Talk:Atlantic slave trade/Archive 1

message: The Atlantic slave trade was going on for about 100 years before the first slaves were brought to the Americas. Plus, it was not started by the Spanish, and the process of obtaining slaves was far more complex than simply saying they were "kidnapped." So perhaps a more encompassing introduction would be appropriate. M.J.Willett 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening definition needs work 

message: Please sign your remarks, so we know who you are. To compare Slavery in the Americas or the trade in Africans by Europeans to scattered loose forms of bondage found in Africa is perverted. The reality of systems of enslavement or bondage was not a venture "industrialized" by Europeans it was a system invented and perpetuated by Europeans against African people. It destroyed language, religion and culture. It erroded identities and ethnicities, devalued human beings into commodities--chattel. I would appreciate some respect be shown. I would love to see you making these statements on the Jewish Holocaust site. Where in the European trade was the so-called slave a member of the family, or could become the king of a country re: Sunni Ali Ber? Some so-called slaves in Africa were rich; they owned land and were legal administrators of territories. Dare to compare.--Halaqah 12:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mockery of the African Holocaust 

message: i Have counted 3 proper references in this entire article 2 come from my additions. I have added numerous calls for references, It isnt that i disagree with the submission but we must always site sources to keep this page "worthy" the first thing people would say "it isnt valid" "where is the source" to keep it on the mark please please please use references to anything you add (especially when you know people will attack it)--Halaqah 13:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References Please 

message: I have always noticed how abolishment of slavery is sold as a "white" project. There needs to be a section discussing African resistance and also the truth behind the so-called abolishment of slavery. Myth has it that is was a moral move on the part of the European powers, reality offers a different situation; The end of the Arab slave trade by the European powers also had other agendas, namely the leveling of the playing field to allow the industrial revolution. If Arabs and others were allowed to profit from slavery it would disrupt Europe's economic edge and political persuasion in their industrialization designs.--Halaqah 13:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resistance 

message: Sankofa is one of the most profound films on the Atlantic Slave trade, even more respected than Roots. I know you dont know this but then you should with out reason start chopping links just because you see them selling something. Why on Gods earth did you delete African Holocaust, which is dedicated to the transatlantic slave trade, you google it thats what comes up. Maybe you dont like their politics. Why dont you delete PBS, arent they OVERTLY COMMERCIAL AS WELL? Its funny how Sankofa is commercial and PBS isnt. --Halaqah 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not remove links 

message: Let me show anyone reading something There is an excellent article on the topic of language that is on the black people page. linguistics blah blah cant remember.
* Africans would capture other Africans: Only Europeans with an agenda would write this. Would you say this about a Eurpean conflict.
* black slaves/African slaves: They werent slaves they were people or captives. they were not by any defintion slaves like corn waiting to be picked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 13:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identifying the language of an oppressor 

message: If it wasnt a minority then who were the people being shipped ? they must have been the majority, this is logic. One king selling 2000 people is a minority of Africans involved in the trade. A majority were not trading another majority into slavery. By this estimate 10 million people would have needed 5 million people to be slavers. Or 10 million people sold into slavery would mean 20 million did the selling. A minority of Jews worked for Hitler, A minority of Native Americans worked for the French. A minority of Africans helped the whites invade Zulu land. A minority of Chinese allowed China to be annexed by the Khans. This is the constant logic of history. --Halaqah 07:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a world of difference when this minority is the one in power, and remains so. When the king of Dahomey or Asante sells a couple thousand sub-saharan africans (more like a couple tens of thousands, which in the case of Dahomey are probably done for anyway), it's not Joe Public who's doing it, it's the government. 74.13.207.139 14:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording under debate is whether a sentence should say many or a minority "of African kings and merchants" were involved. There is nowhere that it states that the majority of the entire population was involved. - SimonP 21:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minority of Africans involved 

message: Just added a complete rewrite tag to this section of the article. Reasonss for that are:
* the whole section doesn't name a single reference
* it contains original research and far-from-consensus claims (as discussed in this section)
* a much shorter section would do, there already is a long article on Abolitionism], so some wrap-up paragraph would be enough. Malc82 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Finally replaced it with a very NPOV, very short paragraph and link to the main article. Malc82 20:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion was continued in the "End of Slavery II" - section of this talk page. Malc82 21:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite tag for "End of slavery"-section

message: This article needs much more refs--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More refernces needed 

message: Fighting in Haiti did not deter slaveholders in the United States from buying slaves.  Slavery increased after the invention of the cotton gin in the 1790s made it possible to become rich by trading cotton.  Prior to 1790, very little cotton had been traded in and shipped across the sea by American planters.  The number of slaves in the United States tripled (more or less) from 1810 to 1860.  Many were home-grown mixed-raced people, but many were newly-introduced fresh from Africa. The claim that fighting in Haiti affected Americans by scaring Americans is nonsense.  GhostofSuperslum 10:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hundreds of slave ships existed 

