Talk:Edward Colston/Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward Colston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100109153705/http://pmsa.cch.kcl.ac.uk/BL/BR09.htm to http://pmsa.cch.kcl.ac.uk/BL/BR09.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward Colston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130904091019/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-mayor-City-s-celebration-Edward-Colston/story-19729958-detail/story.html to http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/bristol-mayor-city-s-celebration-edward-colston/story-19729958-detail/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward Colston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710170556/http://ejscontent.ebsco.com/ContentServer.aspx?target=http:%2F%2Fwww.informaworld.com%2Fsmpp%2Fftinterface%3Fcontent=a794052444&format=pdf&magic=ebscohostejs to http://ejscontent.ebsco.com/ContentServer.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.informaworld.com%2Fsmpp%2Fftinterface%3Fcontent%3Da794052444%26format%3Dpdf%26magic%3Debscohostejs

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Colston in modern culture

There are a wave of editors who wander up to this article (and associated ones like Colston bun) and want to spell out that Colston was first and foremost a slave trader. The connection to this is true, and his reputation has been discredited somewhat because of it, particularly recently and particularly by anti-government groups such as Massive Attack. However, I don't believe we can include it so prominently as it's not a view spelled out by sources generally; Colston did a lot of good for Bristol and was considered a philanthropist around the city, and without trying to excuse his connections to slave trade, he was simply doing what was considered morally acceptable in 17th/18th century Britain. @Rodw:, I don't suppose you've got any views on this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Although I am aware of current debates, specifically the renaming of Colston Hall, I don't have strong views. His history should obviously be included and "slave trader" is rightly included in the first sentence. The best place for for discussion and reappraisal may be Bristol slave trade, which could be linked from this article. All interpretation (? Synthesis) of history needs to take into account the cultural and economic realities of the time and WP:NPOV requires a balanced approach in articles.— Rod ^talk 17:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

As of 2018-10-10 Colston was a Slave trader and a slave trader, as well as someone who acquired much of his wealth through the trade and exploitation of slaves - according to the first paragraph!

It is not revisionist to emphasise this fact. He was a slave trader, and slave traders knew very well that what they were doing was wrong; that's why they invented racism and built so many churches. We're not just judging them by today's standards when we say this; moral people in his time fought for and eventually won a ban on this vile trade. But we really ought to be able to find better wording for this paragraph that gives due emphasis to the source of Colston's wealth, and perhaps the guilt that drove his 'philanthropy' (a word which I put in quotes for etymological reasons; the people Colston loved needed to be as pale as he).RedSquirrel (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020 (1)

I want to change some information back to correct 95.147.193.73 (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Mkwia (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020 (2)

Removal of wire philanthropist from bio of a man who was a slave trader. 148.252.128.81 (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: So what? If sources say this, simply because he did something which is nowadays objectionable is not a reason to remove it. Wikipedia is not a historiographical pursuit where we try to change history to fit our mores, rather we report it neutrally based on what reliable sources say. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020 (3)

ADD TO STATUE OF COLSTON

On June the 7th 2020 during a Black Lives Matter protest in response to the death of George Floyd by a police officer after kneeling on his neck for over 8 minutes, the Statue of Colston was pulled down by protesters. Following this, it was carried to the Harbourside and thrown into the Avon River, where it now resides. It's location is visible on Google maps, which was updated only hours after the occurrence. 86.7.194.79 (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The toppling and the dumping in the Harbour is already in the article. The Google update is trivial. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020 (4)

Edward colstons statue was torn down on 8th June 2020 by protestors, protesting for Black Lives Matter 89.124.9.9 (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020 (5)

A person can not really be a philanthropist if they do so by selling other human beings. This description of this man is white washing history. I suggest his description be edited to "a piece of shit who liked to put his name on buildings for white people by kidnapping and selling black people to other white people."

Thanks and have a wonderful day. Dumdum263 (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source that calls him "a piece of shit who liked to put his name on buildings for white people by kidnapping and selling black people to other white people", of course we can include it. But not yet. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

As a matter of historical accuracy, the Royal African Company did not "kidnap black people", but bought them from other black people. The Ashanti Empire, the Kingdom of Dahomey and many other West African kingdoms and empires made big profits by selling slaves to European slave traders. West African states generally sold black slaves to Arabs in the north before Europeans came along and offered to buy much bigger numbers. You might find this BBC History page interesting. The Royal African Company's activities were sickening and abhorrent, but try to avoid simplifying history. Aridd (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020 (6)

Change “thrown into Bristol Bay” to “thrown into Bristol harbour”. Reason: geographical accuracy. Doctorjohny (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no mention of Bristol Bay in the article as far as I can see. Govvy (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020 (7)

Change profession from "Merchant" to "Slave-trader" 86.175.239.3 (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Stop it with the historical revisionism. This is already in the article, anyways... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Fans of Colston

There is clearly a few fans of his who are sugarcoating his legacy. Wikipedia is impartial. We call a spade a spade.

The truth of the matter is that Colston was a man who participated and garnered most of his income from the slave-trade. Who then utilized the money at-home for philanthropic reasons (whether it is to garner love from the masses or clean the stains of slavery off of his name). Regardless, we mention both things. We do not omit impartial information, and neither should we white-wash his actions. JasonMoore (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

And how is this relevant to improving the article? See WP:NOTFORUM... What we do report is what reliable, usually academic, sources mention. WP is not a newspaper nor is it an exercise in historical revisionism and simply because a subject is now in public attention doesn't mean we should change our approach. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, the section heading and following comment are POV, and the claim that starts "The truth of the matter is" is not supported by recent academic research. In fact Kenneth Morgan's 1999 pamphlet is quite specific: we do not know how much of his wealth was made during the 11 years he was with the RAC and how much from trading throughout his lifetime in other, innocuous commodities. The evidence is not there. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

His career and work was also vital to building the economy we have today. Despite left wing principles. 78.150.17.0 (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - unsourced commentary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Philanthropy - inappropriate use of the word in the context of use of the proceeds of slavery

I suggest that the description of Colston as a ‘philanthropist’ and projects funded through his exploitation as ‘philanthropic’ or ‘philanthropy’ or other variants, be removed as inappropriate, disrespectful and inflammatory. Di cee21 (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Di cee21: which word or words would you suggest as an alternative? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No, no, and no, what you suggest is historical revisionism and it is not the purpose of Wikipedia. What we do is maintain a neutral stance. Note, also, that attitudes towards slavery have changed a lot since the 18th century so trying to compare it to our own modern standards is kinda missing the point... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to note that the relevant biographical entry in "The History Today Who's Who In British History" (see full ref in main article), which I think everyone can agree is a neutral source, begins "slave-trader and philanthropist" and concludes: "His life demonstrates how it was possible for the morally righteous to play leading roles in the slave trade while elsewhere pursuing good works." As others have noted above these two aspects are indivisible from his history. -- Sufcmad (talk). 22:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Its still philanthropy, how he earned it is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Change “His wealth was largely acquired through the trade and exploitation of slaves” to “His wealth was largely acquired through the trade and exploitation of enslaved Africans” 173.235.214.126 (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Not an improvement; also this is just some revisionism in response to recent events... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change to "enslaved Africans" is not historical revisionism, it is simply a more accurate description of the people he exploited. The historical content of the sentence is not changed by this edit, so I don't see how it is revisionism. Camipco (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The principal "goods" being "traded and exploited" were slaves; I don't think Europeans of the time would have cared whether their victims were Africans or Native Americans or whatever other ethnic origin (and in fact, they didn't really...). Ultimately, if this is a matter of contention, we should take the wording of the source (ODNB) per NPOV, which I don't have access to, so can't verify. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't make any material difference whether Europeans cared or not, although obviously they were well aware of the ethnicity, and it's very easy to imagine they would have cared if those being traded had been white. So therefore they cared, but it doesn't matter. "Enslaved Africans" is simply an accurate description. It may not be absolutely essential as an edit, but how could anyone object to it? Let alone call it historical "revisionism in response to recent events". On what grounds is it revisionism?Meerta (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

