Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish slaves myth


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinions are divided - in good faith, apparently - about whether this is a content fork of or a distinct topic from Irish indentured servants. I recommend further discussion about whether it is possible to reconcile these views editorially.  Sandstein  20:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Irish slaves myth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is an unnecessary (and possibly POV) WP:CFORK from Irish indentured servants. There is indeed a lot of debate over whether and how the treatment of Irish laborers in the Caribbean should be compared to the experiences of African slaves, but the debate is not as completely settled as this article implies. This academic encyclopedia, for example, contains a straightforward article on "Irish as Slaves in the Caribbean," while this academic book review asserts that there were "a few" Irish laborers who were "stricto sensu slaves."

So while it's correct that most historians reject the idea of "Irish slaves," not all of them do, and the subject needs a much more nuanced and detailed discussion than an article simply labeling the idea a "myth" can contain. Anyone who takes a serious look at the literature cited in Irish indentured servants can conclude that it's a bit more complicated than that, and that even scholars who reject the idea of "Irish slaves" have still compared the experiences of Irish in places like Barbados to those of slaves, and have largely not used the term "myth" to describe that comparison.

This article's references are also generally poor: too many blog posts, opinion pieces, etc. And some of the better quality ones (such as the Scientific American one) make it clear that "a more transparent discussion that highlights the nuances of this period" is whats needed here. Irish indentured servants is the correct place or that, where slave-indenture comparisons can be put in historical context and the (extensive) academic literature that doesn't use a "myth" framework can be cited. Article should be replaced with a redirect to this section of Irish indentured servants. Any salvageable content (which imo is very little) can be merged. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (or merge w/ no redirect to keep history) This is effectivly a POVFORK Irish indentured servants. The term Irish Slave(s) Myth is not, based on GScholar, used in any academic papers so I question the term's use as a redirect. There is discussion of the 'myth of Irish slavery' as a right wing false equivalence strategy but this can and should be covered as part of the indentured servants article.  Jbh  Talk  15:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Debate shows it is a valid search term so I have no objection to redirecting it to Irish indentured servants. Last edited:  Jbh  Talk  16:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect as content / potentially POV fork. I would advise all readers of this AfD to familiarize themselves with the discussions that have taken place regarding this page (Talk page discussion, Editor blocked for edit warring ), as well as recognize that the nominator is very involved in this whole topic. It's hard to be diplomatic and skirt around the topic, so I think it's best to put it simply: it's clear that this article was created as a POV fork. The sources are weak and I doubt the topic has any real academic legitimacy. Relevant content should of course be moved back to the Irish indentured servants article. Pishcal (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - The nominator neglected to mention that this article was created in October, so isn't a fork of anything. No content has been taken from IIS, so none can be moved back. Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't get hung up on the article(s) history - the point is that we've now had several attempts to spin Irish indentured servants as straight up slaves and - in the current article - an attempt to write an article about the "myth" of Irish slavery: both articles were favoring a strong (or at least uncompromising) POV on a subject that's actually quite contentious and complex.
 * Irish indentured servants was created so that wikipedia could have a neutral article at a neutral page name, which uses the highest quality possible sources to discuss the actual history of Irish labor in the Americas. It doesn't matter who created what page when - it's clear that that is where a discussion of both so-called "irish slavery" and the "Irish slave myth" belongs, where it can be balanced with a broader discussion what actual historians actually say about Irish labor in the caribbean. I found tons of academic literature that I am still working on expanding that article with - there are many more books and articles that can be used to expand it. Most of those sources don't say that "Irish slavery" was a thing, but neither do they talk about the "Irish slaves myth." Fyddlestix (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're being selective again. The myth exists, and it and the fact that it's propagated hard by racists are well documented by reliable sources. Trying to depict this article as the other side of the coin from the unsourceable warblings of Neo-Confederates is misleading at best. Irish indentured servants was created (i.e., moved from Irish slaves myth) by Claiomh Solais, who then sought to portray Holocaust denial as historical revisionism, as the article's history shows. I commend you for putting an end to that nonsense, but not for misleading people here as to how that article came about. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I question how/where I have "misled" anyone, but whatever, let's see what uninvolved editors think and not clutter up the AFD too much. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll be brief. You gave reasons for the creation of IIS that turned out to be different from the creator's. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I created this article in October. Last month it was quickly moved to Irish indentured servants after minimal discussion, with no move or merge request. After allowing a few weeks for discussion (see Talk:Irish slaves myth), today I restored the content from the original article, with some suggested revisions. If anything, Irish indentured servants is a fork of Irish slaves myth. See the history here: Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep., the article history is actually as outlined by immediately above. This article began as "Irish slaves myth" (so "POV fork" is a complete red herring!), discussed the myth of Irish slavery, then got moved out-of-process without a move or merge request to "Irish indentured servants" where the main thrust of the original article got slowly whittled down to a subsection.  The original creator has since worked away in the background to improve the original article in terms of content, layout and sourcing (which is fine).  The phenomenon of the spread of the myth of Irish slavery, and the phenomenon of Irish indentured servitude are two related but separate topics - each worthy of their own article.  Can the article be improved?  Certainly.  Give it the opportunity to do so. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There's probably a reason that Irish slaves myth comes across as a POV fork of Irish indentured servants: the comparison of quality. It doesn't take an especially critical eye to see that Irish indentured servants is a better written, better sourced, more comprehensive and more neutral article. The "comparisons to slavery" section of Irish indentured servants is undoubtedly more comprehensive and more neutral than the Irish slaves myth article, and I don't see the need to separate the two topics: they're very intimately related. Pishcal (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Which article came first is irrelevant, this one is the one that discusses a topic in a POV manner which should be covered in an existing NPOV article. Therefore it is the POVFORK and should be handled as such. Jbh  Talk  18:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude, but would you care to elaborate on your reasoning ? AFD is, afterall, not a vote. Pishcal (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Same reasons hightlightedd by the person whonominated the article.Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Irish indentured servants. The two are not separate topics at all, it is a POV fork of the latter article, which the re-creator Alfie Gandon decided to set up after being unable to uphold what is essentially a pro-British and/or anti-Irish viewpoint on what is now the the Irish indentured servants article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel like "the irish were slaves [in USA]" has become a thing itself which people talk about. Having a page about it's ahistorically can educate people. Most of the Irish indentured servants article deals with the Carribean, not continental north America, which is what the "irish slaves" meme talks about. ____Ebelular (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep While neither Rodriguez or Cohen seem to have studied the Irish case with the same depth as Akenson, et al, even their citations come with qualifications against easy categorisation of the Irish as slaves. Cohen's review of Monaghan clearly states Monahan denies the Irish were slaves; Cohen himself only goes as far as saying "There were a few who were stricto sensu slaves (though Monnahan denies this); most were semi-free workers who could not be sold or endowed and had to be freed [not from slavery but from their contracts] after their indentures expired." . The section in Rodriguez (1997) was written by Kevin Brady, who like Cohen does not actually endorse the Irish as slaves. What Brady says is this: "Most of the Irish who were coerced into Caribbean servitude were not in the strictest sense, slaves. Although there were incidents when the normal terms of servitude were grievously violated, nothing like life-long servitude was expected of the Irish. Had this being written after 2008 (when 'the Irish were slaves' meme took off), Brady may not have so titled his section, or qualified it as "Irish as 'slaves' in the Caribbean".. Irish in the Caribbean would have been both accurate and less open to wilful misinterpretaion. So even these historians reject the idea that the Irish were slaves. Keep in mind that none of the authors who dismiss the "Irish 'slaves' myth" ever deny the brutality of indenture or transportation - they examine and compare the experiences of Africans and Irish, and the evidence demonstrates those experiences were not identical because the Irish were not slaves. So calling them such is a myth, and again from evidence, not an Irish but an American racist myth. Thus it needs to be distinct from Irish indentured servants, though its hijacking should be referenced and/or linked at the former. Fergananim (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * However none of that deals with the issue of this article being a POVFORK or why this material should not be addressed in the other article. Jbh  Talk  21:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think the exact nature of the POV also needs to be explicitly stated. The fork was created by Alfie Gandon as British Imperialist propaganda, trying to latch onto a separate American social liberal political narrative on race (as forwarded by organisations such as the SPLC) which the article employs as a fig leaf of plausible cover. It was created in a huff after more reliable sources, presented in the Irish indentured servitude article were found and a NPOV put across. The recent American discourse on the topic, is simply a subtopic of the historical Irish indentured servitude, with political motivated debates over the exact tautology of whether indentured servitude can be reasonably called slavery or not (and so belongs within that article).