message: This article completely fails to adequately account for the slave trade existing between various tribes that existed pre-Euro, an additionally forgets the extreme roll that africans played in the trade with the Euros. Although the euro's are undoubtedly the key players in the intercontinental trade of slaves and the exploitations of slavery for purely financial purposes, the trans-atlantic slave trade that existed for almost have of the last millenium was completely fueled by the natives. The key thing that many people miss about this issue is that the Euro's did NOT simple turn up, kidnap natives and cart them off. The vast majority of slaves that ended up in america were intitially captured by Africans, who transported other africans to the coast, to sell them on to the white slave merchants.
I don't at this time have time to make substantial edits, but am ii the process of writing a thesis on the subject and will try to incorporate my findings at a later point. 
Please dont see me as shifting the blame off the europeans, i am expressing the dire truth.
Feel free to talk to me, Greengiraffe 08:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have seen this pattern of edits which seek to blame Africans for their holocaust, clearly you wouldn’t think of doing this with the Jewish Holocaust as it would bring down the heaviest hammer imaginable. Any controversial edits and original research are not allowed and any attempt to downgrade and violate the tragedy on Africans by Europeans will be seen for what it is by this editor. everything you have said above is clearly in error and no sources what so ever exist for the above crazy statements. If you are interested in "TRUTH" then explore the social consequences of enslavement on the social development of Africans, yet you would find this kind of topic less notable. It wasnt enought to enslave and continue to brutualise African people, no the historical reduction also must also occur. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 11:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there, i must point out that I have no intent on verging from the dire truth of the "the social consequences of enslavement on the social development of Africans", but it saddens me to think that you, like most of the rest of the world seem to hold the belief that euro simply kidnapped africans & sent them to america. The slave trade would have been completely impossible without the intra-continental logistics by africans driving slaves. You want "sources"?. Any book on the topic by a reputable historion. Greengiraffe 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thankyou. Two intelligent people. Greengiraffe 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <span class="noprint" style="color:red">Pre-Euro slave trade & african part in Euro trade </span class="noprint" style="color:red"> 

message: I see no mention of slaves dying during the voyage from Africa to anywhere. I see no mention of slaves dying from lynching or harsh treatment. Even this talk page mentions Native Americans dying instead. I think the point the article tries to reach is that slaves never died and live among us today, centuries old. The only time death is mentioned in this article is when English would punish others for transporting slaves after they declared the international slave trade illegal. Hail Mary! Hail George! Hail England! I'm sure the slaves still living today thank those wonderful British. Another example of the slant on wikipedia. --Docjay8406 01:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So find us some references - this is an encyclopaedia, not a Ph.D. thesis. --Scott Davis Talk 03:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is some reference to slaves being killed in History of slavery in the United States which appears to have an extensive reference list, although not linked to individual paragraphs. There is mention of high death rates in transit in Triangular trade, but no references at all in that article. --Scott Davis Talk 04:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No need to applaud. I only got here by reading the article as a followup to something only vaguely related on television. Having given an abrupt response, I figured I needed to check a few other articles to soften my comment somewhat. --Scott Davis Talk 09:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were Slaves Immortal? 

message: I was pretty sure I had added something to this article about the death rates associated with the slave trade.  I took a look through after reading your comment, Mr. Davis and you are right on.  I guess we all get so caught up in the little details we sometimes miss the bigger picture of this tragedy.  I am an African-American myself, and was pretty embarrased when I realized no numbers were present on the deaths resulting from this stain on humanity.  I took the liberty of adding a section (see: Human Toll).  The numbers are pretty reliable.  I looked the info up about two summers ago.  I will site the sources ASAP, but I thought it was more important to get the numbers up then wait a second longer.  Thanks for looking out.  We all owe you a round of applause.
Scott Free 07:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to applaud. I only got here by reading the article as a followup to something only vaguely related on television. Having given an abrupt response, I figured I needed to check a few other articles to soften my comment somewhat. --Scott Davis Talk 09:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Point

message: WP:CITE prefers that page numbers are provided where possible, but says ISBNs are optional. When formatted properly ISBNs provide magic links to sources to buy or borrow the book. Could people with access to the books please consider adding page numbers and ISBNs to the references? Thankyou. --Scott Davis Talk 11:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book references and further reading 

message: i'm going to stop adding info to this page if wiki doesn't get on the ball about vanadalism.  this place is full of idiots who have nothing else to do but destroy valubale information about important topics.  meanwhile the rest of us try our hardest to shed light on complicated issues.  where the hell are the bots?Scott Free 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IDIOTS 

message: I'm curious why this is in the African-American section, when slavery in the United States, while a huge destination, did not account for anywhere near the majority of African slaves brought to the Americas.  Is it for simple classification?  Does this represent the vast majority of slaves and their descendents who don't live in the United States, but live in South America and the Carribean? Should we reclassify it to represent all slaves and their descendents?  Just a thought.  
I'd also like to see expansion of the New World Destination topic with citations. As it stands, it is a sad attempt that lacks citation and professionalism.  Moreover, if we are talking about the New World destinations, why is Europe included?  Perhaps we should change the title?  Here is the current entry: 
Central America only imported around 200,000. Europe topped this number at 300,000, North America, however, imported 500,000. The Caribbean was the second largest consumer of slave labour at 4 million. South America, with Brazil taking most of the slaves, imported 4.5 million before the end of slavery.[citation needed] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theboondocksaint (talk • contribs) 15:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is a useful one to have, but I am relocating it in the article, as it does not sit comformatbly where it is.  Peterkingiron 22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why in the African-American section, see: New World Destinations 

message: I have added 'fact' (asking for a citation) to 
75% of all sugar produced in the plantations came to London to supply the highly lucrative coffee houses there. 
The implication is that all this sugar was used to sweeten coffee.  I suspect that some one has misunderstood something they have read.  I am quite prepared to believe that part of the sugar that reached London was traded IN coffee houses.  This may well have been where the commission agents to whom the sugar was consigned met the sugar bakers who bought it, but I do not think the coffee houses can have been the destination of the trade itself! Peterkingiron 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coffee Houses 

message: Does anybody have the source for which ethnic groups were most effected by slave trade? That would really help me. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.90.153.61 (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference for ethnic groups 

message: While slavery within Africa clearly was (on average) more "humane", status and treatment of slaves differed enormously between African states. This section might need a re-write by an expert on the issue.Malc82 14:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  African versus European slavery 

message: I think the intro to this section (except for the last sentence) should be deleted. It contains a number of unreferenced claims on highly controversial issues and isn’t written like an encyclopedia article at all (see Northrup: The Atlantic Slave Trade. Houghton Mifflin, 2002. for a survey of the scientific debate). The subsections are much better, although Meltzer's figures don't reconcile with those mentioned at the beginning of this article. Please discuss.Malc82 15:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human toll section 