His occupation was being a slave trader, not a ‘merchant’ Emisweet (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Edward Colston Thrown Bristol Harbour.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Edward Colston Thrown Bristol Harbour.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"disorder public disorder"

What is "disorder public disorder" (this phrase which appears in the current version of this article)? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Status as a Tory MP

Edward Colston was a Tory MP. The articles for Pitt the Younger and the Duke of Wellington mention their status as Tories in the lead sentence, alongside their other notable professions. As such, it's appropriate and consistent to note his status as a Tory MP in the first sentence of this article, alongside his other occupations of merchant, slave trader and philanthropist.

I should also point out that local politicians and lobbyists attempted to erase all mention of his status as a Tory MP from a plaque put up to educate locals on the origins of the statue. This makes his political affiliation even more relevant.

I brought the edit in line with articles of other historical statesmen of the UK. Do we have consensus that an exception shouldn't be made for Colston?

Kronix1986 (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

Colston donated much of the wealth he made to charities in Bristol and across the country, bequeathing around £71,000 to charity at his death. He also gave extensively to Bristol churches, donated to Queen Elizabeth's Hospital School and founded a religious school for 100 boys. 2A00:23C5:C607:300:54DE:3EF9:9010:5A40 (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why prople keep removing parts of his life and all of his wealth donated to Bristol after his death. Oricus100 (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe they have an agenda to paint him as an evil slave trader and nothing else? --Egghead06 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: #Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs

1. This information already is in the article... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok Anonymouss.3513864 (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove all references to Tory party

Not sure who has included Tory party in the article but it's clearly erroneous as the Tory party didn't exist until 1834 and Edward Colston died in 1710 (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK))

Suggest removing all references to Tory as this is factually incorrect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonjinn (talk • contribs)

 Not done: "Tory" is a political faction which predates the modern conservative party, see Tories (British political party). In any case the ODNB is much more of a reliable source than your opinion... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

He was taken down from Bristol central because the controversial origins of the statue during the Black Lives Matter protests followingthe death of George floyd. WritermanN0.1 (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes?Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - This matter is already covered in depth at the Statue of Edward Colston article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Hello, I request that his occupation be changed from merchant to slave trader.

Many thanks,

Emi Emisweet (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Regardless what you say a slaver is still a merchant of that trade. Govvy (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dahmer is also still an "eater" but the fact he ate people is quite relevant. It is technically accurate to both describe Colston as a "merchant" and a "slave trader" the question is which is of more significance. My understanding is the most historically important occupation is the one selected for inclusion. Donald Trump has the occupation of "television personality", but his article correctly identifies him as "45th U.S. President" because that is the most noteworthy occupation he has held. Similarly, the most significant thing about Colston is that he was a slave trader. Camipco (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Could we consider slight grammar and prose change to this sentence?

"The former Bristol youth worker is a Black man who was instrumental in the 1963 Bristol Bus Boycott, inspired by the one in Montgomery, Alabama, in the United States, that brought an end to an illegal employment colour ban in Bristol bus companies.[23]"

Does WP:MOS state that we need to capitalise "Black"? And I think "inspired by the one in Montgomery" seems a bit clumsy? I realise that the proceeding words "Bristol Bus Boycott" help show that "the one" is referred to a bus boycott, but would it read a bit more professional if we had (with proposed changes in "[]"):

"The former Bristol youth worker is a [b]lack man who was instrumental in the 1963 Bristol Bus Boycott which, inspired by [an American bus boycott/a boycott] in Montgomery, Alabama, brought an end to an illegal employment colour ban in Bristol bus companies.[23]"

Any thoughts? 2A00:23C4:6C0C:A900:3854:65B3:6B0:9FE2 (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Have done a slight adjust there. Govvy (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Separate article?

Given today's events - and the relatively large section in the existing article - I would favour a separate article on Statue of Edward Colston. I suspect this will be in the news for some time, and indeed be of some lasting significance Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Not staunchly opposed to this, but imho a little premature. This event is one about which it's unclear whether there'll be *that* much written about it beyond the next few news cycles. It's not unusual for similar statues to be torn down, and while I imagine it's possible that the debate around an individual statue could be so voluminous and far-reaching as to merit its own article, I don't think this is self-evidently the case here. Ford MF (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting that the statue was a Grade II listed building (see wikidata:Q26497793) and had previously had a petition and other articles about it before it was removed today. Doublah (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Fordmadoxfraud - I would say it's very unusual for such a statue to be torn down in the UK. In terms of its WP notability, it is a Grade II listed structure and so would be expected to have a separate article; it is clear from the article that the statue has in recent years been the source of much controversy prior to today's events; and it is as certain as anything can be that today's events will have lasting implications. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I have created the page Statue of Edward Colston Doublah (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Some minor grammatical changes based on priority and chronological order in First Paragraph.

"Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English slave trader, merchant, philanthropist, and Member of Parliament. He supported and endowed schools, almshouses, hospitals and churches in Bristol, London and elsewhere. His name is commemorated in several Bristol landmarks, streets, three schools and the Colston bun. Many of his charitable foundations still survive.[1] A portion of his wealth was acquired through the trade and exploitation of slaves.[2][3][4][5][6]"
Chronological order would be preferred within the first paragraph.
Instead, how about "Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was a merchant, English slave trader, philanthropist, and Member of Parliament." As that is the order how he lived.
Also, "A portion of his wealth was acquired through the trade and exploitation of slaves.[2][3][4][5][6]" is redudant to say that a portion of unknown amount is misleading as it's already stated in the first sentance that he was a slave trader, however the links are highly informative and should be put within the career path (After he joined the Royal African Company would be a better place.) TheRealVordox (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This seems to make sense to me. But, in your proposed sentence, move "English" in front of the list -- "English merchant, ..." --Msherby (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Offensively irrelevant sentence

The sentence, "Ship's crew mortality rates were often similar and sometimes greater than the mortality rates amongst the slaves" is not only irrelevant to the article, but is offensively so. One is led to wonder whether the article should point out that many people were injured or killed in building the slave ships and in forging the shackles for enslaved people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppazniokas (talk • contribs) 22:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not offensive, it's insightful for those of us who came here with an interest in nautical trade, not a political agenda. That to me is the pearl of information I was looking for to estimate how brutal the lives at sea were. And it is very relevant to the article as he is, erroneously and dishonestly, labelled a 'slave trader' (he wasn't, he was a merchant and ship owner, and like almost all merchants and ship owners traded with one of the big corps of the time, if that makes him a slaver then every single ship on Earth was a 'slave trader' ship and every shipmate a 'slave trader' too, even though they were carrying fruit, or cattle, just because they too worked for EAC or EIC.

