This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Edward Colston article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Edward Colston was copied or moved into Statue of Edward Colston with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | Edward Colston has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 11, 2021. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
The edit by Kronix1986 has been reverted as "not discussed". So, per WP:BRD, let me open the discussion.
WP:LEAD says that the lead should be a succinct summary of the body content. The current text "was involved in the Atlantic slave trade" is weasel worded: he wasn't just vaguely associated with it as shareholder or even a non-executive director, he was the chief executive of the company. He was a slave-trader, no ifs, not buts. Is there really any credible basis to argue otherwise? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 10:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
"Edward Colston" "slave trader"
gives
hundreds of hits. Even the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph call him a slave trader. Others call him a people trafficker and mass-murderer but there is no need gild the lily (in reverse). --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
21:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)@ AndyTheGrump: Firstly, you shouldn't swear, even if you went to ANI, that might back fire on you. You really need to be careful. The editing you have applied to the article, seems to be removing the context and the citations. This is not helpful, you are effectively removing what I consider the better side of the man. Nothing is simply black and white, yet what you're doing is turning the article into that. People should read an article and make up their opinion on the evidence that the article shows. Not one side of what can be created, the whole picture needs to be there, not your POV pushing ideology. Govvy ( talk) 23:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
The majority of his fortune was derived from the slave trade. He already had a large fortune from his family estate, made money with other commodities. He certainly made a lot of money from slave trading, but there is no conclusive evidence provided in the article or online from what I have seen to suggest it was his majority earner.
It is now common knowledge that much of Colston's wealth derived from the trade and labor of slaves.10...Writers now mostly describe Colston as a slave trader and philanthropist, instead of merely as a philanthropist.
The footnote states: Historian Roger Ball's analyses of slave transports on the Royal African Company ships have been instrumental in this. See...
Should use of works by Bristol Radical History Group:
[3],
[4] be
reevaluated?
fiveby(
zero)
15:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Seriously? He was a slave trader that is what he is known for, to omit this from the lead is disingenuous at best— blindlynx 21:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I see that the article has been fully protected for a week, meaning that edits can only be made by an administrator, and by consensus, per the Wikipedia:Protection policy. Since the issue with the lede is moot for now (it would appear that consensus supports the current version, but if it doesn't there is certainly no consensus for the earlier version), we should probably discuss more fully another issue I raised above, that has rather got lost in the kerfuffle: namely the use of David Hughson as a source for a paragraph in the 'Philanthropic works' section: "David Hughson, writing in 1808, described Colston as "the great benefactor of the city of Bristol, who, in his lifetime, expended more than 70,000L. [£] in charitable institutions",[17] equivalent to £5,581,350 in 2020.[18]". Now, this statement appears to be superficially true - Hughson (or someone writing under that name) certainly appears to have written the words quoted. But why is our article quoting Hughson? And then conveniently, via a calculation involving the UK Retail Price Index, giving an (inappropriately precise) equivalent in year 2020 Pounds Stirling for Hughson's '70,000L' figure?
As Wikipedia:Reliable sources makes clear, article content needs to be cited (or at least citable) to "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". And I'd have to suggest that beyond trivially being reliable as a statement for Hughson's opinion on Colston, the source cited fails to meet Wikipedia requirements for sourcing on almost every criteria specified. Don't take my word for it though - decide for yourself. The book is currently viewable online, via Google Books, [6] but for convenience, I'll quote the relevant passage, in full, here:
"At Mortlake are the handsome house and gardens of Mr. Franks; and there is an antient house, let to Miss Aynscomb, which is said to have been the residence of Oliver Cromwell; but which was certainly the residence, in the last century, of that excellent man Edward Colston Esq. the great benefactor of the city of Bristol, who, in his lifetime, expended more than 70,000L. in charitable institutions. He died there in 1721 *".
The above passage is accompanied by a footnote:
"* The history of his being preserved on his voyage home from the Indies by means of a dolphin stopping a hole in the ship, was very providential; and the boys educated at Bristol wear a brass dolphin on their breasts, thus celebrating his miraculous preservation."
That would appear to be the sum total of what Hughson has to say about Colston. A passing mention in what amounts to being an anecdote-filled historical travel guide, written by someone about whom we know next to nothing, in a book published 87 years after Colston's death. Not, in my opinion, an even remotely reliable source for a statement about Colston's charitable 'expenditure'. And not, as far as I can see, of any great merit as a source for an opinion on Colston either, given when it was written. I could, via the usual wiki-jargon, lay out in detail the many ways Hughson fails WP:RS, but frankly, I'd have to suggest that there are almost none in which he doesn't. We have precisely zero evidence that he had any expertise on Colston whatsoever. Accordingly, I suggest that we arrive at the inevitable consensus sooner rather than later, and ask an admin to consign Hughson's anecdotal commentary to article history. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 08:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I've now removed the paragraph in question, per the reasoning above. I'd strongly recommend anyone wishing to restore it gains an actual consensus to do so first. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Edward Colston article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Edward Colston was copied or moved into Statue of Edward Colston with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | Edward Colston has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 11, 2021. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
The edit by Kronix1986 has been reverted as "not discussed". So, per WP:BRD, let me open the discussion.