message: :Your logic makes sense to me.  I put most of the human toll intro back.  I put it there in the first place and I'd appreciate it if folks didn't just delete stuff off of kneejerk reactions without discussing other options.  Nobody had proven it unreliable, and it is important info.  I think a more constructive solution would be editing it.  Do you think we should go into the mortality section and replace 20 million with "between 14 and 20" million"?  Or maybe just "approximately 18".  I see your point on a lot of stuff, and the 20 million number seems so absolute when this is definately not written in stone.  Also, would you mind putting your number "14-18 million" in the latest opinion sectio as well.  thnx 4 the input.  I don't believe Meltzer claimed 20 million.  I put that number in by combining the numbers from those two sources.  Nobody's damned Meltze just yet and all I heard against Stannard is that he did some bad/sloppy research on native americans.  How the one relates to the other is beyond me.  I just wish more research was done on this topic.  
Scott Free 13:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non Rebuttal

message: This article leaves out many other aspects of the Slave Trade that are commony unanswered. Although it's well-attested that the africans didn't start wars to gain slaves- outside of the Dahomians, who were some pretty horrible people- how did they manage to get so many millions of slaves in such a short time? Wouldn't warfare have to be constant, with population centers shifting constantly? Why would they hold so many slaves if indentured servitude was the norm? Did they just shift after awhile?  unsigned 
*please sign your posts.  Peterkingiron 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Dynamics 

message: I guess this article is so huge it's hard to cover everything.  I think the above commentor is right in saying certain dynamics need to be addressed.  I strongly suggest those who have not already read the following sources to check them out.  They're very helpful.
*Gomez, Michael A. "Exchanging Our County Marks". University of North Carolina Press/Chapel  Hill and London. 1998
*Hall, Gwendolyn Midlo. "Slavery and African Ethnicities in the Americas: Restoring the Links". University of North Carolina Press/Chapel  Hill and London. 2005
*Thornton, John A. "Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400-1800 SECOND EDITION". Cambridge Univerity Press. 1998
 
On another note, THIS WAS NOT A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.  350 years is longer than many states exist in any period (Ancient, Classical, Medieval, etc).  This trade started in the Rennaisance and didn't end until darn near in the Industrial Age.  As far as warfare goes, I hate to admit it but my ancestors were some militaristic b@$tards.  As a testament to this inglorious fact, there is only one West African state which was active in the slave trade and formed before 1502 that actually survived to see the end of the slave trade in 1853 (Kingdom of Kongo).  The period was THAT destructive.  Everyone else was either gobbled up by another African power or colonized by the Europeans.  Besides for warfare, I think we should look at the following factors:
*Poorer or poor soil in the most urban areas largely due to overuse
*Virtually a complete lack of medical knowledge on the part of the Africans
*Nonchalant nature of slavery in Western Africa (criminals, debtors or their relatives and POWs were routinely sold into slavery)
Let's also look at the population of Africa.  These stats come from "Africa: A short History" by Robert O. Collins (Markus Wiener Publishers/Princeton; 2006).  
*Total African Population: 20 million (beginning of Christian Era)
*Total African Population: 47 million (1500 C.E.)..start of trans-atlantic slave trade
*Total African Population: 129 million (1900 C.E.)..most of Africa under colonial rule
*Total African Population: 142 million (1920 C.E.)
*Total African Population: 200 million (1948 C.E.)
*Total African Population: 300 million (1960 C.E.)...beginning of African independence
*Total African Population: 750 million (2000 C.E.)
*Total African Population: 1.5 billion (2025 estimate)
I'm not sure where the hell these figurs come from, but I ain't expert enough to challenge PRINCETON.  I had no idea Africa' population was that low.  What's interesting is that the population actually doubled from the start of the TAST (trans-atlantic slave trade) to 1900.  No reason for this was given in the book, but I figure the centralization of Western Africa had positive and negative affects.  On the negative side, warfare seemed to be a constant right up to the 1900s.  As hard as it is to believe, the Europeans might have actually stabilized Africa by conquering most of it.  On the positive side, centralization seems to have make the urban populace secure enough to expand their population.  Population explosions generally don't occur during prolonged periods of warfare, but this seems to be the exception.  I couldn't imagine Europe's population doubling after 300 years of war.
On a last note, I hope someone here can find some population stats other than these.  I have a hard time believing Africa only grew by 30 million people in 1500 years.  
holla back
Scott Free 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas 

message: |-
|
|-
|}
===cool addition===
cool addition.  i'll be proud to put it on my user page. thnx
Scott Free 15:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox available 

message: cool addition.  i'll be proud to put it on my user page. thnx
Scott Free 15:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: cool addition

message: I know this page is focused on slavery of Africans, but would it be possible to add some info on the well-attested transport of Irish slaves across the Atlantic?  Since the title is a general one, it seems appropriate. User:Maragrey 3 June 2007
:The Irish weren't slaves, they were indentured servants and thus aren't in the scope of this article. You can find some info about them in the i.s. article. Malc8210:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info on Irish slaves? 