When scope is deemed irrelevant we have truly hit mass saturation of low information society, which is shameful. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

When there is any attempt to spell out the extent of the man's 'wickedness' the number of slaves who perished is often cited. But as PD Curtin says (op cit pp 282-3), mortalities were related to the length of time at sea, and they affected crew as well as slaves; in fact there are consistent records that progressively fewer slaves perished, while crew mortalities say the same. So mention both facts or neither? To limit the facts to those that fit a particular narrative would be offensive. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Mortality rates for ships' crews were indeed high in those days. But the place to make that point is in articles about sea trading, not in an article about a single Bristolian. Linking to such an article from here would make sense. I have no idea what this EAC is to which you refer. Colston was a member of the Royal African Company which was set up as an English monopoly to exploit the resources of West Africa, and ended up shipping more slaves across the Atlantic than any other entity. Doing business with the RAC didn't necessarily make you a slaver. Funding and profiting from slave trading voyages, however, did - and Colston did.

Also: even if the mortality RATES for crews were high, the absolute numbers of slave ship crew members who perished on voyages were dwarfed by the number of deaths of their victims, who had no choice about their fate while the crew members were mostly volunteers who at least got some fresh air and sunshine and didn't have to lie in their own filth for the entire Atlantic crossing.

And while I'm at it: slave trading has been considered definitively wicked in Britain since at least the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 - that's well over two hundred years. Before then, slavery was judged to be non-existent in England in an English court judgement of 1569. The wickedness of slave trading and slave traders was established long, long ago and I'd've thought completely uncontentious these days, so no need for quote marks, eh?

Michael F 1967 (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, you touch on a point that might be considered subject to disagreement. The firm belief in the wickedness of the slave trade was "established" once the abolitionist campaign had succeeded. But as CM MacInnes maintained in Bristol and the Slave Trade (1968) p.9, "If the men are to be judged, then it should be by the moral standards of the time in which they lived." You say that funding and profiting from the slave trade makes you a slaver (though not a slave trader?), in which case Charles II, James II, William III, Samuel Pepys, John Locke and a host of others were slavers. The OED defines a slaver as 'One who deals or traffics in, or owns, slaves'. The description of Colston as a 'slave trader' is based solely on his connection with the RAC, since there is no evidence that he himself, a trader, traded in slaves; nor that he derived any great fortune from the slave trade. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead and body differ on how he aquired his wealth

The body of the article currently states "The proportion of his wealth that came from his involvement in the slave trade and slave-produced sugar is unknown, and can only be the subject of conjecture unless further evidence is unearthed." The lead claims to know the opposite, and that his wealth largely came from slavery. This is rather confusing. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The lede also states unequivocally he is a 'slave trader' when he was a merchant who had dealings with (as all merchants at the time did) one of the Africa Corps. I suspect that this is one of those many instances where Wikipedia is more interested in narrative than truth. As a nautical history buff this is disappointing. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This source seems to imply that he profited directly from slave trading, as a seniour member of the Royal Africa Company. My knowledge is limited to what is in the article and that site, but it sounds to me like he did profit from slave trading (even if the description slave trader might be slightly inaccurate, it sounds like slave trade manager might be more accurate). Sipos0 (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bristol Museums site says that is not thought that he traded in slaves on his own account, but was paid dividends on his shares in the RAC. He lived until he was 85 and was only associated with the RAC for 11 years so there is no evidence (as Kenneth Morgan writes clearly in the pamphlet mentioned elsewhere in this article) that his wealth was founded on slaving. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"The History Today Who's Who In British History" (see ref in main article) states that he is a "slave-trader" and "withdrew from the African Co. in 1692 but continued trading in slaves privately". The entry also says: "Colston's manufactured trading beads that were exchanged with other goods for slaves" but has no further detail. I would assume that "Colston's" was a business which specialised in manufacturing trade beads for sale in connection with the slave trade and would be interested whether anyone has any further information on this aspect of his career. -- Sufcmad (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

On the question of beads, Prof Morgan (Edward Colston and Bristol, p 3) says his brother Thomas Colston 'undertook business for the RAC, providing beads for buying slaves.' Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Charitable foundations still existing

There was a statement saying "Many of his charitable foundations still survive." citing <https://www.dolphin-society.org.uk/history>. I changed this in this revision. The source says "Originally founded by people in Bristol who were keen to replicate the financial support shown by Bristol-born Edward Colston in the 1600s, ...", "The Societies’ founders were never his contemporaries and the Societies never received any of his wealth.". Sipos0 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It may be that charitable foundations that he founded do still exist, but the source implies not (by saying that these are probably the city's oldest, and that they date from after his death). I would be good if someone could check further. Sipos0 (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Given the downgrading of what the sentence says, it may make sense to move it from the first paragraph. Sipos0 (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Beliefs

Slave Trader Edward Colston would only allow people to benefit from his wealth if they held his Political beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:4304:8100:A824:F940:F7B9:214B (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Source? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Political beliefs? - possibly; religious beliefs - certainly. ODNB "An opponent of Catholicism, dissent, and whiggism, he insisted that the boys at Colston's School should be Anglicans ..." and Colstons Almshouses were for the poor who attended the Church of England. The page should probably say more about his high-church Anglicanism (and royalism) Nedrutland (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Poll of Bristolians 2014

A reference in the article to a poll of Bristol residents conducted in 2014 by The Post (showing that 56% were in favour of retaining the statue) seems to have been removed.

Why?

Whether you agree on the statue being up or not is irrelevant. The poll forms part of the debate on its presence in the city. You'll forgive me if I seems that some editors have taken it upon themselves to scratch the poll from the record due to political bias. Explanations please. F.M. Sir D.H (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit: The poll is still available on the article for Colston's statue. Can we expect it to disappear from there as well? F.M. Sir D.H (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd consider the poll to be relevant, but it was a poll done by a local newspaper in 2014. Is there something more up-to-date? There will surely be polls carried out asking residents if the removal of the statue was justified, so I'd like to see both in the main article. I'd also argue that either most information regarding the statue needs to be moved into the statue's article, or the two articles should be merged. Kronix1986 (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that the poll is relevant, and people can see the date and make their own judgment as to whether it reflects current opinion. But, as it was specifically about the statue, it should be at the page about the statue, and there's no real need to duplicate it in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur that the removal of mention of this poll, which was there last time I looked at this article a few days ago, is disturbing and seems like an attempt to skew the article. Ben Finn (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

I feel that the introduction contains insufficient reference to the change in Colston's public image over the centuries and I propose new wording for the first paragraph. I would like to replace

"Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English merchant, slave trader, Tory Member of Parliament, and philanthropist."

with something like this:

"Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English merchant and Tory Member of Parliament. At one time heavily involved in the slave trade, he later came to be regarded as a philanthropist as a result of donating money to charitable causes, especially in his native city of Bristol. Since the late twentieth century he has been a controversial figure in Bristol's history, his image tarnished by his membership of the governing body of the Royal African Company, which made its profits from trading in enslaved Africans." with this as a citation. Deb (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That looks excellent to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deb: I think the lead should reflect the reliably sourced article content and thus not necessarily require referencing itself. Sure though the article body should be developed to verifiably and accurately reflect the story of his whole life, giving due and proportionate weight to each era. I see, for example, that currently the lead gives first place to him being a slave trader and second place to his role as an MP. He was only a slave trader for nine years, an MP for two or three years, and was a merchant for more than 25 years and a philanthropist for more than 30 years. I think the article, and thus the lead, should reflect these proportionately. It seems too, evidenced by the memorials, statues, street names, building names, school names, etc. that he was best known for his philanthropy, and not his other activities. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Colston was a slave trader for more like 28 years. According to the article, Colston was a slave trader with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, and continued slave trading after he left the RAC - the article implies until 1708. During his time at the RAC, the firm bought about 84,000 human beings and killed about 19,000 of them while attempting to transport them to a life of brutal hard labour and early death. I think his long, deep, and unrepentant involvement in unspeakable cruelty and mass murder for the sake of monetary gain rather overshadows the fact that he gave away some of the profits of his sickening business dealings. Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think "philanthropy" is a problem word.Deb (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In what respect? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Basically, a philanthropist is somebody who does good things, "a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others" (literally, someone who loves humanity). Clearly Colston's less savoury activities are considered by many people today to outweigh his charitable giving in significance. Deb (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Colston was a person who established charities which could reasonably be described as philanthropic despite the restrictions he placed on access to their benefits. He was also a person who profited greatly from the Atlantic slave trade, one of the most vile businesses ever. To describe as a philanthropist a leading profiteer of the disgusting Atlantic slave trade such as Colston is, to my mind, absurd. But it is equally absurd to deny that Colston - a vile man of abhorrent character - also engaged in philanthropy.

Never mind what "many people today" think. List what he did; describe it accurately using precise language and referenced sources. People can work it out easily enough. A man who beats his wife to death is no less of a murderer no matter how much he subsequently gives to charity.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The introduction is supposed to summarise the article content, and there's quite a lot in the article about what people think about him today. Deb (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy with Deb's version, as it's a better summary of why he's relevant today. I'd prefer to omit the word "Tory" from "Member of Parliament", though; he's not famed for his politics, so which 18th-century faction he was part of is less relevant (and might mislead people into linking him with today's Tory party.) The Land (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The introduction provides a link to an article about the original Tories. It's historically accurate and relevant to describe him as a Tory MP. People get confused about all sorts of things - including thinking that the modern British Conservative and Unionist party is really called the Tory party. It's a nickname, that's all.

I like Deb's suggested text for the introduction. Calling him a philanthropist is very wide of the mark.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll bang it in for now and we may think of ways to improve it further. Deb (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The wording was couched in unnecessarily vague or subjective language, so I tweaked it a bit. This is supposed to be a summary of the referenced article body, not a re-interpretation of it. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, the wording makes it clear that, although he was regarded as a philanthropist at the time, he is not now considered to have been one in the true sense. I believe this was agreed by consensus above. I explained to you previously why "philanthropist" is a problematic word. Deb (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Deb. Apart from anything else, the wording by DeFacto was extremely poor, stylistically. It would be far better if it were covered in two clear sentences, rather than trying to cram disparate considerations in a single long sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC).

So now, rather than waiting for a consensus, we are indulging in petty edit summaries to force a POV. Ghmyrtle, what was 'ungrammatical' that could noy have been easily fixed, and what was 'unhelpful' in my edit? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Technically, "ungrammatical" may have been a bit strong, but it was very badly written: "Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English merchant, a Tory Member of Parliament, involved in the slave trade, and he later became a philanthropist as a result of donating money to charitable causes which supported those who shared his political and religious views, especially in his native city of Bristol." Do I really have to explain further? It could indeed have been easily fixed - which is exactly what Deb's wording did by splitting it into two sentences. You claimed that your wording was based on "consensus", so it's a question of interpretation of the "consensus" - and of good basic writing skills. It is misleading (and inaccurate) to suggest that Colston "became a philanthropist as a result of donating money". He was considered to be a philanthropist in the past, but it is misleading if not offensive to describe him baldly as one now, given what we now know of him. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: I think they are unconvincing excuses for restoring your preferred version. The problem with the version you restored is that it does not accurately reflect the article content, it attempts to whitewash over the unfortunate truth that he was literally a philanthropist ("A person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes."[1]). The following long sentence goes on to reflect the current-day attitude towards him. And no, I never 'claimed that your [my] wording was based on "consensus"'. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure he did make a "generous donation of money to good causes", but it remains problematic / offensive to link that with the claim that he sought "to promote the welfare of others", when he clearly supported the slave trade. That is why we need a more nuanced, time-appropriate, wording, which of course should reflect the article text. The statue was erected at a time when he was considered (by some, at least) to be a philanthropist, and was toppled when some (apparently most) considered that was not the case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: recentism cannot trump reliably sourced fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

No-one questions that reliable sources have described him as a philanthropist. The point is that to describe him as such now is not a neutral position. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

No, WP:NPOV explicitly states that neutrality is based on what reliable sources say. ("Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.") If they describe him as a philanthropist (with all the caveats already listed in the lead, which give proper historical context to the reader to balance it properly IMHO), then so do we. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Those assertions are not exactly "uncontested" or "uncontroversial". And indeed - at least arguably - we are not in a "normal" situation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I still don't see what's not neutral about "He later came to be regarded as a philanthropist, as a result of donating money to charitable causes which supported those who shared his political and religious views,". We are not saying "he was a philantropist" but "he was regarded as a philantropist" which is accurate. Whatever is happening "in the real world" should not influence us for this kind of thing, since that would be WP:RECENTISM, as I said. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I've never argued against that form of words, or something similar. My argument is against Wikipedia's voice describing him as a philanthropist (e.g. "Colston.... was a... philanthropist..."). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The first few words of his entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography say: "Colston, Edward (1636–1721), merchant and philanthropist,..." One of the reasons given by Historic England for their listing of his statue in Bristol is: "The statue is of particular historical interest, the subject being Edward Colston, Bristol's most famous philanthropist,..."[2] As they both state it as a hard fact, then so can we - without the whitewash and couching it as "regarded as a philanthropist..." -- DeFacto (talk). 14:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle:: "philantropist" is not a "loaded word"; see above the ODNB (undoubtedly a reliable and neutral source) uses it; and so does "The History Today Who's Who In British History" as described below. NPOV is not "neutral according to your own opinion" but "neutral according to the sources". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The word is loaded, non-neutral, and unnecessary so long as we say that he gave money to causes he supported. We don't call Jimmy Savile a "philanthropist" even though we note that he raised money for charitable causes, and he may well have been described as such in the past. A similar argument applies here. Describing someone as a "philanthropist" means more that he gave money to charity. Happy to go to WP:NPOVN with this if you disagree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said, NPOV is "neutral according to the sources"; not according to your own conclusions. FWIW, he did give money to charity (the fact that standards of what is a "charity" changed in the past three centuries should not come as a surprise...), despite his other misdeeds. If you doubt the neutrality of the ODNB feel free to go to NPOVN, but you'll get the same answer as here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Like it or not, Ghmyrtle, Colston was a philanthropist. You cannot just erase a word that describes goodness in someone just because that person is now under a negative cloud. You (incorrectly) analogise Savile, but Savile raised money whereas Colston gave it. That makes someone a philanthropist. Let's not forget, the Bristol we see today would simply not exist if it were not for Colston and largely, that is owed from the vast amount of money he invested. I also note your revert of what was an illegal act, the toppling of the statue. The people who did this, however justified they think they were, are now criminals because of what they did and therefore, "illegal" is correct. Cassianto^Talk 15:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto - Clearly, many take the view that he should not be described as a philanthropist, and for Wikipedia to describe him as a philanthropist will give the appearance of being non-neutral. Re the toppling, the police did not intervene, and I don't believe anyone has been charged with a crime. Until that happens, your opinion of whether or not it was illegal is just that - an opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

