave trade- they are hypotheses and generalizations that are unsupported by factual data. Could this be the reason why Mr. Shabazz has completely sidestepped the missing source for the Eric Williams' statements? Please comment! Thank you! ElliotJoyce (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to be drawn into a debate with you on two pages. See Talk:African slave trade. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What debate? You have failed to respond to my argument here, my argument on the talk page of the African Slave Trade article, and my argument on my own user talk page. You have conceded, and I will pursue this with the other admins of this site to prevent you from abusing your authority against me any longer. After sufficient time has passed so that I do not appear to be gaming the system, I am reverting your biased, nonsensical edits on this page and on the African Slave Trade page. Good day. ElliotJoyce (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Jews and the slave trade: why not?
Why do you not want Jews and the slave trade in this article? The jews and the slave trade is mostly about the enslavement of black africans and the atlantic slave trade. The arab slave trade should be the link that gets deleted since arabs were not involved in the atlantic slave trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toadsmith (talk • contribs)
 * I am afraid the user has asked a question, I am not aware of their history but can only judge the question as it stands. I am a little concerned that the question was actually deleted. (don't know why- hence forcing me to say something). Regardless we must follow wiki guidelines, and this is talk page. The insertion is valid enough to be discussed. I will attempt to answer the question. I have to agree Arab slave trade is less connected than Jews and the slave trade (which is directly related to slavery in the Atlantic). So if one is linked why not the other. On the other hand Arab slave trade and Atlantic slave trade share a greater historical impact on Africa. So the two trades Atlantic and Arab are pretty significant, more so than Jewish people and the slave trade. There can be no topic on Wiki that gets special protection. But in this instances I lightly air on the side of it is not that notable as a "see also".--Inayity (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a valid article. Placing the comments of the "Nation of Islam" on the subject at the start is inapprropriate in an encyclopaedia -- more appropriate to an essay.  The Arab slave trade was different in nature.  It is well-known that Arabs were prepared to enslave any one who was not Muslim if they got the chance.  This is thus not realted to any Arab/Jew conflict.  There is a danger in this being allowed to become an attack article (WP:COATHANGER), but that can be cured, by purging it of such matter.  The majority of those engaged in the Atlantic slave trade were Christians, so that the participation of others is worth note, but this article which is a large one should not be allowed to be overwhelmed by detail.  I suspect that the number of Jews involved was a comparatively modest number.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I removed the question is WP:RBI. A review of the users' edits shows they have an unnatural obsession with Jews in the slave trade. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just declined a protection request on this article. Malik, your issue with the IP's obsession is irrelevant; in any event, please comment on content, not contributors. Can you please explain why the article Jews and the slave trade, which has a whole section on the Atlantic slave trade, should not be linked here? There seems to be an obvious connection. It would be fine if the article were linked somewhere in the text itself, but I see no justification for not having it linked somewhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just been to the article Qwyrxian listed and it looks like damage control. And the treatment of the ip looks a little heavy handed. But I understood he had a prior habit of Jew Focus editing. The pro is Jews and the slave trade is the Atlantic trade, i.e.the same history and that is pretty notable, hiding it, hedging it, is not wiki policy. As a Con, It was not that major as a single issue, and the issue of weight as a "See Also". maybe a mention in the body of the article is enough. And the fact that it is mentioned nowhere is again a concern.  --Inayity (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added a WP:FRINGE-compliant sentence about this in the relevant section; I believe this should solve the problem. Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is definitely a step in the right direction, and i hope further contribution will strike the appropriate representation of this topic. Not all of the topic falls under FRINGE. i.e. "domination and major role"(which is FRINGE) do not represent all critics. And we would have to represent the source of this controversy/Fringe (where it is a controversy/Fringe), with references per NPOV to that controversy. In other words NPOV allows both the claim and the refutation to be placed in equal weight. Like John Thronton vs. Anne Bailey on "African agency in the slave trade". But at least having a link to the main article should stop the argument of ip agenda editors b/c we have taken away their conspiracy claims of bias. --Inayity (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to check back into this. That's a really good sentence, in my opinion--it says that there were earlier claims that were later proven to be false. The only suggestion I'd make is to extend the wikilink to the end of the paragraph, but that's just a stylistic preference. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