message: Two friends and I were discussing the Atlantic Slave Trade a few weeks ago after reading Wikipedia's entry. We thought that a Trans Atlantic memorial needs to be erected to commemorate the victims of the Atlantic Slave Trade. This would need to be a global project. Possibly under the auspices of the United Nations. 
Our joint-idea was to erect some type of structure in each of the port cities used in the transportation of slaves from Africa across the Atlantic. This would include major port cities in Africa, Europe, USA, Caribbean, South America. 
We thought that the structures would need to be of a dark colour. Darkness to symbolise the deep sorrow that the slave trade has caused. A sorrow that haunts us to this day. A sorrow too that is perhaps the defining characteristic of ‘Blackness’ to this day.  
Blackness as in the Pearl Jam song: Depression. Sadness. Longing : ‘… turned my world to black / tattooed all that I see/
all that I am / all I’ll be ... ' 
We thought also that the shape of the structures should be triangular. To mark the fact that 'the slaves were one element of a three-part economic cycle— the Triangular Trade and its Middle Passage—…”
And a flame.  
A black pyramid then. Maybe incorporating a flame. In the harbours of each of the port cities. A trans-Atlantic tombstone. A memorial to all the bodies buried in the ocean's depth. A testimony to the sorrow of all the mothers who lost their children. A symbol to remind us of the horrors of the Atlantic Slave Trade . A living symbol of hope.
Crizzozo 15:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''A Trans-Atlantic Memorial for the victims of the Atlantic Slave Trade''' 

message: Hi everyone.  Yo I realize that section is too lengthy and needs some cuts, but cutting it down to one tiny paragraph is inappropriate.  It's just too important an issue.  The tag says we should discuss the edits here before making drastic changes, so let's do that.  Suggestions???Scott Free 21:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was tagged and up for discussion since May 2 with no single suggestion or comment on the tagging. The section needed a complete rewrite, not improvements. I haven't got the sources to do this myself at the moment. My attempts basically convinced me that one can only write such an extremely short paragraph or has to go into details to avoid undue weight. In the end I decided to enforce Wikipedia's policy to removed unreferenced statements, which meant removing the section. I don't see this as a huge problem, the End of slavery is basically given by the three numbers mentioned, and abolitionism simply is a very complex topic that can't be summed up in 5 sentences without getting POV. Malc82 22:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem here wasn't even the lack of sources, it is that this section is embarrassingly POV and completely against scientific consensus. I have read the opinions of about 10 authors on the subject now and have yet to find someone who says that slave rebellions were "the" main cause for abolition, much less someone who shares the idea that every success was a direct consequence of a rebellion. This has already been discussed in the other "End of slavery" section above. Malc82 22:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed the POV-edit now, but left the article tagged as "neutrality disputed". The reason is that it is still somewhat POV, only in the opposite direction. The section now focusses almost entirely on British abolitionism and (more important) doesn't mention the scientific debate about British motivation and other factors. The Royal Navy's patrolling sounds (maybe unintentionally) like it was entirely done out of humanism, while scientific consensus is that there were also economic reasons for it. Williams' theory should at least be mentioned (but not too detailed, there is a main article about that topic). I don't have enough sources handy right now to do that myself, so if one of the other contributors could do it that would be great. Malc82 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of slave trade II 

message: *Kimani Nehusi
*Molefi Asante
*Muhammed Shareef
*Hakim Quick
*Walter Rodney
*Maulana Karenga
*Tufufu Zuberi -- The authority on population demographics
*Hakim Adi, oh Tony Martin. Chancelor Williams, Eric Williams, 
the list continues, but all of these agree that 12 million is a joke.The only African's keeping it low are the likes of Henry Gates, and we all know who his pay master is.
--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 15:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why the article states between 9 and 12 million.  10 or 11 million is probably the most accurate number according to the article.  What number(s) do the above experts agree on?Scott Free 19:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't say I know all of them, as the intro sentence clearly states. I'm "deeply out of touch with this field", because I studied the Atlantic slave trade, not it's perception in parts of the African, Afro-American and Afro-European culture. You still fail to say where which one of the persons you mention claimed a different number than 9.4 to 12 million, how he got to that number and which flaws in the methodology of renowned experts (both White and Black "sell-outs") he identified. Instead you accuse all Whites of being inheritently biased towards apologizing the slave trade while every Black historian who comes to the same numbers is "payed" by a giant White cabal. Racist allegations have no place on Wikipedia. The "how many left" was discussed a few sections above. I have watched Zuberia's clip 2 times now, and while he makes some interesting points (that aren't at all new to me), he doesn't speak about arrivals, he speaks about the impact on Africa and "the actual numbers who were murdered in the slave trade" (Note: he explicitly talks about the Arabian and Atlantic slave trades). Malc82 22:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yo Malc82 is sonning you, Halqh.  I've sparred with that cat and he's a good researcher.  Still don't see why this page had to be so comabative.  I'd  just like to add that not all white folks are playing down the numbers.  The sources I used for this page were all White except for one, and I (a black man) have no problem using them. I think we all need to stop looking at the race or even the politics of these authors and pay more attention to who is publishing their work. Can EVERYONE here start giving a little more info on what books their claims are based off of and who published it.  Cuz if its some bullsh!t like WCP (The Destruction of Black Civilization) u should leave it out to save your own cred.  That doesn't mean there aren't bad/racist authors on mainstream publishing houses-- but they're a lot less prevalent.Scott Free 15:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Africans academics dont agree with 12 million 