No, philanthropist is entirely right. It is not "non-neutral" to describe someone as a philanthropist, just as much as it is not non-neutral to describe them as a slave trader. One is good and one is most certainly bad. So to keep things neutral, should we also delete "slave trader"? I wonder how how long that would last if it were to be deleted? Secondly, so a murder isn't illegal until someone is charged for it? I would most strongly suggest that it is. The police didn't intervene because of senior officers making (what they wrongly thought to be) a tactical decision. That doesn't by default make something legal. That's what courts and juries are for, not the chief constable of Avon and Somerset police to decide.Cassianto^Talk 15:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Clearly you are stating an opinion in commenting that the police actions were "wrong". Here's another WP:RS article by the way - "Nigel Farage causes outrage after claiming that slave trader Edward Colston was a 'philanthropist'". It is not a non-neutral position to take. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

And you are stating an opinion by saying that they stood by as what was happening was not illegal. This would've been a tactical decision made by senior officers and not a reflection on its illegality. How about this from the policing minister, only the other day? Oh, and the Independent hates Farage so will of course not stir the pot in his favour. It's just as easy to say in that situation that the other people present caused outrage by dismissing criminal damage as legitimate protest. But then that's the Independent for you. Cassianto^Talk 16:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

He was a philanthropist, how he made his money is irrelevant to that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Mildly off-topic

How many threads are this on this? I would remind users we are not a soapbox.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Instead of pinging everyone or sending talk pages notices I'll also note that there is a discussion at WP:NPOVN. Whether that is needless division of discussion (WP:FORUMSHOP) I will not judge, but just for information... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC) When disagreement is unlikely on a topic, that is the venue where it should be taken forward. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC) When there's already a long discussion here (with multiple editors involved) then instead of moving it there the best way is to leave a note saying "there is a discussion at Place regarding an issue..."; otherwise the discussion is needlessly split between multiple venues... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This is about discussing how to improve the article, not users conduct. Please can we focus on the question at hand?Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the best idea is to explain what Colston did and in the lede at least, avoid emotive and contentious terms like "philanthropist" and "slave trader". Stick to the plain facts and you can't go too far wrong.

It's a fact that he gave money to charity. It's also a fact that be came to be known as a philanthropist, and it's another fact that that reputation is currently being re-assessed. Whether he "was" a philanthropist is a matter for historians and sociologists and the like to argue about and I expect many opinions will flourish and collide. Here, on this page, we can avoid (pointless? petty? bl**dy stupid?) arguments about such words by side-stepping them entirely.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Note carefully the reference to all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Practically speaking, we're not in fact going to read up on ALL reliable sources; so applying a bit of common sense (a rare commodity, I know) and careful judgement with reasonable discussion strikes me as the best way forward.

I do hope everyone continues to WP:Assume good faith.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

John Locke

Whon invested into the Royal African Company is not relevant to the article. Also, the exploits about John Locke, like him beeing the "most influential of Enlightenment thinkers and commonly known as the 'Father of Liberalism'" are highly questionable. This section should be removed. --Dete-Rakete (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree and have reduced the detail on RAC. Nedrutland (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

... but it has been reverted "to await consensus". Why only mention these two of many investors? (See Royal_African_Company#List_of_notable_investors) Nedrutland (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

How about the rest of the article?

Any chance of the other aspects of Colston's life being written about? This is supposed to be a biographical and encyclopaedic account of Colston, the man, not his 21 century controversies. The ODNB doesn't read like this, and neither should this. This article is starting to read like a Controversies of Edward Colston article. By all means, someone start that, but this one is starting to suffer WP:UNDUE. Cassianto^Talk 10:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto: please feel free (complying with Wiki policies and guidelines of course) to adjust the content and fill any gaps you perceive. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you? Cassianto^Talk 12:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto: well it's you who is complaining, and it's only you who knows what gaps you perceive. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

My complaint is about the undue weight that is being levied towards recent events. Is it sources you are struggling with? Do you think we're at a stage where a new article can be created and for all the controversies being moved out of this and into that? Currently, we have an article within an article. Cassianto^Talk 12:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto: per WP:CRITS articles just for criticism are to be avoided, but there's nothing to stop you from adding more weight to other aspects of his biography (as I have been attempting to do). Also, as there is now the 'statue of Edward Colston' article, some of the 'statue' section here could probably be trimmed out. Be bold, give it a go yourself, make a difference! -- DeFacto (talk). 12:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Even at the new article that you mention there will be UNDUE paid towards its criminal damage rather than focusing on the statue itself. Re this, I was just concerned that you were too heavily focused on recent events rather than the biography itself. Glad to see you're not. Cassianto^Talk 15:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I don't understand why you won't help with balancing the articles, especially as you have an opinion as to how they should be. Go fix it - rather than just moaning about it here! -- DeFacto (talk). 15:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Who's moaning? Why must you introduce incivility into this? Cassianto^Talk 16:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto: who's moaning? Who wrote the following comments?

• The ODNB doesn't read like this, and neither should this.
• This article is starting to read like a Controversies of Edward Colston article.
• ... but this one is starting to suffer WP:UNDUE.
• My complaint is about the undue weight that is being levied towards recent events.

They sound like moans to me. Why won't you help with balancing the articles? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I like the Admiral Nelson article myself, I like to use that as a benchmark on how to construct an article on a historic British figure. Maybe you guys can get a few ideas from there for article structure. Govvy (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, although DeFacto has now made this an intemperate place to work. Cassianto^Talk 16:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I'm trying to be constructive by balancing the article, whilst you continue to complain about it. Why aren't you rolling your sleeves up and helping me? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

As I have already had to repeat multiple times in threads all over this talk page, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we should stop slanting towards WP:RECENTISM. Mentions that he is today a controversial figure seem appropriate, but they should not overburden the article as happened, for example, at WIV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"Colston constituted his charities to deny their benefits to those who did not share his religious and political views."

The only evidence offered for this statement is a link to a newspaper article which states that this was part of the proposed wording for a second plaque. As this seems to have been the work of a politically motivated group and as there is no proper proof of the statement it should be deleted. Please delete Colston constituted his charities to deny their benefits to those who did not share his religious and political views.[14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.102.250 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

86.142.102.250 (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The newspaper seems appropriate enough; though really the problem is that I don't know if this is something particularly worthy of mention: was it a unique characteristic of his charity or was it relatively common at the time? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The newspaper article reported the text proposed for an official plaque written for the council after thorough research involving at least one reliable academic. The proposed second plaque text as reported by the newspaper is a reliable secondary source entirely appropriate to use in Wikipedia. Whether or not Colston limiting his charities to those who shared his political and religious views was common at the time is not relevant, since this article is not written for an early 18th century audience.

