Talk:Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville/Archive 1

Archive 1

Images

I've uploaded a few images of the monument which may be of use. thumb|Melville Monument in St Andrew Square, Edinburgh. thumb|top of the Melville Monument in St Andrew Square, Edinburgh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanished User 1002 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

New file Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville by Sir Thomas Lawrence.jpg

Recently the file File:Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville by Sir Thomas Lawrence.jpg was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 08:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Impeachment

The intro stated "He was the first Secretary of State for War and both the first and last person to be impeached in the United Kingdom." Whilst he was the last, he most definitely was not the first (most notably, Warren Hastings had been impeached twenty years earlier), so I have removed this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thievinggypsy (talk • contribs) 14:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! This article is highly misleading!

Although what's there is pretty much true as far as I know, it's catastrophically misleading because it completely misses how important he was. Dundas dominated Scotland in a way that would make many a dictator envious. He was a political operator of the highest order and was known as "the uncrowned king of scotland", not least because he owned most of Scotland's MPs and controlled the aristocracy with his power of patronage. I don't know enough about it but somebody needs to write this up properly. There are memorials to him all over the country, not that he was regarded with any affection. 78.86.229.20 (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Spot on. But I'm afraid that this is a general feature of Wikipedia: poorly scoped articles that fail to clarify chief areas of notability. It is impossible to understand Scottish society and government of the late 18th and early 19th centuries without understanding the immense, pretty much unfettered, power of Dundas and his ilk. But do not despair: we do have WP:BOLD you know! --Mais oui! (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

Given the renewed focus on Britain's involvement in the slave trade, and Henry Dundas's role in delaying its abolition in 1796 there has been debate about the appropriateness of his statue remaining 'as is' in Edinburgh. Furthermore, some locations named after Henry Dundas might come under pressure to address their association with his name. In that context it is worth noting that the location of Dundas in Western Australia is almost certainly not named after Henry Dundas, although the back-story needs further checking. For now, the Official Western Australian Government website records...

Dundas is a goldfields townsite about 21 km south of Norseman. It was gazetted in 1895, and derives its name from its situation at the southern end of the Dundas Hills. The hills were named by Surveyor-General J S Roe in 1848 after Captain Dundas of the Royal Navy ship H M S Tagus. The Aboriginal name for the area is which the townsite is situated is known as "Nucaniu" or "Neucaniu".

This Captain Dundas is James Whitley Deans Dundas. I have to do further research to confirm the association of John Septimus Roe with J.W.Deans Dundas, but given that both were British Naval Officers it seems likely that they served together at some point in time. Bodset (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Bodset

After impeachment, He never again held public office

Confirmed by numerous sources, but the Wikipedia article ignores that fact. Instead, it makes much ado about his being offered an earldom.

Just a few sources that confirm that Dundas never again held public office:

• Henry dundas viscount melville By J. A. Lovat-Fraser
• https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-53041048
• https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/0c99ac11-cb84-3fde-b1de-29bcedf83160
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henry-Dundas-1st-Viscount-Melville
• https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/people/who-was-henry-dundas-why-edinburgh-statue-scottish-advocate-being-changed-reflect-his-links-slavery-2880569

Peter K Burian (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Context of his amendments to anti-slavery bills

According to his biographer Michael Fry, Dundas was a committed abolitionist, and his amendment to the anti-slavery bill of 1792 were motivated by a desire to see the bill passed. This context is lacking from the "political career" section, and while the statement about the insertion of the word "gradually" is factually correct, it implies that he was trying to delay the abolition of slavery because he was pro-slavery. In fact, he was motivated by a desire to see abolition happen: the bill had already been rejected by the commons the previous year, and without this change was unlikely to pass at all.