message: (Edit conflict) I skipped through what I could find about your examples:
* Kimani Nehusi - whose WP-article is a clear-cut copyvio of www.kimani.info, has a diploma in egyptology. I went through his (impressive) research archive but couldn't find anything indicating that he ever made own estimations on the subject.
* Maulana Karenga - not a historian, and as the first sentence in his WP-bio says: a political activist (usually not a RS).
* Muhammad Alshareef - absolutely nothing I found indicates that he has any professional knowledge about the subject.
* Hakim Quick - same as above
* Tukufu Zuberi, Molefi Kete Asante and Hakim Adi - may qualify as RS, where did they say what (and was it their own research)?
* Tony Martin - a racist who denies the holocaust, now there's a source one can trust.
* Henry Gates - No, I don't know who his "paymaster" is, apart from Harvard. Does that automatically make him a traitor?
* Eric Williams and Walter Rodney - not contemporary. Also, I find it interesting that people accuse all white scholars on the subject of trying to minimize the numbers, yet don't find anything POV-questionable in the fact that Williams and Rodney were politicians who largely based their career on their theories (that's not to say their theories are completely wrong).
With all of the sources you named: where did they ever make own estimations and what did they estimate. What strikes me is that almost all sources you name are better known for their political activism than scholary work. Honestly, I have more formal qualification on the subject than some of these people. The most prominent African expert on this subject is Joseph E. Inikori, who is missing from the list and has never questioned the 9.4 to 12 million arrivals numbers, although he rightfully criticized a certain tendency to downplay the effects on Africa. Malc82 19:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say I know all of them, as the intro sentence clearly states. I'm "deeply out of touch with this field", because I studied the Atlantic slave trade, not it's perception in parts of the African, Afro-American and Afro-European culture. You still fail to say where which one of the persons you mention claimed a different number than 9.4 to 12 million, how he got to that number and which flaws in the methodology of renowned experts (both White and Black "sell-outs") he identified. Instead you accuse all Whites of being inheritently biased towards apologizing the slave trade while every Black historian who comes to the same numbers is "payed" by a giant White cabal. Racist allegations have no place on Wikipedia. The "how many left" was discussed a few sections above. I have watched Zuberia's clip 2 times now, and while he makes some interesting points (that aren't at all new to me), he doesn't speak about arrivals, he speaks about the impact on Africa and "the actual numbers who were murdered in the slave trade" (Note: he explicitly talks about the Arabian and Atlantic slave trades). Malc82 22:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yo Malc82 is sonning you, Halqh.  I've sparred with that cat and he's a good researcher.  Still don't see why this page had to be so comabative.  I'd  just like to add that not all white folks are playing down the numbers.  The sources I used for this page were all White except for one, and I (a black man) have no problem using them. I think we all need to stop looking at the race or even the politics of these authors and pay more attention to who is publishing their work. Can EVERYONE here start giving a little more info on what books their claims are based off of and who published it.  Cuz if its some bullsh!t like WCP (The Destruction of Black Civilization) u should leave it out to save your own cred.  That doesn't mean there aren't bad/racist authors on mainstream publishing houses-- but they're a lot less prevalent.Scott Free 15:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not convinced

message: * "The pioneering statistical study of the Atlantic slave trade by Philip Curtin published in 1969 estimated the total of black slaves landed alive in America, by the Atlantic trade up to 1870, at roughly 9,391,000.[Note in original: Philip D. Curtin, The Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1969), p. 268, table 77.] Subsequent research has raised the total. It is now estimated that 11,863,000 slaves were shipped across the Atlantic, that the overall death rate during the Crossing or what came to be called the Middle Passage was in the range of 10-20 percent, and that the total for those landed alive must accordingly lie somewhere between 9,600,000 and 10,800,000.[Note in original: Paul E. Lovejoy, "The Impact of the Atlantic Slave Trade on Africa: A Review of the Literature," in Journal of African History 30 (1989), p. 368.] An intermediate figure of 10,200,000 would seem, for now, to be a reasonable estimate. It is widely conceded that further revisions are more likely to be upward than downward." — Ronald Segal, The Black Diaspora: Five Centuries of the Black Experience Outside Africa (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1995), , page 4.
* "From the 1520s to the 1860s an estimated 11 to 12 million African men, women, and children were forcibly embarked on European vessels for a life of slavery in the Western Hemisphere. Many more Africans were captured or purchased in the interior of the continent, but a large number died before reaching the coast. About 9 to 10 million Africans survived the Atlantic crossing to be purchased by planters and traders in the New World, where they worked principally as slave laborers in plantation economies requiring a large work force." — Stephen Behrendt, "Transatlantic Slave Trade", Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience (New York: Basic Civitas Books, 1999), .
Maybe there's something helpful in these passages? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Than God!  Someone who can quote sources!  What is funny is, the above data is useless to the above debate between Malc and Halq.  At best it sorta kills the 12 million notion (which I've stated before was pretty much wrong- about two months ago). I just wish Halq could answer my earlier question and say WHAT NUMBER HE OR IS HIS SOURCES AGREE ON.  Is it more than 12 million or less than 12 million.  The excellent work by Mali Shabazz makes it pretty clear that 12 million did not arrive.Scott Free 15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to go through the article's history page to find what the discussion is about. Malc82 20:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some grist for the mill 

message: Just wanted to give props to Malc for the effects addition.  Some interesting stuff there.Scott Free 03:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks ;-). Do you think that WikiProject Africa (or any other project) would be able to dig deep into this huge debate and write an article on the effects on Africa? As I said above, this is a huge topic and should definitely have it's own article. One could write an encyclopedic article about Rodney's theory or the Impact of European goods on African trade alone, and these are only sections of the "Effects on Africa". My concern is that the users who are knowledgeable about the AST generally don't know enough about African history to really understand it (I know I don't), while Wikipedia's experts on African history may only have schoolbook knowledge (aka worse than none) about the Atlantic and Arab slave trades. At least that's the impression that I sometimes get when I look at the scientific debate, where it seems that Western-culture scholars of economic history and Precolonial-Africa-sociologists are just too far apart to understand what the other side is talking about. Malc82 21:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injecting Positivity 