This article contained a POV section template dating to November 2010. I've removed it per #3 in the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Looking at the archive, it's not fully clear to me what the original issue was, but in any case, it's clearly long dormant. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Reorganization of Slavery in Africa articles
Because of a lot of overlap in content and some large missing holes in various issues, I started a discussion about clearly developing a plan for the content on the various Africa-slavery related pages. Please contribute at the discussion at Talk:Slavery in Africa. Thank you. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 April 2013
Vincentmsexton (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible Arab exploration
The geographic accounts of Pliny the Elder and of Strabo mention the Fortunate Isles but do not report anything about their populations. An account of the Guanche population may have been made around 1150 CE by the Arab geographer Muhammad al-Idrisi in the Nuzhatul Mushtaq, a book he wrote for King Roger II of Sicily, in which al-Idrisi reports a journey in the Atlantic Ocean made by the Mugharrarin ("the adventurers"), a family of Andalusian seafarers from Lisbon, Portugal. The only surviving version of this book, kept at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, and first translated by Pierre Amédée Jaubert, reports that, after having reached an area of "sticky and stinking waters" (probably the Sargasso Sea), the Mugharrarin moved back and first reached an uninhabited Island (Madeira or Hierro), where they found "a huge quantity of sheep, which its meat was bitter and inedible" and, then, "continued southward" and reached another island where they were soon surrounded by barks and brought to "a village whose inhabitants were often fair haired with long and flaxen hair and the women of a rare beauty". Among the villagers, one did speak Arabic and asked them where they came from. Then the king of the village ordered them to bring them back to the continent where they were surprised to be welcomed by Berbers. Apart from the marvelous and fanciful content of this history, this account would suggest that Guanches had sporadic contacts with populations from the mainland.

During the 14th century, the Guanches are presumed to have had other contacts with Balearic seafarers from Spain, suggested by the presence of Balearic artifacts found on several of the Canary Islands.
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Where exactly would you like this placed into the article, and how does it fit into the topic of the Atlantic slave trade? (I ask mainly because this paragraph doesn't directly reference the slave trade or slavery in the Atlantic. Not necessarily saying it doesn't fit, just need a bit more information.) Also, you're going to have a bit of a time getting something added which already has a Citation tag on it... why exactly is that there anyway, especially when it's dated from 2009? -- El Hef  ( Meep ? ) 01:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Slave Ship image not-historical, Slave ship is not a cruise ship
A non-representative image is being inserted over and over again by user Tobby. This image came up a while ago and was discussed and deleted. I have been having to delete it several times. Here is why. One, because an image is depicting a slave ship is not grounds for adding it. Maybe it is propaganda. The particular image is making a mockery of the known conditions in which enslaved Africans were transported in. They certainly were not laughing and smiling feet up below decks. It was not a cruise ship it was a slave ship. The most complete book on the subject The Slave Ship: A Human History -- Marcus Rediker in addition to every major scholar African and other, shows no such description of life below decks. The image is ahistorical and does not belong here. Keep it on the authors page. --Inayity (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It was an illustration on Johann Moritz Rugendas' book Voyage Pittoresque dans le Bresil, published in Paris (1835), presumably based on notes made on board a slave ship in Brazil between 1822 and 1825. --Tobby72 (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is really nice. As i said it is non-representative of ships used in all known slave trades involving Africans. For one it makes no sense. You think Africans will hang out below deck smiling and chilling like that. see Amistad It is not The Queen Mary you know. Further more the book listed above and others on the slave trade blatantly show no such depictions. Everyone is an eye witness to something, usually their wild imaginations. --Inayity (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tobby72's second link says that the amount of space shown inside the hold was increased by the artist, and that it is not supposed to be a realistic drawing. So I don't think it has much value in the context of this article, and thus should not be included. Celuici (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

