Talk:Edward Colston/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Unresolved issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Because there remains no consensus over the opening paragraph, and the RFC has been closed as "deadlock", I suggest that this issue now needs to be discussed at WP:DRN - unless editors consider there is merit in further discussion here of the suggestion that: "One wonders if invoking WP:IAR here, & emphasizing the irony of Colston's situation & its effect on his reputation in the lead might break this deadlock." (I know I would need to go through formal procedures, notifying editors etc. if we move to DRN - I have not yet done that, pending any further discussion here). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus was closed as a deadlock with the majority of editors saying include. There is no further issue here. I feel you would be wasting your time. Govvy (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

↑ What he said. The RfC has shown no consensus to overturn the WP:STATUS QUO. Why not live with that - it's what we do in all other such matters. - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, by "unsolved" I take it you mean that it's not gone your way? STATUSQUO applies. Cassianto^Talk 09:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

By "unsolved" I take it you mean "unresolved"? Yes, there is no agreement to change the current wording - but the RFC neither suggested that it should be changed or that it should not be changed - it said there was "deadlock". So, there needs to be further consideration as to how to resolve the "deadlock" - which is why I put it in a different forum. If the RFC closing admin had reached a different conclusion, I would have accepted it, even if I disagreed with it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, no, I mean unsolved. If something was "'resolved", that would mean that it was good before, now it is not, and you want it re solved to something that is acceptable again. Unsolved means that it has never been acceptable, which according to you, it hasn't, and now you want it solved by deleting what you think is a problematic word. This was what you meant. Sad that I have to explain this. Cassianto^Talk 09:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I've read those words several times, and still have no clue what you are trying to tell me. I never used the word "unsolved", so I can't have meant anything by it. Never mind. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Its clearly a typo and they mean unresolved.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

As a DR has been started lets stick with the status quo until it is revolved.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course. (Hopefully, "resolved" not "revolved", or we will be going around in circles indefinitely.) But the comment "Consensus was closed as a deadlock with the majority of editors saying include..." - is meaningless. Consensus is not determined by voting, and given the disagreements on this page the issue can only be resolved by policy and guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Let the DR run its course.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Any time WP:VOTE gets mentioned is usually a pretty clear ' I didn't get my way', which is exactly what's going on here.Thumpwicca (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think users are not playing the game can you please take it elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DRN discussion

Archived here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Charitable giving

Under "Philanthropic works" is the following sentence: "However, it not known how much Colston gave to such charities." The sentence cites two sources neither of which makes this point. The sentence is ungrammatical "it not known" and adds nothing to the article. We could triple the length of the article with things that are not known. If it is meant to imply that he didn't really give very much, then that controverts the evidence of his philanthropy and needs to be supported by some seriously robust sourcing.

For those reasons, I deleted the sentence, but it has been reverted, so I'm just following WP:BRD and opening the discussion. Bermicourt (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Bermicourt, thanks for bringing it here, checking it again I see that I was mistaken, so have reverted my revert of your change. Sorry to have wasted your time, I was confusing it with a similar sentence about the source of his wealth, which has been troublesome in the past. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

DeFacto, no worries, thanks for the constructive response. Bermicourt (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

Change "equivalent to some £8 million in 2017" to "equivalent to some £14.3 million in 2017"

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator Highams Finest (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done I have, instead, used the Template:Inflation to handle the calculation, which has the added benefit that the calculation will always use most up to date info as the template is maintained in the future. Melmann 10:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

City-centre memorial statue

The second sentence, "Colston’s slave-trading activities were subsequently uncovered in a biography of his life and work written by H.J. Wilkins in 1920," seems to be somewhat mirrored at the beginning of Modern reappraisal section. Probably needs re-wording? I am not sure which sentence to change, that's need adjusting. Govvy (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I've trimmed the second use of the sentence, to remove the duplication. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: Thanks, I was thinking of submitting the article to WP:GA. Govvy (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Private trading