 * @Alfie Gandon is a "British Imperialist propaganda"-spewing editor?? Quis separabit?  18:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This sentence in the introduction is particularly important and reveals the Colonel Blimp-esque purpose of the fork - "the myth is also employed by Irish nationalists, both to highlight historical British oppression of Irish people and to obscure Irish involvement in the African slave trade." The hand is revealed; British imperialists = not so bad really and the historical (which nobody denies) deporting of Irish prisoners of war half the way around the world and forcing them into unpaid labour can be obsured under the term "myth" because, technically, they were not sold from one person to another as chatel. Just captives of the English government, leased out for free labour to English plantation owners. Evil "Irish nationalists" have no right to complain. And the last sentence about "Irish involvement in the African slave trade" is laugh out loud John Bull-shite, it is more do not look at the British Imperialist elephant in the room (which is the whole purpose of the article). I must have missed the history lesson where the various kingdoms of Gaelic Ireland set off on expeditions in ships, independent of England, to capture slaves from the Gold Coast. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * @Claíomh Solais -- before throwing shade on everybody else, didn't the Irish go slave hunting in Roman Britain (present-day England and Wales)? Of course, that's why it is the only country (I know of, anyway) to have kidnapped its own patron saint. Slavery is slavery. Granted, given the island's remoteness, they did not do it on as great a scale as other kingdoms, but the Scots/Dalriada (Irish septs fleeing the O'Neills) also invaded Caledonia (present-day Scotland) and largely extirpated the native Picts. I agree that "Irish involvement in the African slave trade" is likely untrue but I'll check further. Such a vigorously contested claim would not survive responsible editing, anyway, and would quickly be removed unless there are some reliable sources to back it up, which I doubt. Quis separabit?  18:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not in the habit of promoting British imperialist propaganda Claiomh Solais, and this article wasn't created in a huff after Irish indentured servants, but three months before it; a fact you ought to be familiar with, as you moved the former to the latter. The rest of your screed is as accurate as its first two sentences. You've missed more than one history lesson, it seems. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I question why it needs to be distinct from Irish indentured servants. It's already talked about pretty comprehensibly at Irish indentured servants, and as a stand alone article Irish slaves myth has nowhere near the same level of quality sources as Irish indentured servants, not to mention the POV issues. Pishcal (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - looking at the references, there does seem to be plenty of reliable sources talking about the myth as a separate thing from indentured servitude itself. There may be POV issues, but not so much as to justify drastic stub-ification or WP:TNT, in my opinion. I do have a couple suggestions: the references and body of the article mostly discuss a contemporary "myth", and so the lede should be less about the history and more about the contemporary issue. Then, I would have a context section linking to Irish indentured servants (currently the two articles do not link to each other). Smmurphy(Talk) 21:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I encourage people to look at the sources carefully - you'll find that the sources that talk about a "Irish slaves myth" are of generally poor quality, with most either written by or based on an interview with one person: Liam Hogan. He is described as a research librarian at Limerick City Library by most sources.
 * This is an article by Hogan on opendemocracy.net. Normally this is not a source we'd even use for a history article - certainly not to establish notability - and I'm not even sure it meets standards as a WP:RS, since it appears that pretty much anyone can publish on the site.
 * This is an interview with Hogan on the SLPC's "Hatewatch" blog.
 * This is a story on rawstory.org (again, like Opendemocracy, not something we'd normally consider a stellar source for imparting notability or hanging a historical article on). It appears to be based on an interview with Hogan.
 * This is an article by Hogan (with Laura McAtackney and Matthew C. Reilly) in a popular (not scholarly) history magazine - but notice that it does not discuss the "Irish slaves myth" at all - it's mentioned in the headline but not in the article itself, which takes a much more nuanced stance (I'm guessing due to McAtckney and Reilly's influence).
 * This is an op-ed opinion piece on the the blog, jezebel.com. Not a stellar source, and again, in large part based on an interview with Hogan.
 * These are more low-quality news articles that basically regurgitate something Hogan has self-published on facebook, medium, and other social network-type sites.