William is not an Expert on Atlantic slave trade
A general book on Genocide which is very geared to discussing Nazi Germany, Rwanda, etc. It happens to touch upon the Atlantic slave trade--barely. It is not an Scholarly book which we need to hear from with this tone of blacks killing blacks.(sounds like a Tabloid) Tell me is that even the tone or language of a scholar? Even if the book was notable the quote is ridiculous and the statement vague. Again he has no track record of expertise on Atlantic slave trade or Africa. He is not known in any circle for expertise about Atlantic slave trade--esp death toll. On Amazon alone there are 1000s of books that mention in passing the Atlantic slave trade, do we also add them as scholarly opinions? Why is this notable when no review even ref the Atlantic slave trade when discussing his book and it is only a footnote in his book on a totally different subject. Quote someone who has that scholarship or is recognized in that field. --Inayity (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Manning is a better source. his estimate is 4 million dead immediately (& many others died young) inside Africa after capture but he includes slaves headed for all areas not just N&S America. pp 119-20. Rjensen (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

White Wash and POV for Jewish Involvement in the Slave trade
Two things. What is that sentence about Jewish Involvement connected to? It just jumps out of nowhere. Also I just noticed it was not enough to list a statement which favored a good Image of Jews in the Atlantic slave trade. No, there is an extensive "note" vigorously pushing an unbalanced POV which serves as damage control. Is this Wikipedia or the ADL? Because I am confused, can gentile White people or Africans get to do that also. I mean put extensive notes whitewashing their role in the trade? There is already a Link to Jews and the Slave trade, an entire article. A ref should be enough, and we will also need to hear the POV of those that say They did play whatever role. B/c I fear (based on what I have read) this sentence is misrepresenting its detractors by marginalizing their reference. --Inayity (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Half that article is taken up with rubbish from some NoI effort, more is taken up with noting what rubbish it is, so surely pointing up "an entire article" is a bit misleading? Given what I know of Jewish involvement, a sentence or two is literally all that is merited in this article. LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what Inayity is trying to say. I corrected the phrasing from blatantly anti-semitic libel without altering the substantive meaning. He reverted it, for some reason, suggesting that he prefers the anti-Semitic version because it's somehow not Wikipedia's job to discriminate between fringe nutcases and credible scholars.
 * To be quite clear, every article could have a section about the anti-semitic conspiracy-nutters' views on how it was all 'the Jews'. Wikipedia is not in the business of repeating those libels. 77.103.92.3 (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)dave
 * Anyway, I've removed the whole sentence; it was an unsourced anti-semitic claim that added nothing to the article. 77.103.92.3 (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Dave
 * Please read WP:ISNOT maybe you can understand that, and stop making up what Wikipedia is per your own politics. Wikidepia is not the ADL, it is not concerned about your version of antisemitism, b/c nothing in wikipedia rules say antisemitism or even what people think is racism is a criteria for exclusion. It is not concerned with who you think are "conspiracy nutters" or "fringe" Enough scholarship exist about Jewish involvement by credible scholars on slavery. So what is under discussion is the placement of the text. --Inayity (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point. There are no reliable sources for the claim. In fact, it isn't a true claim. That's why it doesn't go on Wikipedia, first and foremost. I assumed anyone would understand that for it to be anti-Semitic libel it must necessarily be untrue, but perhaps that wasn't as clear as I thought.
 * Secondarily, the fact that it is anti-Semitic libel means it's completely non-notable, and so fails another test for inclusion. As I said, you can find similar anti-Semitic libels on any subject under the sun.