The assertion that C. traded in slaves privately after leaving the RAC needs a good source as this will be new evidence, the view having been that there is no evidence for this. "To what extent Colston received money from the sale of slaves is unknown." (K Morgan, Edward Colston and Bristol, Bristol Branch of the Historical Association, the University, Bristol, ISSN 1362 7759, page 3. And in any case, since he left the RAC in 1692 and the company's monopoly on W African trade continued until 1698, any private trading must have been between 1698 and 1708 when Colston retired. Morgan also stated (ibid) that even the amount of money received from the RAC for any official duties is 'conjectural'. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The last part of the career section is questionable, why that statement asserts he only traded in slaves feels very wrong for a man who traded in a lot of goods. I agree that it seems it needs more of an open sentence. Govvy (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Edward Colston/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 13:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I will review this article due to the ongoing GAN backlog. I will start the review a bit later today. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

General

• Remove unused parameters from the infobox.  Done Govvy (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• My recommendation would be to change the first paragraph in the lede. Colston was mostly known as a merchant, philanthropist, and slave trader, while he was only an MP for 3 years.

→ Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English merchant and philanthropist who was involved in the Atlantic slave trade.

---

We can mention the fact that he was a Tory MP in the second paragraph.

From every article I looked at, being an MP is always mentioned in the first paragraph. Govvy (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

→...He was deputy governor of the company in 1689–90. Colston was a Tory, and served as a Member of Parliament from 1710 to 1713.

• Link Spain with History of Spain (1700–1810), and Portugal with History of Portugal (1640–1777).

I don't feel those links are needed, the names of the countries are more locational and the Spanish link doesn't seem to work as Colston died in 1721, this just seems to be an unnecessary tangent if you ask me. The Portuguese link might be okay, it's more the same era when he lived. Govvy (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Colston's parents had resettled in Bristol" – when?

 Done Have removed the sentence. Govvy (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Unlink Bristol Beacon in the "The hall was renamed as the Bristol Beacon in September 2020" part, it is already linked in the same paragraph.

 Done Govvy (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Prose is clear, it addresses Colston.
• Edit warring occurred today (1, 2, 3). The previous edit war occurred in August 2021.
  • This article will stay on hold until the issue gets resolved on the talk page.
• Copyvio unlikely.

Images

File:CromwellHouseMortlake.jpg lacks source and author.

Have left a message on Rodolph talk page (the uploader) where he got it from. Govvy (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that Rodolph last edited on 18 December. If they don't reply, the image will have to get removed from this article. Vacant0 (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• All alright.

@Govvy: I'm putting this on hold. Ping me when this gets resolved. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I will promote the article to GA. It seems like edit warring has been stabilized. Further discussion regarding that can continue if needed on talk page. Vacant0 (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Vacant0, I was about to say I saw reply about the photo noted above, I assume you saw that comment and promoted the article. Govvy (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I did find the source where it was took from. The picture was taken before 1857, author is unknown-which is alright. Vacant0 (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV failure: bold revert discussion

I have tried to edit this article to give a more neutral description of this mass murderer, but DeFacto has reverted my changes. So to make progress, I invite discussion on the points individually.

1. actively involved in the Atlantic slave trade. Given that the article mentions the Duke of York, John Locke and Samuel Pepys as members of the Royal African Company, a distinction needs to be drawn between passive investors and active executives. Colston was the latter: he orchestrated the trade. He may not personally have branded nine-year-old children, raped young women, or packed people into coffin ships and transported them to the colonies where their average lifespan thereafter was seven years, but he made it happen. If the reference to Locke and Pepys at least is dropped, then this qualification can go too.
2. By 1680, he became involved in managing the slave trade as a member. I inserted the word "managing" because without it the sentence is wp:WEASEL worded. The article must make clear that he was a leader, not a follower. In reverting, DeFacto argues that this construction is not supported by the source cited, which is a valid argument within its own terms. But that tells me that the article is inadequately sourced, which of course in Wikipedia terms means that the WP:ONUS is on me to find a better source. Unless another reader can provide it first?
3. Philanthropic works: it is intellectually dishonest to describe his hand-outs without any acknowledgement of the source of those funds. It may be that my choice of words can be improved but again it is weasel-wording to gloss over it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by John Maynard Friedman (talk • contribs) 14:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(I don't mean to be rude at all, but) The word actively is not exactly past-tense, the guy is dead now. When I read what you write, it's as if you have some of your grammar mixed up to me. The two citations you added there, they seem to have peoples opinions there, they might not be best for this article. Wikipedia articles should be supported by fact driven citations. Govvy (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course 'actively' is a valid adverb for use with past continuous tense. Are there any other aspect of my grammar with which you wish to quarrel or may we deal with my substantive points?