I think a modern audience would on the whole expect a charity to be open to all, unless it clearly indicates otherwise. Bearing that in mind, I reckon any restriction on access to a charity is worthy of mention from the point of view of a modern audience.

And after all, the point is both true and properly referenced. As far as I can tell, the people who objected to the part of the plaque referring to Colston's charity's restrictions are all people who have a desire to sweep Colston's defects under the carpet. One of them - a Bristol councillor - even suggested that if an official plaque mentioning Colston's limited charitable reach were actually installed by Bristol council as planned, it'd be perfectly okay to steal or vandalise it. The same councillor complained that the text was provided by what he described as ignorant, left-wing incomers despite it being a product of a local university researcher working with local schools. I'll be putting up some referenced information about this over the next few days (although possibly only on the page about Colston's toppled statue). Put it another way: from what I've read, the neutral point of view is to include that information. Leaving it out promotes the agenda of a small faction of politically biased apologists for slave traders.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It may be a reliable enough source to say that was the text chosen for the plaque, but I'm not sure that it's a reliable source for the assertion of that information as fact in Wikipedia's voice - i.e. it isn't a convincing enough source to satisfy WP:VER. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Not in the lead, as it is just one view.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I just removed the content and reference from this and the statue article. I did before seeing the talk page section. That article in no way supports the content and it is ridiculous to claim it does. fiveby(zero) 18:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Claiming that the proposed plaque was the work of a politically motivated group is plainly false. It was commissioned by Bristol City Council and the development of the wording was overseen by the eminent historian Professor Madge Dresser of UWE who also holds an honorary professorship at Bristol university.

The claim that the proposed plaque was the work of a politically motivated group originated with a local right-wing politician, Conservative Councillor Richard Eddy.

The evidence shows that the wording on the plaque is reliable and unbiased, created by a respected senior academic from a local university in conjunction with local school children, working with the local council.

The evidence also shows that complaints about it being delivered by 'ignorant, left-wing incomers' are absurdly false and nothing more than political propaganda originating with local right-wing politician Councillor Richard Eddy who had to resign as deputy leader of the Conservative group on Bristol council because he publicly adopted a golliwog as a mascot. I mention that to demonstrate he lacks basic common sense.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Ad hominems are poor arguments in any case, and I fail to see what a Conservative politician has to do with the subject (since we should only care for reliable sources, not politics). Wasn't the wording of the plaque rejected? The first article you cite also mentions that "But now, following interjections from other historians, including the former curator at the Bristol Museum, Francis Greenacre, those behind the idea have gone back to the drawing board." Nowhere near as "uncontroversial" as you claim. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The point is this: a claim at the top of this section was that As this seems to have been the work of a politically motivated group. That demonstrably false claim originated with a particular local politician who claimed the plaque was the product of left-wingers, being his political opponents since he is a right-winger. That's why the man's politics matters: he's a right-winger who invented a conspiracy theory about left-wingers being responsible for something he didn't like. In fact, the plaque's text was created under the supervision of a respected senior academic from a local university but Councillor Eddy's unfounded complaints were instrumental in getting the original wording scrapped.

Yes, Francis Greenacre, a member of the pro-Colston Society of Merchant Venturers also objected - but he's a demonstrably unreliable source given his very obvious bias on the subject. His intervention was harshly criticised by the Mayor of Bristol once he found out that the Society of Merchant Venturers had managed to get a bronze plaque cast with deeply contentious wording that the council had never actually seen.

I'm working on a section about the plaque controversy for the Colston statue article which, if I can untangle all the threads, should make things clear. It's frying my brain. Back in the olden days when I was still capable of proper academic work, it mainly involved equations and measurements and beating lab equipment into submission. All this wordy stuff is doing my head in.

P.S. Look, Cllr Eddy and the golliwog: honest, that's not an ad hominem attack. It's - oh come on! He's that daft he thought it was a good idea! So when he comes up with this other daft stuff, yeah? He's a dafty, right? Not so much unfairly attacking his character as making the point that yeah, he really is like that. Erm. I realise that this paragraph is not entirely coherent, but the average English person (and most likely Welsh, Scottish, or Irish) should be able to explain my basic idea.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, the idiocy of Mr. Eddy is still not relevant to this, since as I said politics should be kept out of this. Regarding Greenacre, at worst that makes him a WP:BIASEDSOURCE, not an unreliable one. He isn't the only one who opposed the wording, anyway. "Gordon Young [the] chairman of the Blue Plaques Panel at the Bristol Civic Society" also notes that "The revised text is an improvement on the original wording, yet still needs further revision" and also points out the sensationalism of the final sentence: "There is no need for the final sentence of the proposed text: the fact that he opposed religious and political views which differed from his own is hardly controversial or especially dishonourable, surely?"

Also, since this is a matter of opinion, can we agree that the proposed plaque text is also a poor, biased source? As pointed out, it uses the non-neutral term "trafficking" (even Britannica uses "transport" and declensions thereof) and attempts to imply that the RAC actually captured slaves, which (moral righteousness aside) is not accurate as per what is known, victims where captured by Africans in local conflicts: (from Atlantic_slave_trade#African_participation_in_the_slave_trade) "Africans played a direct role in the slave trade, selling their captives or prisoners of war to European buyers.[22]" and from Britannica: "from circa 1500, captive men were taken to the coast and sold to Europeans." (so Dr. Dresser, who is complaining about this, seems quite incorrect). And then it goes on to sensationalise that matter with an "oh but look at the children"-type statement (whereas, I am sure, much of those numbers are estimates and the exact amount of children doesn't change the fact that Colston was involved in the damn cruel thing). The concerns about "sanitising the slave trade" seem also to be nitpicking about which neutral-or-less-so terms are used (we, in any case, should use neutral terms, such as Britannica does). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Michael F 1967, you are asserting, in wikivoice, that "Bristolians who did not subscribe to his religious and political beliefs were not permitted to benefit from his charities". You are basing this on proposed wording of a plaque, the wording of which is from a range of groups, and included Year 6 pupils from Colston Primary School. Please read WP:RS which states Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. Where did these primary school pupils publish their work and open it to peer review? The article is of course a proper source for what these groups feel should be the wording on the plaque, but to maintain it supports a statement as fact in wikivoice is a complete misunderstanding of how WP works. fiveby(zero) 12:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that the plaque text was created under the supervision of an eminent professor of history at UWE, Professor Madge Dresser who also holds an honorary professorship at Bristol University. It is her academic oversight and expertise which makes the proposed plaque text a WP:RS. It was not the product of some politically biased minority group as falsely claimed by a local politician, but part of a serious history project involving the local council, a local university, and local people to create a balanced and accurate statement to overcome the biased and unbalanced view of Colston promoted in Bristol since the 19th century, including the veneration of Colston undertaken by both the Colston societies and the Merchant Venturers who were responsible for putting the statue up in the first place.

You have ignored that side of things and in so doing seem to me to have demonstrated a biased approach towards this topic which is antithetical to the way Wikipedia is supposed to operate.

If you were to read the available publications on the subject of the second plaque - and I'll be putting the full saga on the Colston statue page once I've finished writing it - you'll discover that the people who objected to the balanced and accurate proposed wording were one local politician who blamed the text on a left wing conspiracy (!) and the pro-Colston Merchant Venturers.