message: hi everyone.  i removed the following section from the intro of the article...
"Elikia M’bokolo, April 1998, Le Monde diplomatique. Quote:"The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth)."  He continues: "Four million slaves exported via the Red Sea, another four million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean": see The impact of the slave trade on Africa.  
First let me say i have no problem with the content of this paragraph as far as accuracy. I also believe the statement is relevant to the broader subject of the article. I do not, however, believe it belongs in the intro.  Even a 6th grader knows you don't put a quote in an introduction. Secondly, the section is not written in the same style as the rest of the paragraph. It begins like a citation for crying out loud. Furthermore, the content of the quote has more to do with African slavery as a whole as opposed to the specific topic of the article, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. That's why I moved it to the page on the slave trade in the segment about Africa. Also, the only relevent info in the above text (as it regards to the subject of this specific) is already present in other sections (namely the human toll section which I authored). I fail to see why this particular segment should be included in the article, let alone the article's introduction. 
I realize by removing the segment (AGAIN), I may be starting an edit war (which is the last thing I 
want to do). I believe Musa (who put the section back) had good intentions. I still don't think it belongs in the intro. Perhaps a reworked version of this segment in another part of the article is in order? Please let me know what y'all think. HOLLA.Scott Free 21:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Munsa.Musa's source is a significant article, which should certainly be cited in an article on slavery in Africa; it looks as if it is based on authoritative works.  However, what Musa has taken from it seems not primarily to be about the Atlantic slave trade.  Accordingly the quotation does not belong where he put it, and perhaps not in this article at all.  The slave trade is an emotive subject, about which a vast amount has been written.  It is accordingly necessary in WP to be selective in what sources are used.  The present content of the article is not satisfactory in a number of ways.  For example, I am not sure how relevant it is to have lists of contemporary African kingdoms (rather than a short section with a link to something with lists).  I know little of the demographic issues, but wonder how relevant it is to have tables of world population here (rather than in a linked article).  Furthermore this section gives undue prominence to the views of Eric Williams (which are not accepted by modern economic historian.  It is certainly tue that Bouldton & Watt supplied steam engines for sugar mills, but to say that sugar planters financed him is a travesty of the truth.  This article needs considerable work, but I am not qualified to undertake it.  Peterkingiron 22:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the quote to the section African slave market, where it seems to sit well.  --Lambiam 22:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad y'all seemed to agree with me.  I do believe the list of kingdoms is important, because it sheds light on where these people came.  Plus, without these states the Atlantic slave trade couldn't have happened. I'm also rather curious about the world population numbers. I think that might be able to go.  Only reason I guess one could make for keeping it is to show the change in Africa's population as a result of the slave trade. Not sure who Eric Williams is. Hope we here from Musa soon.Scott Free 16:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Eric Williams.  My probelm is that the article has become unweildy, and was hoping that some material could be forked off, by summarising it and linking it to a separate article.  Peterkingiron 22:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I see what u mean.  The article is kinda unweildy. I'll see what i can do about shortening or possibly removing the list for the African states. As for Williams, I just read the article. I think this article may be relying on his theories concerning the end of slavery, but that's just one section. I don't think it damns the whole article. It seems that Williams' research was definately wrong in the details, but his overall statement that the end of slavery had more to do with economy than egalitarianism seems to be true and stood the test of time. I'm more of an African history buff than an African-american history buff, so I'll leave the whole end of slavery section alone to better informed folks. I'll take ur suggestion to heart and see what can be done about shortening the African history sections. Cheers :) Scott Free 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can see, Elikia M'bokolo is a good source. The problem still remains that he published this text in a newspaper, not a scientific journal. I know that are divided opinions if "good" Newspapers should be treated as RS, but I would argue against it in this case. Le Monde diplomatique doesn't hold it's authors to the same standards of referencing etc. than a scientific journal does (or at least should). Therefore I can't see why we should include such a long, loosely related quote into this already quite long article, seem a bit like undue weight to me. Only one sentence really is about the AST and it doesn't really add to what the article already says. This source could be added as a reference in the "Effects" section. Malc82 13:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Here Here! (I'm feelin British today).  I second that opinion.  glad the abreviation trend (TAST/AST) is catchin on, lol. Seriously, tho, I think that's a good idea to move it to the effect.Scott Free 14:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  quote in intro 

