Talk:Edward Colston/Archive 2

Edit request 14 june 2020

Could an admin please change the line...."During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692 it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom 19,000 died on their journey" to read..."During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692 the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom it is estimated over 18,000 died en route " The numbers in the source are recorded 84540 transported and estimated 18280 died, the rounding should probably be consistent and it's a better source. Blindlynx (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Hello - I can't see that source you've linked to at the moment, it's showing a 500 error. Is the link definitely correct? The Land (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a current discussion of sources at Talk:Edward Colston/References. I don't agree with the addition of this source right now. fiveby(zero) 12:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I think what is being cited here is this query: https://www.slavevoyages.org/voyage/database#searchId=dnu5PDim (summary statistics tab) maybe? fiveby(zero) 12:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Blindlynx: if you have a moment could you clarify please? The Land (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Land: Sorry my mistake the source is https://www.slavevoyages.org/voyages/RibGyfaC which is a search for all voayges owned by the Royal African Company,unfortunately i cannot create a url with a finer level of detail. But if you look at the years relevant (1680 to 1692) and add up the relevant columns you get 84540 transported and compare the total estimated embarked to total estimated disembarked you get 18280 died. I don't think this falls under WP:OR as it's just preforming simple math on a data base. Blindlynx (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Because there is a captives died column, so why do you need to do anything more than add that up?Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a database of single voyages submitted and collected from reliable sources with a process in place for ensuring the quality of the data. You'll notice on the column descriptions that we have "Total embarked", "Total embarked IMP", and "Total disembarked IMP". Not all sources will have information for embarked/disembarked and IMP means Imputed results are calculate by an algorithm. I imagine the algorithm would try to generate a value for each voyage by averaging prior voyages by the same vessel, vessels of similar tonnage, etc. based on what information is available. You'll note there is no IMP column for "Captives died during middle passage". https://www.slavevoyages.org/voyage/understanding-db which should describe the methodology in greater detail is throwing a 500 right now, so no help. Looks like a good resource for external linking in articles or searching and citing the underlying sources. Use as a citation for article content is simply OR. fiveby(zero) 18:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

But why is the relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. I am not really comfortable with us working out what columns to use and then doing a calculation. That seems on the surface like a sensible methodology. But it might not be, for reasons that most of us here can't spot because we don't really understand the subject matter. The Land (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

fair enough, the reason i brought it up here is that the bristol post article cited wasn't considered reliable on the statue page and the slave voyages citation was, also the slave voayges ciation is used on the Royal African Company page Blindlynx (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

So..where did these slaves come from...Who provided them?

In this article and indeed throughout the western worlds media there is endless talk about the slave trade However horrified one may be at this trade its extraordinary that nowhere is it ever mentioned WHERE THESE SLAVES CAME FROM or how they got into the hands of European slave traders The answer is of course that all of Africa was controlled by black African tribal leaders or Kings who spent their time planning tribal wars against other tribes and thereby capturing slaves who could be sold on the then worlds markets These black kingdoms had been doing this for hundreds indeed thousands of years as there have been suggestions that some of the basic work in building the Pyramids was carried out by black slaves Much of the actual dealing was carried out by Arab slave dealers anyway The hatred between African tribes is extraordinary as proved by the huge slaughters of men women and children in even recent years If Wiki is going to discuss so called slave traders like Colston they should make clear the background of slave supply on the African side instead of totally ignoring itit. ####(I cant get/find tildes on this pc)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.24.104 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes and the correct place to discus these issues is Atlantic slave trade, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Please add cat "Members of the Society of Merchant Venturers". Thank you. DrThneed (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No cite for this yet in article, but Latimer, John (1903). The history of the Society of Merchant Venturers of the City of Bristol. p. 174. ...he was admitted into the Society on December I7th, 1683, by right of birth; but he appears to have only twice attended a Hall,... should do. fiveby(zero) 16:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, would it be easier to simply start a thread here - "Should Colston be described with the word "philanthropist" in the opening paragraph?" That would help tie the various threads together. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make an RfC feel free, but that should maybe be appended to the "Introduction" section since it's where the most thorough discussion (i.e. rejected edit requests aside) has taken place? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, what we do not need is another thread.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Per Poe's law would you mind clarifying whether this is irony or not? Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A sub thread would not be a new thread, what we do not need is a whole new thread about the same damn topic.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I missed the "not" in your original comment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Its OK we all do it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 June 2020

Mark the word 'philanthropist' as disputed.