Since the controversy about the plaque text actually has a political dimension, real life has brought politics into it and that should be reflected in the article text. My point is that if a politician complains that something is being done by his political opponents, and if this can be reliably sourced, and if it's relevant to the article, then it should be included. It's not ME who brought politics into it, it's councillor Richard Eddy who did so by blaming left wing incomers. Since he did so, it is necessary to point out that he's a right winger.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Philanthropist

Sorry, can someone point me to the discussion where it was agreed that "philanthropist" would be taken out? Cassianto^Talk 08:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am aWare there is not one that has been closed with consensus, and so it should be reinstated.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. SashiRolls, do not do that again until you have a consensus to do so. Cassianto^Talk 08:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The word "benefactor" appears nowhere in the article despite being frequently used in the sources. The word "philanthropic" is used in a section title. Good writers use synonyms. I also removed unsourced claims that Colton donated money outside of Bristol. I would be interested in reading references that actually say this. (Neither of the two articles cited supported the claim... that doesn't mean it was wrong.) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

No they do not, but this is not the place to discus the use of the word, that is in the section above.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

No they do not what? mention any donations outside of Bristol? I'm confused by your sentence.

Feel free to initiate an RfC where you ask if it is required that we use the term "philanthropist" every time we mention any act of charity, or if synonyms are OK. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:STATUSQUO. It is for you to initiate an RfC if you wish to change it. Cassianto^Talk 09:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I won't. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

They do not use synonyms if they choose not to use them, its not some rule of writing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I am looking forward to seeing evidence of the promised references to Colston's extensive philanthropy outside of Bristol. Apparently, for some reason, this entry formerly cited two articles which did not mention that philanthropy instead of a third which did? Weird. I also found that one of the three references supporting the "nobody knows how much of his capital originally came from slave-trading" said the exact opposite...

From 1680 he became heavily involved in the slave trade, from which he made the bulk of his fortune, and was an active member of the Royal African Company, becoming deputy-governor briefly during 1689–90. At the time of his admission to the Merchant Venturers’ Society in 1683 he was also described as a West Indian merchant. The 1680s were undoubtedly his most lucrative years in business, and according to one account he was said to have owned over 40 ships.

source

-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Its being dealt with Below.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? In fact, nothing about the preceding citation was dealt with below as of this writing. This is the second time in this thread I haven't understood what you are talking about. Crazy... even with direct evidence cited to Cambridge University Press, the coordinated effort is to claim that the above source says "It is uncertain how much of his wealth was acquired through slave trading." Do we need an RfC to interpret what that text says? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This "I am looking forward to seeing evidence of the promised references to Colston's extensive philanthropy outside of Bristol.".Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: I provided the evidence that you were looking forward to in § ODNB quotes directly below. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You provided the quote I requested concerning noteworthy charity outside of Bristol with a reference saying there wasn't really much noteworthy charity outside of Bristol. As you can see, I commented below. The main point is the original misrepresentation of the 2 references which were being used to support the claim when I got to the article this morning, and the misrepresentation of the reference above (in green), which likewise does not say what the wiki-text says it does. I'm glad you were able to find a reference that made passing mention of that non-Bristol benefaction, because the much longer bio by the same author does not. edit: actually I found it on a second reading, it has the same quote verbatim towards the end of the pamphlet. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: the reference was already in the article. It had probably got separated from the sentence during the recent heavy editing. I'd suggest that if you find an anomaly such as that in future, you either look back through the history of the article and see if it came with a reference when it was first added, or trace back to see if its paragraph suffered heavy changes recently and maybe its reference got displaced. If you don't fancy the effort involved in checking it out, tag it as 'failed verification' and someone else might look it over. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

ODNB quotes

@SashiRolls: here are the quotes you asked for. From the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography website, in the article on Edward Colston by Kenneth Morgan.

His munificence also extended to other parts of the country, and he gave benefactions to churches, hospitals, workhouses, and almshouses in London, Surrey, Devon, and Lancashire. But these did not match the extent of his charitable gifts to Bristol.

A bronze statue of him stands in Colston Avenue, and the philanthropist is also honoured by the city's chief concert venue, the Colston Hall, and various streets that are named after him.

-- DeFacto (talk). 14:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, so donations outside of Bristol existed but were relatively small. This is not why he was celebrated in Bristol, so the old text should go. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The section isn't about "why he was celebrated in Bristol", it's about his philanthropic works, wherever they may be. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Aha. I hadn't looked at the page history. It looks like this section was created in the last few days (in any case it did not exist in the stable version of the page prior to the statue being dragged through the streets). I see nothing wrong with mentioning his donations as long as we also mention that the bulk of his fortune came from slave-trading. I see now that you moved a sentence saying : "According to Morgan in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, it is thought that Colston made much of his fortune from the buying and selling of slaves." Could you confirm that that Morgan's ODNB article contains words to that effect? If so, that means that both the ODNB and the History of Parliament (Cambridge) contradict the lede. If both Oxford & Cambridge sources say something, why is en.wp contradicting it? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

How does it contradict the lead?Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The lead says that the amount earned from slavery could not be quantified. While this is not a very useful bit of information, the idea seems to be to suggest that the "percentage" cannot be estimated. Solid sources (Dresser, Morgan & Hanham) all appear to disagree with that claim.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: in the second paragraph of Edward Colston § Modern reappraisal the source of his wealth is discussed. Because the reliable sources contradict each other I've attributed them there as opinion, rather than incontrovertible fact. The lead has a one sentence summary of this (which, ideally, we wouldn't try to source at all there). If you have new/different information that is reliably sourced, then add it and fully attribute it in that section, and adapt the lead summary appropriately. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

As you most likely know, the original source is a 1920 or 1921 biography. To be clear, I oppose your treating Oxbridge refs as "opinion". -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: ok, they are different 'conclusions' based on the author's opinion of the material available. But without a consensus amongst reliable sources, we need to present the alternative 'conclusions' in the article - fully attributed as to who drew them, and succinctly summarise them in the lead. Have you read, or got access to, the "1920 or 1921 biography"? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: it looks like we've got plenty of time to discuss this now, thanks for that little gift. Do you see what I mean about how the discussion in the Edward Colston § Modern reappraisal can cover all reliably sourced takes on this? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Commodities

I really don't think some of you have read all the records online or other sources. Colston took commodities to Africa from England, slaves (gold, gems, ivory) from Africa to the Caribbean, his routes back from the Caribbean traded large quantities of sugar. He also had a couple of ships sale to India via Middle East, those ships would drop of slaves to sale in the markets in the middle east, carry on to India, and bring back tea. So please do not say he made the majority of his money in slaves, that would be totally incorrect. Govvy (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Please provide sources contradicting the sources in the article if you wish to revert add to cited material (Cambridge U. Press). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

lol, you having a laugh? There are already sources in the article telling half of what I said, for-god-sake, the guy came from the wealthy elite of Bristol, his father was a pretty wealthy guy. that fact that you want to write he made all his money from slavery is dam right preposterous! Govvy (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Ay. He was a commodities trader, and slaves were one of the commodities. But, as a trader, he didn't want dead voyages with no profit to show, so he would trade goods from Bristol for slaves in Africa; he'd sell the slaves in the Caribbean or Louisiana, and return with (usually sugar or coffee) a new load for Bristol. And then it starts all over again... ——Serial ^# 19:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was digging around on both internet archive and jstor yesterday on this question and I cannot for the life of me find where I read the figures on this again. The slaves were by far the most profitable leg of the triangle. Unfortunately, though I remember the author used the word "dwarfed" to describe that factor > 50 difference, I can't find the source again. I'll keep looking. It's really fascinating how some/many of these old (18th-19th C.) sources manage to talk about Bristol's history without mentioning the slave trade. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Lede

If he's to be described as "a philanthropist" in the lede, then he must also be described as "a slave trader" since both are equally true and equally significant. "Slave trader" must come first since he was a slave trader before he was a philanthropist, and the money he made from slave trading enable him to give money to charity.