message: Malc. Apparently you have removed every single one of my edits. Furthermore you have made the assertion that I had added 'unreferenced material'
Your removals are extreme and uncalled for. I shall address them one by one (although I might have got some of the edit times mixed up).
 Revision as of 14:58, 14 September 2007.
1. I mention Walter Rodey's 'How Europe Underdeveloped Africa'. That book is one of the key works about the impact of the Slave Trade. So, why did you remove my referece to it (rather than simply improve it?).
2. I adjusted the term 'African slaves' to 'Enslaved Africans'. Why do you object to that? The term 'slaves' is a noun that objectifies the person, transforming their identity into mere objects of labour. On the other hand,  'enslaved' is an adverb that implies that 'somebody is doing something to somebody else'  - restoring a sense of agency and personhood. By using 'African' as a noun, you restore the 'super-ethnic' identity of the person prior to their enslavement. It may be that there is room for both descriptions - but why only target my one?
3. I referred to European rading parties. You removed this, why? There are no other 'citations' in this paragraph, so why has my addition been targetted?  Do you have some kind of prejudice against mentioning European raiding parties? It cannot be because it is 'unsourced' because YOUR revision is also 'unsourced'. 
4. I referred to 'deportaion of people'. Why did you remove this? It is quite clear that if a King orders somebody from their land, then it is a deportation. By only ever refering to a 'trade' editors are dehumanising the individuals concerned. People are deported, objects are traded. Even if some 21st century editors  do not regard present-day Africans as fully human, we should not allow them to project their contemporary values back onto the past.
Revision as of 15:01, 14 September 2007 
1. I removed a link to tribal because the Wiki article it referred to did not mention West Africa at all. Furthermore, the sentence refers to 'kingdoms'. A Kingdom, is patently not a 'tribe' (it's a kingdom). And, again, the endemic warfare article makes no mention of Kingdoms. So, why have you restored this patently irrelevant Wiki reference - surely you can find a proper, academic citation which has a bit more substance to it? 
2. I referred to 'criminal elements'. Equiano was kidnapped by criminals - obviously (unless you are claiming that Ibo society had no concept of natural justice and common law). Why did you remove this?
3. I referred to 'European-controlled ports' in Africa instead of 'African ports'. It is important to note that Elmina (among others), was a European controlled port. Angola, one of the main sources for Brazilian slave labourers was a Portuguese colony - so its ports were European controlled. Why did you remove this? You claim that my comments are 'unsourced' but the entire paragraph is unsourced - including your revision. Why is your revision unsourced - whereas my factual clarification is removed?
Revision as of 15:02, 14 September 2007
1. This was a two-word grammatical correction. Why on earth would you undo it? Do you want the article to be ungrammatical, or something?
Revision as of 15:08, 14 September 2007
1. I changed 'chiefdom' to 'fiefdom'. These are both English words, so they are not entirely translatable to the subtleties of West African politics. However, Fiefdom, in my mind seems more appropriate to a polity that exists at the dispensation of a monarch (i.e. it is feudalistic).
2. You have removed my reference to 'warlords, bandits and kidnappers'. There is a tendency to simply 'racialize' enslavement. So African enslavers are simply referred to as 'Africans'. This cannot be correct. Enslaving is an economic activity carried out by economic groups. In Africa, all the evidence suggests that 'warlords, bandits and kidnappers' were the economic agents. Equiano himself described his own kidnapping by bandits. You claim my reference is 'unsourced' but it I can't see any citations in that paragraph, so I certainly haven't made it any worse. Why have you reverted to an unsourced revision and removed my clarification?
Revision as of 15:11, 14 September 2007
1. I changed 'slaves' to 'enslaved people'. Did you want a source for referring to the ancestors of 100s-of-millions of Brazilians, Americans, etc as 'people'. Why did you remove the word people?
Revision as of 15:13, 14 September 2007
I pointed out that the slave markets operated by Barbary pirates were in North Africa. Leaving out 'North' gives the impression that the Portuguese were involved in some kind of 'tit-for-tat' with West Africa. But, in fact the European powers did not impose chattel slavery on millions of Algerians. Instead, they attacked a region completely uninvolved in the enslavement of Europeans. Why did you remove the word North? 
Revision as of 15:13, 14 September 2007 
I removed an unsourced statement about many fantasies. What fantasies? Reference to fantasy is entirely irrelevant here - it is history we are dealing with not fantasy. Why have you reverted to an unsourced claim about fantasy?
Revision as of 15:51, 14 September 2007
Also in this paragraph I pointed out that the difference between a long term profit of 6% and one of 5% is, in fact, quite substantial. I don't think we need a source for basic math. Why has this simple mathematical fact been removed?
All in all, I feel that my edits have been treated with the utmost disrespect. I object to being told that I alone must 'source' all my statements - when you are reverting the paragraphs to not only unsourced, but simply biased and inaccurate statements whose primary object is imply some kind of vapid moral equivalence between generic 'Africans' and generic 'Europeans'.
The fact that the term 'slave trade' has common useage should not prevent editors from appreciating the individual tragedy of each enslaved person. 
I therefore object to you reverting to disrespectful language about people, referring to them only as 'slaves' (objects) rather than enslaved people (subjects). I ask you to reconsider every one of my edits a bit more dispassionately, remembering that you are dealing with people, not inanimate trade objects. 
Ackees 17:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Long text, short answer. I had to revert all of your changes (even if I didn't object to some of them at all) because the Undo function doesn't work if the changed text was itself changed afterwards. The only alternative would have been to manually go through every edit, which simply was too much work. To address some of the specific points you made above (in a subsection, to make it easier for other editors to join the discussion: Malc82 23:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwarranted removals 

message: First edit:
1. agree
2. I can live with "enslaved Africans" although I don't see a problem with "slaves" either. e.A. seems a bit to politically correct and complicated to me. After all, we also say "Europeans" not "Slavers from some, but not all, European countries". We might discuss that in a separate section.
3. Even if the other version was unrefed too, you shouldn't add further unrefed material. If you have a reference I won't deny the fact that raiding parties existed.
4. No problem with calling it a deportation once or twice, but the AST was a trade nevertheless. What I have a problem with is the addition of terms like "bandits", "criminal elements" etc., which should be avoided according to WP:WEASEL. According to WP:NPOV judgements should be avoided as far as possible and readers should be trusted to see the horrible social effects of this trade for themselves.
Second Edit:
1. Agree that kingdom is much more appropriate than tribe.
2. See above. Unless you add a reference or refer to the Equiano example specifically, the term should be avoided.
3. African port refers to the location. It doesn't seem relevant to me who ran them because none of them would have worked without support from both sides.
Third edit: as I explained in the edit summary, undo of individual edits wasn't possible. Plus, the initial sentence was absolutely correct.
Fourth edit:
1. Chiefdom is much better in terms of NPOV. I'm not familiar enough with African history to say for sure, but some chiefs/kings might have gotten their position through some kind of "election" or any process that may be unfairly characterized by the word thieving.
2. Already addressed this above. Halfways intelligent readers should be aware that both "Europeans" and "Africans" were actually a small minority of their groups. If we would be that specific everytime the resulting article would read like a High Court comment on a complicated matter of conflicting laws. I didn't remove everything else because removing content in "sensible" articles always means having to defend your decision against a busload of criticism and allegations (your complaint being one of the friendliest I ever had, thanks for that).
Fifth and Sixth edit: entirely a function of the Undo being impossible and a busy schedule. I'll re-install the North afterwards. (Update: Didn't reinstall the "North" because the context already says that it was North African slavers. Malc82 23:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes by Ackees

message: Did the Portuguese and Spanish spread the trade of african slaves to the northern countries of Europe (like the Netherlands)? Were the Dutch slave traders recent immigrants from Spain and Portugal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.78.105 (talk • contribs) on October 16
:Do you mean spreading actual slaves to Northern Europe (this happened, but on a limited scale) or spreading the trade. The latter wouldn't be correct, the Northern European powers simply answered the same problem (lots of work and very few workers in their New World colonies) in a similar way. They started out later because they entered into colonialism later. The Dutch slave traders generally came from the already huge Dutch  merchant marine. Dutch slave traders actually used some very different methods than all other nations, regarding f.e. type of ships. The Dutch were also the only ones who more often than not conducted a textbook triangular voyage while ships of all other nations usually returned to Europe without cargo. Malc82 01:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese and Spanish spread the slave trade? 