 * I could go on but hopefully you get the point - the vast majority of the sources cited in the article are either written by Hogan or based on something he wrote, and are from low-quality cites like rawstory, opendemocracy, and jezebel. In other words, the article appears to place WP:UNDUE weight on the opinions and self-published writings of someone has not actually published any scholarly or peer-reviewed work on the subject, and is a librarian rather than a historian. By comparison, none of the peer-reviewed articles and books written by actual historians that are cited here (or in the other article) even mention an "Irish slaves myth" at all. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, merge or retitle. The sources are low quality and many are not reliable. There is a myth about, to be sure, but I think the title risks overselling it. We shouldn't veer into a counter-myth. Audrey Smedley, an African-American anthropologist, has no problem referring to "Irish slaves" in the Caribbean. Nini Rodgers suggests that the servant–slave distinction would have often been meaningless ("academic") in late 17th-century Barbados. The current sourcing is not of a high enough quality to support the broad contention made that there were absolutely no Irish slaves in the New World. (To explain my vote: the article should at least be retitled, and after pruning of non-RS it might just make sense to merge it. If there is to be no change of title and no improvement of source than it might as well be deleted: the myth, which is real, seems to be of recent vintage and its notability as such has not really been established.) Srnec (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- the topic of the "Irish slavery" meme is being discussed by USA Today which is quite the mainstream source: article from Feb. 16, 2017. The interview is with "Mark Auslander, an anthropologist and director of the Museum of Culture and Environment at Central Washington University" so sufficiently RS (see also Ashley's Sack being discussed in the USA Today article). He states:
 * “There is a strange war on memory that’s going on right now, denying the facts of chattel slavery, or claiming to have learned on Facebook or social media that, say, Irish slavery was worse, that white people were enslaved as well,” he said. “Not true.”
 * This suggests to me that the "myth" indeed exists and is being noted by mainstream sources. Judging by how recent the article is, I'd say we can expect more. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - "a librarian rather than a historian." Fyddlestix, a historian is a researcher who can demonstrate conclusions from evidence. Your job does not necessarily matter. While peer-review and academic qualifications are prefered, Hogan's method is sound and agrees with other historians such as Rogers, Akenson, Beckles, Walsh, et al, none of whom treat the Irish as slaves. Can you show where "Rodgers suggests that the servant–slave distinction would have often been meaningless ("academic") in late 17th-century Barbados."? Fergananim (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The passage I had in mind is in Nini Rodgers, "The Irish in the Caribbean 1641–1837: An Overview", Irish Migration Studies in Latin America 5, 3 (2007): 145–56, at 147: "These servants, who continue to haunt Irish memory as ‘white slaves’ ... were not slaves, but for those harassed by an uncaring master or overseer, subjected to unremunerated work under a hot sun and dying before their indenture was completed, the difference must have seemed academic." The time period is after the Barbadian code of 1660 laid down a colour line. It is perfectly reasonable to argue both that (a) some Irish indentured servants were for all practical purposes slaves and (b) this Irish slavery was very different from African chattel slavery. There have been many different kinds of slavery throughout history. Mamluks, for instance, were not even socially disadvantaged. I'm not going to argue the point myself because that would be OR and I don't really have an opinion (or care) whether any Irish could be reasonably called slaves in the New World. I agree with the nominator that that question is not so settled as to justify the current title. Srnec (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty straightforward issue of WP:WEIGHT. Sorry, but the self-published writings of a research librarian do not have equal weight with scholars who have published major, peer-reviewed works in the field. I'm glad you raised scholars like Beckles, because that's a perfect example of the problem with this article. You're right that he doesn't treat the Irish as slaves, but he does come pretty close: Beckles' scholarly, peer-reviewed work (described here as "path-breaking" and "seminal") suggests that some Irish servants were "temporary chattels" who were "kept in slavelike conditions" and states that "their condition was nearer slavery than freedom." So yes, he stops short of saying that they were slaves, but it is going to far the other way to suggest that Beckles would describe such comparisons as a "myth." He doesn't, and neither do any of the other scholars you mentioned. The real experts on this subject obviously shy away from that kind of oversimplification of the issue. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition to the nomination itself, this is your third major additional contribution. Step away from the mic, maybe? ;-) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not really fair to say - Fergananim asked him a direct question, and there should be no issue with any points or arguments brought up being fully discussed. Pishcal (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair point - stricken. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- for reasons given above. Applodion (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. It seems we have some good material to work with here, though I believe not much indicates that "myth" is the best name. "Irish slaves controversy" or "Irish slavery debate" could be more suitable. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your thoughts on the concerns over the quality of sources and the POV issues? Pishcal (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - per User:Fergananim above. It's well-sourced and stands apart from the indentured servitude article - A l is o n  ❤ 07:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am nonplussed by Claíomh's remarks as it is not an Irish nationalist myth; it is overwhelmingly an American nationalist myth caused entirely by conditions in the USA, not Ireland. Likewise Fyddlestix's claim that the issue is "quite contentious and complex". Globalresearch.ca provides "alternative facts" [sic] rather than actual history. The author of the 2008 article, John Martin, appears to be a fiction or at least an alias as I have yet to see anything else by him though the website called him an "expert". Other authors cited who support the myth - Lawrence R. Kelleher (2001), Guy Nixon (2011) - are best described as novelists rather than historians, so use facts and history loosely. In contrast, all those cited against the myth (both accredited professional academics and mere scholarly librarians) have clearly done a great deal of research on the matter and reached the same conclusion - while brutalised, the Irish were not slaves. The only people pushing this as factual history have an agenda to 'prove' it, irrespective of evidence; those who are scholars of history reject it. Clearly this qualifies as a myth and has an existence quite distinct from indenture as it seeks to manipulate and distort its historical actuality with slavery. I query renaming it "controversy" or "debate" for these reasons. My vote to keep the article remains. Fergananim (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Briefly (lest I get accused of bludgeoning again), you can't have read my comment here very carefully, as this is misrepresentation of my argument: my concern is not that any historians actually say "the Irish were slaves," it's that they don't call it a "myth," and treat the subject quite differently than this article does. Read this section of the other article and that should be obvious. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I did read it, and some historians do call it a myth (see below, today's date). Fergananim (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Question Is there a mention somewhere in the several articles on Ireland and involuntary labor to the sole actual chattel enslavement of Irish people, usually called Barbary slave trade? It peaks between ~ 1550 and 1680 or so, but continuing well into the 1800s on a reduced scale. Slaves were captured in slave raids on the Irish coast in places that include Baltimore, in addition, Irish-born sailors were captured while working in the Mediterranean and enslaved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Irish indentured servants where this myth is placed in a context that makes it intelligible to users who come to us to look up information on this topic. Note that problematic assertions about Jewish involvement in the slave trade have been handled rather well by containing them within Jewish views on slavery. And also that the Snapple slave-ship myth died away, as this one, imho, is likely to do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No-one's asserting Jewish involvement in the slave trade. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is, or should be, primarily about the use of the myth of Irish slavery for political ends. It's a different topic. — Jon C.  ॐ  18:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  Delete or Merge/redirect with Irish indentured servants, given paucity and POV of sources. Quis separabit?  18:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Plenty NPOV sources here. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I cannot find any sources that use the term "Irish slave myth." while I accept that the far right may use Irish indentured servitude to trivialize slavery, I do not see a body of literature that discusses it.  Also, the article seems to trivialize indentured servitude, which itself was an exploitative system.  Indentured servants did not necessarily "voluntarily" enter into the relationship.  Dependent children are one just one example.  TFD (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See article for sources. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge. This is a blatant WP:POVFORK, with a highly non-neutral title that contradicts reliable sources. No way are we labeling any view (that is well-represented in RS) on this topic as a "myth".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The other article's the fork. What view are you talking about? Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Irish indentured servants - or "Irish indentured servitude," depending on semantics preference. As far as I'm concerned, an "Irish slave trade" did not exist, none of the sources alleging such a trade existed are reliable, and that controversy can be better managed in a sub-section in an article on indentured servitude than a back-and-forth between the existence of an "Irish slave trade" page or an "Irish slave myth" page. It's also not quite a large enough myth to warrant its own page, as with Holocaust denial where there have been court cases fighting over the Holocaust's legacy. EricSpokane (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See Irish slave trade. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is certainly a POV and WP:CFORK from Irish indentured servants. That's been shown. It's been mentioned that the sources aren't very diverse. They also  do not include the canon of Caribbean, Irish or New World Slave Scholarship such as  Dr. Beckles, as well as Nini Rodgers, Jenny Shaw, R. L Foster, Orlando Patterson,  Eric Williams, Ellen Gouveia, the Bridenbaughs, Dr. Peter Wood, and a host of others. Omitting the canon, the sources bring nothing substantially new or revolutionary that would justify the omission. The sources here are mostly third and fourth hand sources such as popular publications, interviews or blogs which discuss foregone conclusions without actual recourse to contextualized source material. The topic is part of a  specific debate about servitude and slavery concerning the Atlantic World that is already represented well in this section of Irish indentured servants  At best the search for Irish slaves myth should redirect to the appropriate section of  Irish indentured servants and as suggested, any salvageable content that is not POV can be merged. Robbie.johnson (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The opposite's been shown, and Nini's already here. You're welcome to bring the others. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an assertion, and not a demonstration. Nini Rodgers is barely paraphrased in the article. Your stated point is that the article is about the Weaponization of the discourse in American Politics.  Nini Rodgers book does not discuss the weaponization of the discourse in American Politics. None of your academic sources do.  And as a source for academic critique, involving myths and racist bait Rodgers barely mentions O'Callaghan's book at all. There are 2 mentions in the book in question. And it's the weakest part of Rodgers' book.  Robbie.johnson (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure I saw Hilary Beckles around too. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Irish slaves myth does not contain a citation from Hilary McDonald Beckles' work. Robbie.johnson (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - there seems to be a strong perception here that the Irish slaves myth solely concerns itself with an airy debate on how slavery is exactly defined. That's not the case; it also involves wild exaggeration of the numbers of Irish transported prisoners ("slaves"), an ahistorical insistence that they were treated worse than African slaves, and portrayals of a mulatto-breeding program that are pure racist-bait. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well put.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's your Point of View Alfie, and that's reflected in the Article, but not the historical discourse, which is why the article is up for deletion. The entire historical phenomenon represents more of a meme than a myth. If the article was sourced properly it would reflect that, but it would still belong over with Irish indentured servants, and not on its own. The definition of slavery is actually crucial in terms of the debates on unfree labour, because slavery is a polysemous word and also because it existed in different forms contemporaneously throughout the Atlantic world. That's not "airy." It's just proper cultural historical analysis and classification. Robbie.johnson (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I intended to support the idea of a redirect to Irish indentured servants as the best way to curb the tendency that this article has towards pushing a problematic brand of historical revision that "involves wild exaggeration of the numbers of Irish transported prisoners ("slaves"), an ahistorical insistence that they were treated worse than African slaves, and portrayals of a mulatto-breeding program that are pure racist-bait."E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was answering Alfie and didn't make that clear. My apologies. Robbie.johnson (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Robbie's talking to me, EM. Robbie, I don't know what you're referring to when you say "The entire historical phenomenon". I assure you the article's well sourced, and you're welcome to join the various debates about sources on the talk page. I've no problem with "proper cultural historical analysis and classification" of the definition of slavery, but my point remains; the main thrust of this article is the weaponisation of aspects of that analysis in the service of white supremacism. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers Alfie, the entire historical phenomenon of Labour in the Atlantic World is one phenomenon, and the most germane here. That got lost in my original edit of my comment. Apologies. The article is sadly not well sourced, or well written, and it's a fork. I've read it, and as I mentioned it ignores canon in favour of blogosphere and opinion pieces. It's sources are based on the first and most accesible google results and we can all see that.  There are a lot of sources, they simply aren't very in depth sources. That's not "well sourced" and there's not much of a debate to be had when we throw in WP:WEIGHT.  And when it does touch on canon, it does so without recourse to context. Such as when it paraphrases Nini Rodgers on O'Callaghan. You call that "Rodgers is in there." That's ridiculous. There are other statements Rodgers has written that are far more nuanced that have been quoted above. Rodgers is not saying that the narrative of Irish labour in the Caribbean has been weaponized in the service of white supremacism. That's not in the paraphrase or anywhere in her book.  That's poor sourcing.   Aside from the poor sourcing, The article is  a fork from Irish indentured servants that hyper emphasizes what you are calling the weaponisation of aspects of that analysis in the service of white supremacism. This is the most apparent clue that you are right now unwilling to recognize that the article is your POV as opposed to an ecyclopedic WP:NPOV as required. Neutrality along those lines isn't up for debate.  