WP:LEAD says that the lead should be a succinct summary of the body content. The current text "was involved in the Atlantic slave trade" is weasel worded: he wasn't just vaguely associated with it as shareholder or even a non-executive director, he was the chief executive of the company. He was a slave-trader, no ifs, not buts. Is there really any credible basis to argue otherwise? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 10:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
"Edward Colston" "slave trader"
gives
hundreds of hits. Even the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph call him a slave trader. Others call him a people trafficker and mass-murderer but there is no need gild the lily (in reverse). --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
21:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)@ AndyTheGrump: Firstly, you shouldn't swear, even if you went to ANI, that might back fire on you. You really need to be careful. The editing you have applied to the article, seems to be removing the context and the citations. This is not helpful, you are effectively removing what I consider the better side of the man. Nothing is simply black and white, yet what you're doing is turning the article into that. People should read an article and make up their opinion on the evidence that the article shows. Not one side of what can be created, the whole picture needs to be there, not your POV pushing ideology. Govvy ( talk) 23:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
The majority of his fortune was derived from the slave trade. He already had a large fortune from his family estate, made money with other commodities. He certainly made a lot of money from slave trading, but there is no conclusive evidence provided in the article or online from what I have seen to suggest it was his majority earner.
It is now common knowledge that much of Colston's wealth derived from the trade and labor of slaves.10...Writers now mostly describe Colston as a slave trader and philanthropist, instead of merely as a philanthropist.
The footnote states: Historian Roger Ball's analyses of slave transports on the Royal African Company ships have been instrumental in this. See...
Should use of works by Bristol Radical History Group:
[3],
[4] be
reevaluated?
fiveby(
zero)
15:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Seriously? He was a slave trader that is what he is known for, to omit this from the lead is disingenuous at best— blindlynx 21:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I see that the article has been fully protected for a week, meaning that edits can only be made by an administrator, and by consensus, per the Wikipedia:Protection policy. Since the issue with the lede is moot for now (it would appear that consensus supports the current version, but if it doesn't there is certainly no consensus for the earlier version), we should probably discuss more fully another issue I raised above, that has rather got lost in the kerfuffle: namely the use of David Hughson as a source for a paragraph in the 'Philanthropic works' section: "David Hughson, writing in 1808, described Colston as "the great benefactor of the city of Bristol, who, in his lifetime, expended more than 70,000L. [£] in charitable institutions",[17] equivalent to £5,581,350 in 2020.[18]". Now, this statement appears to be superficially true - Hughson (or someone writing under that name) certainly appears to have written the words quoted. But why is our article quoting Hughson? And then conveniently, via a calculation involving the UK Retail Price Index, giving an (inappropriately precise) equivalent in year 2020 Pounds Stirling for Hughson's '70,000L' figure?
As Wikipedia:Reliable sources makes clear, article content needs to be cited (or at least citable) to "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". And I'd have to suggest that beyond trivially being reliable as a statement for Hughson's opinion on Colston, the source cited fails to meet Wikipedia requirements for sourcing on almost every criteria specified. Don't take my word for it though - decide for yourself. The book is currently viewable online, via Google Books, [6] but for convenience, I'll quote the relevant passage, in full, here:
"At Mortlake are the handsome house and gardens of Mr. Franks; and there is an antient house, let to Miss Aynscomb, which is said to have been the residence of Oliver Cromwell; but which was certainly the residence, in the last century, of that excellent man Edward Colston Esq. the great benefactor of the city of Bristol, who, in his lifetime, expended more than 70,000L. in charitable institutions. He died there in 1721 *".
The above passage is accompanied by a footnote:
"* The history of his being preserved on his voyage home from the Indies by means of a dolphin stopping a hole in the ship, was very providential; and the boys educated at Bristol wear a brass dolphin on their breasts, thus celebrating his miraculous preservation."
That would appear to be the sum total of what Hughson has to say about Colston. A passing mention in what amounts to being an anecdote-filled historical travel guide, written by someone about whom we know next to nothing, in a book published 87 years after Colston's death. Not, in my opinion, an even remotely reliable source for a statement about Colston's charitable 'expenditure'. And not, as far as I can see, of any great merit as a source for an opinion on Colston either, given when it was written. I could, via the usual wiki-jargon, lay out in detail the many ways Hughson fails WP:RS, but frankly, I'd have to suggest that there are almost none in which he doesn't. We have precisely zero evidence that he had any expertise on Colston whatsoever. Accordingly, I suggest that we arrive at the inevitable consensus sooner rather than later, and ask an admin to consign Hughson's anecdotal commentary to article history. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 08:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I've now removed the paragraph in question, per the reasoning above. I'd strongly recommend anyone wishing to restore it gains an actual consensus to do so first. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)