message: Wiki is clear about weasel words. When you say "Most" nobody went out theri an counted opinions. This "most" Eurocentric ideology has come up in this article b4 and it was agreed to show balance. It is well know that figure of 12 million is properly debated by MOST African scholars such as Zuberi, Asante etc. So to say SOME is in keeping with wiki policy on showing bias by using terms such as "Most Historians agree", or "It is accepted that..."--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have WP:RS that dispute the figure of 9.4 and 12 million, please bring them. In the meantime, "most" is appropriate because the sources aren't individual historians but descriptions of what multiple historians believe. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  THe burden is on you to justify the weasle word usage. Who are these "multiply historians" no one can say what MOst historicans think about a disputed figure. Most people think the sky is blue is okay but most should never be used in a debataly situation. See policy. If it is most then show that it is most? One website cannot suggest the opinion of Most historians. Where is the list of these historians, or do White historians have a louder voice than the black ones? Until then respect the editors who edit these pages. Weasel words reflect bias an it is easy to avoid using them.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  To save time here is a copy of wiki policy: Weasel words can present an apparent force of authority seemingly supporting statements without allowing the reader to decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable, or they can call into question a statement. If a statement cannot stand without weasel words, it does not express a neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If, on the other hand, a statement can stand without such words, their inclusion may undermine its neutrality, and the statement will generally be better off without them.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty easy to find sources that agree that these numbers are the scholarly consensus. For instance: "the most recent aggregate estimates of the volume and geographic distribution of the transatlantic slave trade, however, have largely confirmed Curtin's 1969 census. David Eltis' estimate that 9,468,000 enslaved Africans arrived in the Americans during the era of the transatlantic slace trade increases Curtin's totals by only 1 percent." James A. Rawley The transatlantic slave trade: a history, 2005. pg. 15 - SimonP (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

text: What i have issue with since years of working here is this view that White Historians make up "concensus" on Africa. Or the authoritative voice. The bulk of Black historians just are not seen as "real" historians. Curtain work is the subject of great debate.  Most people today copy and paste this one set of research, so a bad copy of misinformation doesnt get better with time.  Whatever the truth weasle words r best avoided Agreed? Zuberi is heavily critical of curtin. In a nutshell Zuberi argues that he unduly has the dominant voice in history and Afrocentric challenges to these numbers r ignored. Naturally curtin and other White scholars wants to keep the number as low as possible. or is this an imagination that Fage, Curtin et al historically wash out Africa? Now forget Yotube but this is Zuberis position Zuberi on Curtin --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no "weasel words" in the lede. Please read footnote 7 carefully: "It is now estimated that 11,863,000 slaves were shipped across the Atlantic. [Note in original: Paul E. Lovejoy, "The Impact of the Atlantic Slave Trade on Africa: A Review of the Literature", in Journal of African History 30 (1989), p. 368.]" A Review of the Literature—that means Lovejoy reviewed the scholarly papers concerning the Atlantic slave trade and found, based on that review, that approximately 12 million people were shipped. Hence the word "most" isn't a weasel word, it's an accurate description of what the source says. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is Wikipedia and not Journal of African History which i cannot edit or present. it is one source which is saying MOST, so does that make it true. I will now add, however Most African historians put the figure much higher and cite Asante "History Of Africa" you uncivil attitude is against the policy of Wikipedia. How can you put the opinion of one source as the slant of a wikipedia article. My argument stands that saying MOST introduces a false bias because anyone can say MOST. It is better for NPOV to avoid using Most or words which give false authority 2 statements. follow policy and use the talk page --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Editing from pride is not productive. I actually made it better by saying Contemporary historians, So there is no need for MOST. But as oppose 2 looking at my compromise the the editor calling himself Malik (?) reverted. disregarding my compromise.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a compromise unless all parties agree to it.  Based on Hugh Thomas' analysis of the numbers and sources in an appendix to "The Slave Trade", I am very comfortable with the 11,000,000 estimate.  Rather than quibbling over the word "most", how about presenting some SOURCED (i.e. work and page number) alternatives from reliable sources that should possibly be added to the article.  There is no reason why the section under debate cannot be expanded to present other numbers (providing they are properly sourced). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no particular view on what the figure should be.  This is a question of what is WP:RS, or in this case the most reliable source.  This is not about the majority of historians, but the most reliable view.  If there is a current academic conflict, but best solution is to quote both views and comment on their strength.  I have little doubt that Journal of African History is a peer-reviewed journal.  Accordingly, views published in this are likely to be based on the latest research, and to be robust.  However, what appears in a "review of literature" is likely merely to reflect that a view has been published elsewhere: it would be necessary to assess the merits of the matter reviewed.  It is important that a precise citation is given for all figures quoted are, and older views should not be given priority over newer revisionist research, which will usually have considered and rejected (for reasons) the older views.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lovejoy article does evaluate the various claims and draw an independent conclusion.  Thomas does so to a much lesser extent.  They both find that the numbers estimated in the studies they examined fall between 9 and 12 million.  The YouTube talk referenced above throws out a number between 25 million and 100 million.  If these numbers have actually made it to scholarly peer reviewed journal articles or books, then they probably should be included in the article. From what I could find on JSTOR regarding Zuberi, it does not appear that he has managed to put his opinions with hard numbers in publication. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

text: YouTube can hardly be regarded as WP:RS, (potentially) much more in the nature of WP:OR, probably the result of hyperbole (or plain exaggeration), which is unfortunately all to prevalent when journalists are involved.  This is a subject on which there has been a great deal of scholarly research, and an article as well developed as this one should not allow the introduction of non-scholarly sources, however attractive.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words