My previous request to change the word was rejected on the basis that there is no consensus to do so. A number of people have suggested that both the original meaning, lover of humankind, and the modern meaning, doer of good deeds, are incompatible with being a slave trader.

If there is no consensus for changing or keeping this word then, by definition, it is disputed. 94.1.235.48 (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no consensus to change it. Why not join the discussion(s) above and put your case there? Then, if a consensus emerges, we can make an edit request. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

DeFacto - it's not clear which discussion you think is still active, as this has been discussed in several. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There is at least § The word 'philanthropist' and § Philanthropist above, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § Edward Colston which were still active until the article was fully protected at 11:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC), after which interest naturally dropped off. But it was also extensively discussed in § Introduction until a couple of days before the protection. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)‎

My point is that comments, especially from editors new to this page, should not be spread around several different threads - they need to be brought together. That is why I think a more formal and organised approach, perhaps through WP:RFC, would be worthwhile. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better if all the discussion had been in one place, but I'm not sure what's the best way now to capture it all, that sounds like trying to "herd cats". -- DeFacto (talk). 11:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

In order to bring past discussions together, and to involve a wider range of editors, I've started a WP:RFC below. I know this may partly re-hash old arguments but it is necessary to try to resolve this issue through more formal procedures than before. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done this seems appropriate until the issue is resolved one way or another — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Edward Colston was not a pupil at Christ’s Hospital

Although many internet sources state that Edward Colston may have attended Christ's Hospital, he was never registered as a pupil nor is there any evidence as far as we can see that he was a private pupil. He was a noted benefactor, elected as a Governor in October 1681 and served on various committees, but that is the only connection to Christ’s Hospital of which we are aware.

Please can the mention of him possibly having been a pupil at CH be taken down?

Thank you

Christ’s Hospital — Preceding unsigned comment added by LE Kidner (talk • contribs) 11:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

We need an RS saying this is not true, as we have RS saying it is.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

We have a reliable source (RS – helps to spell out acronyms for newcomers) which says it's possible not that he did. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and we say its possible, not that he did.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@LE Kidner: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you like it here! I appreciate that this can be confusing for new users, especially because you are coming from the school itself, but Wikipedia is based on what reliable, published sources say - we can't perform original research, which would include taking someone's word when they are from an organisation. If your school was to publish in some manner a statement saying "Colston never attended here", we might be able to cite that - it would likely look something like Some sources have suggested Colston may have been a pupil at Christ's Hospital school, a suggestion the school denies, with both parts of that sentence referenced to the source we currently have and your statement. I hope that's helpful! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Unless someone emails the school for a public statement on the issue, well, can't really change anything. Govvy (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll email the museum and see if there's a way forward. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If this person is from the school they know already. If they are not this is not an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The word 'philanthropist'

