Talk:Triangular trade

message: Like most of the articles about slavery the african perspective is missing. There is no explanation how the enslavement happended and who was responsible. It should be added that african kingdoms used the enslavement and trade to secure there power.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.30.129 (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A very pertinent point. Complicity of African kingdoms is currently hinted at in Slave Coast of West Africa#Overview:Ports that exported these enslaved people from Africa include Ouidah, Lagos, Aného (Little Popo), Grand-Popo, Agoué, Jakin, Porto-Novo, and Badagry. These ports traded in slaves who were supplied from African communities, tribes and kingdoms, including the Alladah and Ouidah, which were later taken over by the Dahomey kingdom. [Content now imported here]  86.177.202.189 (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  African perspective missing 

message: There are two opposing sides to whether a triangular trade existed in colonial times, roughly between 1500 and 1850. On one side, there is the belief that ships would visit three separate areas and trade in a cyclical, clockwise path around the Atlantic Ocean. This would usually include three of these general locations: Western Europe, Western Africa, Eastern South America, the Islands of the Caribbean, Central America, and the Eastern North America. Slaves from Africa would always be included in this triangular trade. And if Europe was visited, North America was not, and vice versa. Images on this page show two common triangular trade routes.
The opposing belief is that slave ships were not able to easily convert to the shipment of raw or manufactured goods, being made almost exclusively for human cargo. Additionally, sailing times and other issues hampered the ability to conduct one circuit in a calendar year. The other argument is that triangular trade was a theory put forth in the 19th century, but was found difficult to support. This belief essentially says that trade was more commonly or almost exclusively bi-lateral, and that gold and silver would have been traded for the slaves rather than a bulk commodity like wood, sugar, or tobacco. Furthermore, triangular trade has few modern, reliable sources supporting it. The triangular trade is said to be a notion that introductory or elementary textbooks would teach, and even though the end result was similar to a triangular trade, the basic premise is oversimplified (at its least) and false (at its worst). This belief would agree to all of the shipping lines shown in triangular trade maps, but that ships were not sailing three of them in a circuit.
This RfC is intended to encompass the debate of the existence of the page, or at least the way it presents the topic as if it was a well-researched overview of the way the Atlantic slave trade was conducted. I also note that this page seems to be a restatement of the trading portion of the Atlantic slave trade article, with both articles using notions that largely connect them to one another. If the opposing view is correct, then the article needs to carefully explain that the notion of a triangular trade has limits, or be considered for deletion. However, as another commenter has stated on this page (see Caveat?), it seems to be a trope in history books to refer to triangular Atlantic trade routes, even if its historical basis is tenuous. That makes it a notable topic that would not need deletion, even if determined by consensus to be unhistorical. I like to saw logs! (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I'd agree with your statement here:  It's not really a Wikipedia editor's job to determine which sources are "correct". If there's a significant amount of reliable sources that question the existence of the trade, then that should be reflected in the article. It should also be considered whether "the opposi[tion]" constitutes a majority of reliable sources (or even scholars) or if it's a minority or even fringe group. I did a cursory Google search—both for the phrase "triangular trade" and a more restricted search designed to catch academic articles. I didn't search, specifically, for sources or articles denying the existence of the trade because I wanted to see how prevalent the "opposing belief", as you call it, is. I went through quite a 3 or 4 pages of search results, and found ... nothing.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on whether there was an Atlantic triangular trade or it is a long rejected theory and trope 

message: Golden Triangle (slavery) redirects here, but the phrase "Golden Triangle" isn't used in this article. The reader can probably reasonably assume it's a synonym, but it would be useful to have some explanation of how and by whom the term is used and whether its meaning differs at all. Alternatively, the redirect could be deleted to avoid any confusion. I'd be interested to know what others think. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Golden Triangle (slavery)]] 

message: The redirect Golden Triangle (slavery) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Golden Triangle (slavery)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]