This is important to make clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.143.213.59 (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Michael Fry's biography differs significantly from how more qualified Caribbeanist historians see the role of Dundas. He supported slavery and the slave trade, and inserted the word "gradually" to undermine the abolitionist movement.Mikesiva (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with 141.143.213.59. This crucial context, Dundas' gradual strategy to achieve abolition, has been passed over. The sources I've looked at, Michael Fry and Professor Brian Young ([1]) as well as R.G. Thorne ([2]), it seems that he was an abolitionist but opposed immediate abolition as it wasn't politically viable (it wouldn't have passed in the Commons or Lords). A failed attempt at immediate abolition might have provoked the pro-slavery members and discouraged the moderates, setting back abolition far further than the gradual delay Dundas favoured. If the Caribbeanist sources were referenced, then I would consider their arguments to the contrary, and some support for the claim that they are "more qualified" than Fry. Otsima (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm.. Michael Fry... Well how about Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote that Dundas was merely attempting to make abolition a less severe impact on slave owners by insisting it be imposed gradually. [3] Peter K Burian (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

How about David Brion Davis who states that Dundas made abolition dependent on colonial reforms which might never happen and that his tactics made it appear as if the House of Commons had surrendered its jurisdiction over slavery. The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823 [4] Peter K Burian (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The Clapham Sect: How Wilberforce's Circle Transformed Britain states that Dundas was opposed to abolition .. Wilberforce, Pitt and Fox fought Dundas on his delay tactics; this page provides more specifics on Wilberforce's statements that Dundas was merely using ploys to delay abolition, not relying on valid reasons. [5] Peter K Burian (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Slavery, Abolition and Emancipation Vol 2, By Peter J Kitson, Debbie Lee, Anne K Mellor, James Walvin .... Dundas expected gradually to mean "delayed indefinitely" (never). [6] Peter K Burian (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I've inserted the arguments of the Caribbeanist historians about the role Dundas played in upholding the institution of slavery and the slave trade.Mikesiva (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Facing away from the palace?

The column intentionally faces away from the palace, in response to having been offended by the King during the Viscount's lifetime.

I have removed this text as I don't believe it is true. I've read it before, but the problem is that there is no palace in St Andrew Square. The statue, quite naturally, faces along the axis of George Street, and turns its back not on a palace, but on the former home of Sir Laurence Dundas. When the statue was put up in 1828, this was already the offices of the Royal Bank of Scotland (they moved there in 1825 [7]). The nearest palace is Holyroodhouse, half a mile or so to the south-east. I also find it unlikely that Lord Melville had any say in the placing of a statue that wasn't erected until 17 years after his death! In short, this is a myth. If anyone knows the origin of the story, then it might be worth adding in as a point of interest, but otherwise I think it's safer to leave it out. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This sentence "notwithstanding his speaking Scots and ungraceful manner" is racist and should be removed. Obviously written by someone ignorant of local dialects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.41.233 (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Any reference to the statue needs to also take into account the demonstrations against it. I've reinstated the Black Lives Matter sentence.Mikesiva (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Let me repeat: Any reference to the statue needs to also take into account the demonstrations against it. I've reinstated the Black Lives Matter sentence. If you have an issue with its reinstatement, discuss it here in the Talk Page.Mikesiva (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Edinburgh plaque

I've restored the paragraph:

In June 2020, the Edinburgh City Council voted to install a new brass plaque on the Melville Monument acknowledging Dundas’ role in deferring the abolition of the slave trade.

which is cited and appears valid. It had been removed, with the edit summary "Removed a sentence that presumes validity of a disputed assertion", and a reference to WP:NPOV, but the former does not appear to be the case, and the text is neutral.

References

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, although the editor concerned is aware that they are requested to discuss the matter on the talk page (note edit summary; which falsely describes the request "please take this to the talk page" as a "demand"), they are apparently unwilling to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I came to this page to explain my recent edits and discovered that the discussion about the disputed sentence regarding the plaque has already begun. I apologize for missing this earlier.

I have once again removed the disputed sentence, which contains the following flaws in addition to those I previously identified:

-- The use of the word "acknowledges" is not neutral. "Acknowledges" implies acceptance of just one side of the debate described in the two paragraphs above the sentence. This is a straightforward matter of syntax that breaches the policy on neutrality.

-- The sentence is outdated. The Edinburgh City Council website (linked in the citation) states that in June, 2020, ECC made a decision to erect a plaque "as soon as possible." The inscription was to read "In 2020 this was dedicated...". The plaque was not erected, and in December 2020, the ECC adopted on a new process for dealing with public monuments. The sentence is therefore incorrect, and breach of the policy on accuracy.