Note: the slave trade was at the time the most lucrative sea trade from Africa. It's where the richest sea merchants made most of their riches.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that confirms he actually, personally, attended markets to slave trades for money? Or is it best left that he became involved in the slave trade, as someone of his stature would? Cassianto^Talk 05:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll add to this since this is a rehash of what he posted else where. The reference has to be an article that explains what he did not just referring to him as a slave trader and saying that he was part of a company that dealt in trading. Games of the world (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This seems to me counting the how many chains he has. He made his money from the slave trade, as such he was involved in the slave trade, as such it is fair to call him a slaver trader.Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Games of the world, so "involved" would be correct then. Cassianto^Talk 07:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Depends, did he buy and sell them, or merely ship them?Slatersteven (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Correct Cassianto. Slatersteven You've just summed my point up. There's a difference between actively selling and owning slaves and being involved in a company who trades slaves. Just because he sailed a boat and possibly did transactions on behalf of others/the company does not mean that he was a slave trader. If he was just following orders from the company therefore involved would be the more accurate descriptor. Games of the world (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Errr not there is not any more than saying you are not a newspaper publisher unless you actually work on in the printing room.Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The 'slave trade' is defined by Oxford as "procuring, transporting, and selling of human beings as slaves".[3] So I think that if we can reliably source that he was involved in all of those three activities we can justifiably call him a slave trader. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

He was Deputy Governor (effectively Chief Executive) of the main British slave trading organisation. Does that mean he was 'involved' in the slave trade, or that he was a slave trader? To my mind the latter. Henry Ford made cars, he wasn't 'involved in the making of cars', nor did he 'become involved in the making of cars' as if it was purely accidental that he owned car factories. The Land (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Whatever happened to WP:LEADCITE? There are a lot of online citations in the lead that shouldn't be. Cassianto^Talk 15:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Bristol Radical History Group

Is this an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's borderline, seems to act like a historical society, the best set of sources for me is Bristol Record Society, which in turn is vetted by Bristol University, which has lots of useful information. I've been reading through rather a lot there. Govvy (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Might be best to replace it then given the contentious nature of the subject. Lets try and stick to top flight sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

So, what about this source, which is cited in the article? As I understand it, the Dolphin Society (like the Anchor Society) has been closely associated with memorialising Colston, and with the Society of Merchant Venturers. Where sources take contrasting views, we should be using both sources, so readers can come to a balanced view - not using just one of them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A bit different, as its not a local history society. But I can see an issue with this as there maybe a degree of COI, and its hardly a top line source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable. It's a blog post by an unknown author. fiveby(zero) 10:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Its not a blog post its an article, the clue is in the fact it marked "Articles - Written Articles" its no different from an article published in a local history magazine.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec)Published where, and who is Roger Ball? His contributor page does not mention any qualifications, might be this guy but who knows. It's based on publication here, but i very much doubt that can be taken as a reliable publisher. You are of course correct that it can be called an "article", and my calling it a "blog post" is a bit derisive, but regardless there are many issues with the use of this source. Any idea about the author's qualifications? fiveby(zero) 11:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

None, and I suspect (reading his bio) that he is just an amateur, but we also must make sure we reject for the right reasons. As I siad this is a contentious subject that we must edit with care.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, i've asked for full protection at WP:RPP in an attempt to get some talk page discussion going. fiveby(zero) 11:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like self-published content hosted on a history reformation activists' website. WP:RS frowns on both of those sort of things, so I'd default to unreliable. But WP:RSN might be the place for discussing this one. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hence why I raised it here, many of these local history groups new letters are written edited and published by on person. No idea if this is the case here, but I see nothing to say its not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

And in the case of something from say a local historical society we would look to the qualifications of the author, their other works, mentions in other reliable sources, the historical society itself, the proposed content, etc. to decide if it were appropriate, and would prefer academic and peer-reviewed publications where available. fiveby(zero) 11:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is the point I made with "top flight sources".Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't know if you guys wanted to put all the sources in a table format, vet them all, notes, etc. I've seen that done before on AfDs and such. Govvy (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Might be a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Would be an interesting exercise, particularly whilst the article is locked. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, Talk:Edward_Colston/References. Feel free to completely rearrange the format. fiveby(zero) 13:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the page protected?

In this change the article was apparently fully protected until 11:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC) by El C. So how could this edit have happened. Is The Land an admin? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Yes, The Land is a sysop. The article is fully protected. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

To find out an editor's user rights, use the Special:UserRights link (e.g. Special:UserRights/The_Land). El_C 12:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Regardless of userrights, now that User:The Land knows they (accidentally) edited through full protection, they will take more care in the future  :) ——Serial ^# 12:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I recon the cat did it, that cat of his looks like a bond villain! Govvy (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for fixing the mistake mentioned below (removing the sentence) after we disagreed yesterday. I appreciate you having taken the time to do that this morning. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi all - I didn't expect anyone would view that edit as controversial, if you do then apologies. The Land (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Full protect edit request

Could an admin please correct the misattribution of the authorship of the following encyclopedia contribution, please? You can in find it by searching for <ref name=hayton>:

• Hanham, Andrew A. (April 2006). Hayton, David; Cruickshanks, Eveline; Handley, Stuart (eds.). "Colston, Edward II (1636-1721), of Mortlake, Surr". The History of Parliament. Cambridge University Press / Institute of Historical Research. Retrieved 13 June 2020. From 1680 he became heavily involved in the slave trade, from which he made the bulk of his fortune, and was an active member of the Royal African Company, becoming deputy-governor briefly during 1689–90.

Given the current context on the page, it is likely we would need to start an RfC to determine how best to fix the current misrepresentation of the source in the lede, but at least we could get the author right, even if we get what the author says wrong. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, good news! No RfC needed. Apparently the erroneous sentence was removed while I was at work this morning. So the failed verification template next to it in the lede can be removed now too :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done - those seem pretty uncontroverisal to me. The Land (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. The failed verification tag I added to the Madge Dresser article just after that could also be deleted, as it is no longer being used to source a claim that it was impossible to know how much money Colston earned from slavery. Sorry about the inconvenience, it would have been better if the tags had been deleted when the sentence was. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 June 2020

Minor issue 2nd paragraph, repeated word - change: ... "involved in the slave trade as a member of of the Royal African Company"... To: ... "involved in the slave trade as a member of the Royal African Company"... That is to delete the repeated "of" Thanks Crep171166 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Crep171166 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)  Done - thanks for pointing that out The Land (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)