 * Finally, you're contradicting yourself about 'fringe' v 'credible' scholars on Wikipedia. We absolutely do have a duty to distinguish between widely held views and nonsense.77.103.92.3 (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Dave
 * Sorry, just saw your reason for removing it from the page finally. I see you do get it now. It was a weird, out of place claim that made no sense - other than to cast aspersions on 'the Jews', in my opinion, but that doesn't really matter.77.103.92.3 (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Dave
 * There is no point arguing but I still would like to clear up something. Widely held views vs Nonsense is not determined by you alone. Hence Academic Racism or institutionalized racism. Widely held views include all manner of evil. I dont write "nonsense" on something I have not weighted. Critique of Jews in the Slave trade is not antisemitism. I took it out BUT certainly nothing to do with your logic. Antisemtism is a political trick when used to crush dissent. I cant stand to hear it, talk about the merits of the scholarship not "nonsense" and "antisemitism".  Now, Where Jews not involved in all aspects of the slave trade? And do we label people who say YES as "fringe"? I find many things in this article downright racist! Can I delete them also? Go and read Dr. Raphael's book Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History (New York: Behrman House, Inc., Pub, 1983), pp. 14, 23-25. All of this research is not nonsense and rubbish. And funny how the people who suffered under the Atlantic slave trade are a 2nd concern to upsetting alleged Jewish slave traders.--Inayity (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Effect on the economy of Africa
If a 100 books were written on the effects on Africa 80 of them probably say 100% Bad. It is almost like saying Jews profited from Holocaust b/c one or two Jews got rich--nonsense. Really it is. Now that section admits most document the negative, yet even in that section so much is dedicated to prioritizing the "Good". Fage and Thornton dominate, they are not NPOV--they both represent the race that took African across the Atlantic. And please do not suggest it is not about race, b/c it is a racialized issue. With Afrocentrics on one side and Eurocentrics on the other. There was nothing good about the Atlantic slave trade in Africa--logic alone tells us this. Please do not focus on 1 or 2 kings, if 15 million arrived, and millions upon millions were displaced why talk about these handful of kings? What about 98% of the population in Africa? It is like saying African leaders are rich so Africa is doing well. What about the countries?--Inayity (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This content is discussing the significance of the slave trade to the economies of west African kingdoms, and describes why certain elite members of African society were motivated to sell people into slavery. It's not arguing that the slave trade was beneficial to west Africa overall, but merely that certain members of the African elite derived profit from it. This is an important point, since it explains why the leaders of these west African kingdoms willingly cooperated with Europeans in enslavement. It is therefore a worthwhile contribution to the articcle, and your criticism of it in the above comment does not in my view accurately reflect its content. Celuici (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is economy limited to elites? Yes or no? Because that is all it is discussing. With a serious focus on Two historians.--Inayity (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * An economy is not limited to elites; however, elites are in a unique position to determine the direction a state's economy goes in. Several historians, not just the two I mentioned in this edit, have made note of the benefits some elites received from cooperating with European powers. It would be equally biased to not mention this fact, as the monetary and material exchanges that took place between African leaders and Europeans were an important aspect of how the slave trade progressed. I would welcome someone to expand upon the brief note I added to this section, as there is a vast amount of scholarly writing on the subject. Certainly it is a difficult subject to navigate while maintaining neutrality, but the space afforded in one section of a larger Wikipedia article does not necessarily lend itself to a thorough discussion of the intricacies and subtleties of economic relationships between European slave traders and African leaders/elites. If one were to read more works by Fage, Thornton, and Rodney (mentioned by another author of this page in the same section) he would learn that their focus is not to place blame on African elites for Europeans taking their fellow citizens away, but rather to illuminate the pressures and benefits that would have convinced a leader to join or rejoin the slave trade. Eliasmm (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Comparision
Is there any common link between Lebensborn and The Slave Trade?