-- The sentence states that the plaque would be "on" the monument. The monument is privately owned and the city cannot alter it. ECC voted to put a plaque "at" the monument, i.e. outside of the monument and its concrete base. This is a breach of the policy on accuracy.

-- The sentence incorrectly refers to a "brass" plaque. This embellishment highlights the expense and permanence of the plaque, but is not supported by the cited website. This is a breach of the policy on original research, and the policy on neutrality.

-- The citation refers to an author whose name is not found on the webpage. This creates the false impression that the cited webpage is a piece of reportage rather than an official statement of the City of Edinburgh. The City has taken a controversial stand on this issue and cannot be considered neutral. This is a breach of the policy on accuracy, the policy on neutrality generally, and the policy requiring use of authoritative and neutral sources.

-- Time-sensitive developments in public debates and controversies are generally not appropriate entries in an encyclopedia.

Please do not restore the sentence without addressing the flaws identified above, and without ensuring that there is consensus on this matter.

Thank you.

E.M.Morrison (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi E.M.Morrison, good to see you here! You say that the plaque was never installed, do you have a reference for that? Entirely possible since the source currently used mentions a decision rather than an action. It would be good to update the page. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome. :-) You are asking for proof of a negative, which is notoriously difficult. I do not believe the City of Edinburgh announced that it did not follow through on its motion regarding a new plaque, but a visit to St. Andrew Square will amply demonstrate the absence of a new permanent plaque. E.M.Morrison (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I was disappointed to see restoration of a disputed passage after the editor insisted that this matter be addressed on the talk page. I thought that we would attempt to reach a consensus before further changes were made. Wikipedia invites people to resolve their differences on these pages instead of engaging in an edit war. E.M.Morrison (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Instead of removing the offending passage, which would be my preference, I have edited it in a manner that is a compromise between your insistence on inclusion of a reference to a decision regarding a proposed plaque, despite Council declining to act on that decision, and my view that ongoing developments such as this in a rapidly changing environment are not appropriate subject-matter for an encyclopedia. It was necessary, therefore, to address the central issue regarding the disputed passage. Use of the word "mentioning" was the rhetorical equivalent of "acknowledging." Both words presume accuracy of the disputed assertion, and breach the Wikipedia policy on neutrality. If the reference is to remain, Wikipedia policies regarding accuracy and neutrality must be respected. The relevant context is that after Council's decision was lambasted publicly by Scotland's most eminent historian, Council backed down and opted for a more considered process. When Council backed away from its initial decision, it implicitly recognized that it had acted in haste. Since Council was willing to recognize this, I hope you will as well. E.M.Morrison (talk)

One more point: A citation I previously used was removed a few days ago, on grounds that it was an opinion piece. It was not. The citation is to a news article in The Times, in which the reporter, Mr. McCann, reports on Professor Sir Thomas Devine's criticisms of the process related to the proposed plaque. I have again relied on this reference, as the news article accurately describes the controversy at issue here. E.M.Morrison (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Proving a negative is indeed often decidedly tricky, and a reversed decision may not be publicly documented. However, temporary signage was installed. So we can verify that the council did act on their decision. It is entirely possible that the council then decided not to install the permanent plaque after all; though that might fall somewhere in the realm of original research, it is possible to approach this flexibly.

It looks like there are a few issues knotted together which need to be untangled:

• Whether the new interpretative displays at the site should be mentioned.
• How that should be documented within the article (eg: material, whether it is on the monument etc).
• Whether Edinburgh Council is a reliable source for its own actions.

Most of the points made above relate to the second point, though the removal of the content and associated edit summaries indicated the other two points should be considered, in particular whether inclusion of this information at all is neutral.

The public presentation of monuments and historic sites is an important aspect of them as it shapes how the public interprets them and reflects the time in which the interpretation was added. The plaque is part of the reception, interpretation, and public dialogue around Dundas' legacy. Including that information is consistent with Wikipedia's aim to be neutral. The council's decision to change the interpretation of the site is not neutral, but our reporting of it can be.

You make good points about the material being used and the plaque's location - it is straightforward to address those points and that would not merit the wholesale removal of the information.

An official body's website is reliable as a source for their own actions in most circumstances.

Finally, I apologise for describing the piece in The Times as an opinion piece, that was not correct. It was a piece recounting Tom Devine's opinion, which is of course something different. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)