The citations I added are current assessments per the section 'Modern reappraisal". David Olusoga is Professor of Public History at the University of Manchester with an extensive research record in this area, so his description may be taken as entirely valid. Our own article says During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey. which reads to me as a rather good indication that Professor Olusoga is not exaggerating. The term used by the barrister for the defence of the Bristol Four, a Queen's Counsel, carries less weight as it summarises the expert witness evidence, but it is notable nonetheless. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman, per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the important contents of the article body, and per WP:VER everything in the article needs to be verifiable from reliable sources. What you did was: a) modify the lead without first adding the corresponding sourced content to the body; b) added some unsourced POV to the body about the source of his wealth, which contradicted sourced content already in the body. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead: the only change I made to the lead was to insert the word "actively": he was an executive of the RAC, not a passive investor. He rose to become its Deputy Governor, a post equivalent to CEO in a modern business. This is stated in the body.

Wealth: The source says that the exact proportions of his wealth generated by human trafficking can only be conjectured, which is what I wrote. I would go further but I would need to see the relevant text in full. I would hope that the author observes that the capital for his money lending and "other commodity" [sic] trading didn't just fall off the magic money tree. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman, you are assuming "actively", it's not supported in the body. You added the contradictory "Using moneys earned largely from the slave trade" to the body first, you then added that nonsensical editorialised prefix to the paragraph after I reverted. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

1686 English guinea showing the Royal African Company's symbol, an elephant and castle, under the bust of James II

How can somebody be the senior executive and not be active? You could argue that the Duke of York was not an active participant, his role was more ceremonial, chairman of the board if you like, happy to collect the gold for guineas without getting his hands dirty. But as I said, if the mention of the passive investors is deleted, I am content to drop this one.

Source of his wealth: in the light of your edit note to your first reversion, which I acknowledged as a valid challenge and have not sought to defend, I rewrote the intro to more closely align with the source. But it essential that the article contextualises his 'philanthropy': thousands of people died to make it possible. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If the reliable sources say he was active, then use that, but otherwise it's just personal opinion. And, as we do not know what proportion of his income came from his involvement with the slave trade, we cannot judge the human cost of his philanthropy. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Fragmented setence

I have read this bit over in career section a few times; The slaves were sold for labour on tobacco, and, increasingly, sugar plantations, whose planters considered Africans would be more suited to the conditions than British workers, as the climate resembled the climate of their homeland in West Africa. Is it me or is the first part fragmented? Govvy (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It's quite poorly written. "The slaves were sold for labour on tobacco and (increasingly) sugar plantations. The planters considered that Africans would be more suited to the conditions than British workers, as the climate resembled that of their homeland in West Africa." Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Cheers Ghmyrtle Have changed to your suggestion. Regards. Govvy (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Not exactly a media mention

Boris Johnson has warned against attempts to “retrospectively change our history” after four protesters were cleared of tearing down a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol. The prime minister said on Thursday he would not comment on the verdict – but went on to attack efforts to “change our history or to bowdlerise it or edit it”. Mr Johnson compared attempts to revise British history to making changes to an online encyclopedia. “It’s like some person trying to edit their Wikipedia entry – it’s wrong,” he told reporters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps that was in response to Mr Willoughby denied they were trying to edit history, but said others were "whitewashing history" by calling Colston a "virtuous man". "We didn't change history, we rectified it," he said. (Edward Colston statue: Four cleared of criminal damage (BBC News) ). Mr Willoughby argued the statue was an "insult". Appearing in the dock, he said: "Imagine having a Hitler statue in front of a Holocaust survivor - I believe they are similar. (ibid.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Reference to Locke and Pepys undue?

The article is about Colston, not about the RAC. I have no desire to whitewash Locke and Pepys but this phrase and it had many investors, including philosopher and physician John Locke (who later changed his stance on the slave trade) and the diarist Samuel Pepys strikes me as wp:UNDUE. What do they have to do with Colston? Their inclusion seems to me to be intended to muddy the waters, that say that "they were all at it so it is not fair to pick on him". Yes, they were all at it, but almost all were passive investors who had no first hand experience of the treatment of African men, women and children. Colston managed the trade, he could have had no doubt about the immorality of his actions. A better comparator is with the life of John Newton, who was also heavily involved as captain of slave ships.

Is there a convincing reason to retain the phrase? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Given that no-one has come up with a case that their inclusion is wp:DUE, I will now delete them. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)