5.68.36.78 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sections
The idea across wikipedia is when there is a reaction to an event (like an apology) it is pretty standard to do it by country. because reading by dates makes no sense. The date is not important!, the country replying to slavery is what is important. What is the USA response? People using the site want to go straight there. Meles Zenawi death has a response by country. All article use that format--Inayity (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Further Reading does have a criteria it is not just a shopping list of cool books
This further reading section is expanding outside of the theme of this page. Now I will not go as far to say which of these wonderful books should be excluded, but I do think Further reading, in general, should be restricted to specialist books dedicated to the Atlantic Slave trade, or books with significant focus on the AST. You decide which ones are outside of this criteria. --Inayity (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree and I trimmed off some books with only weak connections to the Atlantic slave trade Rjensen (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Being a RS does not mean we add it to WP:LEAD
I did not say she was not RS. I said she was not notable enough for LEAD, and the content is not particular lead quality either. It belongs in Body. If she is so notable then where is her WP:NOTABLE Wiki page? A google search of here turns up very little. So why is her name being mentioned in the lead? Is She Du Bois or even Henry Louis Gates? Also the content is saying what? It is not lead material. Hence removed on numerous grounds. This is her Google search nada. Look at her books, barely any reviews. belongs in body. And what does it mean "their destinations were based on religion etc". That is not a universal truth. Is that a total statement? Its vague. And does not fit WP:LEAD criteria. Why not put something significant that Anne Bailey (Author) said? So many quality contributions from so many others what is so important about her? --Inayity (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * She is current on the topic, and a well-established scholar who writes imaginative new material in an international perspective. That's good enough for Wikipedia. If you think it is better in the text ok then moved it there, but do not erase it.  As for citations she has 190+ in the scholarly literature, including 26 scholarly items in the last year.  Rjensen (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did move it, but I even challenge what she is saying (or what someone is using from her material to say). It is nice she is all of that, but how many other people are more notable? Certainly she has no place in the lead of Atlantic Slave trade at the expense of more inciteful statements, esp from African authors who have deeply authentic experiences (being the victims of TST). I am not a fan of scholarly journals, I rather ref to things most people are going to read, I mean why hasn't anyone read her books? Who is her audience? That just my personal preference. This bias to "scholarly" unreadable, inaccessible does not bring these topics to life. I think you should check the placement in the body, and probably change the citation because as it stands it is not even accurate. --Inayity (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What does her statement mean?
the process of enslavement did not end with arrival on the American shores; the different paths taken by the individuals and groups who were victims of the Atlantic slave trade were influenced by different factors—including the disembarking region, the kind of work performed, gender, age, religion, and language What does this mean in the context of this article, where does it fit in? What does she mean by "The process of enslavement didnt end with arrival" it is pretty obvious that the entire TST was to enslave Africans so obviously *duh* it did not end upon arrival. The citation is poor. Its fluffy at best, almost poetry not history. Help me understand why this entire statement is needed in this article. B/c You can have 100 PhD and be on PBS every other week, your statements still have to make sense, be true and help the article.--Inayity (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * She means the psychological impact on the enslaved person depends on a lot of factors, and continues after the final sale has concluded. She shifts the emphasis from the perspective of the slave traders & owners to that of the slaves, and it shifts the perspective from the economics and demography to interior psychology.  That is the direction recent historiography has gone, so it is a useful insight. Rjensen (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if she said that, it is not revealed in the above text which actually makes no sense. I study slavery @ a Uni and have no idea what she is on about. So If I do not understand it and understand the topic and have read countless books on the subject then it is a problem. If this is a "new direction" then maybe it is not needed here, . Cuz it sounds like liberal mumbo jumbo and not clear and even if that was true (what you said) then just use someone notable like Dr. Joy DeGruy. --Inayity (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not add her statement of first place. I am defending the editor who did so.  Wikipedia rules encourage editors to include sourced new material from scholars.  If you want to add new material from innovative scholars to understand, please do so. Rjensen (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But I hope I have clarified why I deleted it. And 100% why I removed it from the Lead. b/c of your objections I moved it to the body. I think it should be removed, and if she has something profound and noteworthy to say, that should be included as opposed to that inaccurate and confusing sentiment about paths? If we want to talk like that then I know 100 scholars who can say something more profound like Joy Leary. --Inayity (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)