NPOV = representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.This first sentence from this section of Irish indentured servants is a great example of NPOV, it lays out the information, recognizes there's a debate, and allows the reader to see where the mainstream of the academy is sitting on the subject, while recognizing that there are polarized and controversial views as well. "Treatment of Irish indentured servants varied widely, and has been the subject of considerable historical debate. Comparisons between the treatment of Irish indentured servants - particularly in Barbados - and the treatment of African slaves have been especially controversial. While most recent academic studies have been careful not to equate indentured servitude with chattel slavery, some historians have nonetheless drawn close comparisons between these two labor systems, and other writers have sometimes conflated them." That's NPOV. Irish slaves myth is not NPOV. And even if it were, then it would then resemble Irish indentured servants so much that it would be redundant.   And you would no longer be satisfied with it in any case,  because you want to point out the weaponization of the Irish slaves narrative in the service of white supremacism.  That's your WP:POV from WP:OR and original research is also against the guidelines.  That is why the article is a clear delete and redirect. You're pretty zealous, and I can respect that, but this in an encyclopedia, not a political platform.  Robbie.johnson (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This topic is as much about the modern idea/meme that "The Irish were slaves too!", rather than what exactly happened a few hundred years ago. ____ Ebelular (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure! Granted but notwithstanding. It's not a new or exclusively modern phenomenon. Nini Rodgers, quoted but obviously not actually read, puts it in Page 2 of Ireland, slavery and anti-slavery. 1612-1865, referencing centuries olf blurry legends of white slavery under Cromwell. Here is an editorial from 1989 in the NYT.  Here is a reply to it. It's a perfect pre mass internet example of the back and forth on the conditions of the Irish in the Atlantic World. And the discussion about what happened, exactly what happened a few hundred years ago, cannot be separated from exactly what happened a few hundred years ago. The events and discourse on the events belong together.  The section some of us are suggesting we redirect to, already exists at Irish indentured servants and has This section which is dedicated to the comparison of Irish indentured servants to slavery. So you're right. There is a discussion and comparison about the Irish' treatment in the Atlantic world. But that discussion ranges nuanced to controversial. And  it's covered, according to guidelines over at Irish indentured servants. Irish slaves myth is hyper focused on the extreme and doesn't meet the guidelines.  That's why Irish slaves myth is a fork.  Robbie.johnson (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment Regarding Fyddlestix's above comments (Most of those sources don't say that "Irish slavery" was a thing, but neither do they talk about the "Irish slaves myth./By comparison, none of the peer-reviewed articles and books written by actual historians that are cited here (or in the other article) even mention an "Irish slaves myth" at all.) - the term "myth" is used; for example "The myth of Scottish slaves", by University of Glasgow's Dr. Stephen Mullen (2016) (which furthermore uses these phrases - "the ‘white slaves’ myth", "the myth of the Irish slaves", "the Irish slaves myth"), while this  deals with the same issue. The phrase The 'Irish slaves' myth heads a subsection for pages 179-181 in Martyn's The Tribes of Galway 1124-1642 (2016)  which deals explicitly with the modern myth and actual Irish indenture. "Slavery myths debunked" by Jamelle Bouie and Rebecca Onion also discusses this and uses the terms . Hogan says "myth" here. Lastly, Akenson addresses this very subject in endnotes of this book. The work of Mullen, Martyn, Akenson, are peer-reviewed. Fergananim (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Concerning Fyddlestix's and Claíomh's disbelief of Irish involvement in the African slave trade, please read an article on the subject by Dr. Nini Rodgers, published in History Ireland,. Actual history is frequently less than edifying from nationalist PoVs because it deals not with what we wish happened, but what actually happened. Fergananim (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think I ever did question Irish involvement in the slave trade, although I may have complained that someone used that source synthetically somewhere. As for the sources you linked: Martyn is a non-notable local historian whose book is self-published. It's not even a WP:RS. The rest are blogs/low-quality news sources (eg, the slate piece, whose writers clearly just googled the topic, found Hogan's (again, self-published) writing, and summarized it. If, as you say, Akenson mentions it in passing in a footnote that's not really helping establish notability. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Which still leaves us with Dr. Stephen Mullen ( and ) who is an academic historian at Univeristy of Glasgow, who endorses Hogan's work. Fergananim (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The first link is a third-party summary of a conference paper but the second one is decent. I'd draw attention to the last paragraph where he talks about the importance of using "representative materials" and making sure that they are "appropriately contextualized" though. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

We're at the point where we are splitting hairs and diverging onto other topics, so its time to put this to a vote and be done with it. Fergananim (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a smerge (selective merge), seems the best option here. Not convinced that this topic requires its own article. SecretName101 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.