The word 'philanthropist' has been used to describe Colston and appears in the lede. Given the source of part of the wealth he distributed, it is now painful to describe him as a "lover of humanity" (an approx. definition of the Greek root of philanthropy) so how can we better describe his giving to charitable causes? Should we call him a benefactor, a donor? Suggestions please for a more acceptable wording. Nedrutland (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it reads oddly, but I think the answer lies in rewriting the lede to prioritise things differently than in the description 'philanthropist'. He would not be the only 'philanthropist' to whose 'generosity' was based on slavery or other forms of exploitation. The Land (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact is that there are so many monuments to Colston in Bristol because he was considered by the powers that be, until the mid/late 20th century, to be quintessentially a philanthropist. The sources of his wealth were either not discussed, or not considered relevant, before then. So, there needs to be some mention in the opening paragraph of the reason why he was considered an important figure. The explanation is given in the text, but needs to be anchored back to a description in the lead, and many sources do use the word "philanthropist" in summary descriptions of him. I'm not necessarily opposed to a term like "benefactor" but am not sure it's a great improvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the Greek root of the word is relevant to the use here. The use-definition of a philanthropist is someone who gives money to charitable causes, and that was true of Colston. In terms of judging his ethical value as a human being, the harm done by trading in enslaved Africans is far more significant than his philanthropy, but I don't think that makes the use of the word philanthropist in the article inaccurate. Camipco (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I second Camipco, the meaning of a word is not simply the sum of it's roots, that's a rather prescriptive idea. Philanthropy as the word in commonly understood today is the giving of (usually large) amounts to charitable causes, which Colston indisputably did. --High Tinker (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

can a slave trader be a philanthropist ?

I'd say no. he was a donor, yes. lover of humans? no. What do I need to do to make this change? --Tavin (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment on previous discussions on the same point, and gain a WP:CONSENSUS for making a change. Would "benefactor" be better? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit different back then, a lot of people saw a commodity and didn't see the Human Being. If you view it from that perspective philanthropist can still be applied to his nature. It's also possible he was sick of his ill-gotten gains and the only way he could use that money was to use it to do good, we don't know that know. But I certainly don't think you can dismiss the term from his biography. Govvy (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Please remove the use of Philanthropy (and variants) Di cee21 (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as, as far as I know, the word does not mean you love any one. Maybe the issue is that the word has always been applied to the very rich, who by their very nature usually have very chequered pasts. Its doubtful most philanthropists would be considered paragons of virtue by our standards (and given the "buying indulgences" nature of much of it even by theirs).Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure you can be both. Perhaps, you should have a look at many of today's philantropists and what they are lobbying for. --105.4.0.165 (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request - Removal of stained glass windows

Under "memorials", it mentions the window as St Mary Redcliffe, but not Bristol Cathedral.
As of 16-June-2020, the panes at St Mary Redcliffe has been removed, and the ones at Bristol covered up pending safe removal.

"Edward Colston: Church windows honouring slave trader removed". BBC. Bristol. 2020-06-16. Retrieved 2020-06-18. FractalgeekUK (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't make the changes myself at this point though. GPinkerton (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I have, however, made relevant changes to the St Mary Redcliffe and Bristol Cathedral articles. The Bristol Cathedral article didn't even mention his (massive) window at all, until now. GPinkerton (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If someone can tell me what specific text they want changed to what, then this looks pretty straightforward and I will update it tomorrow. The Land (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and noted that in the article. Govvy (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

DR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Edward_Colston Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 June 2020

Change 'philanthropist ' to 'benefactor'.

Philanthropist comes from the Greek phil and anthropos and means 'lover of humankind as evinced by deeds'. Edward Colston's treatment of black people demonstrates the exact opposite of a love for humankind.

Failing this edit please mark philanthropist as disputed for the reason given above. 2A02:C7F:2C2B:4800:7D4A:DFE:2AD4:6D13 (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

As there is still an open discussion on this above, I think this request should be declined. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the discussion still "open"? I thought you'd already decided.... But, given (1) the disagreements over whether he should be described as a "philanthropist", a "benefactor", or as someone "who was previously considered to be a philanthropist"; and (2) the utter mess that currently passes for an introduction; I think there is a case that this should be resolved at WP:RFC, or somewhere else if preferred. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Eh? It doesn't look like it's been closed to me so, surely, the status quo should still prevail. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussions don't need to be closed in any formal sense, but earlier ones seem to have ended without any consensus to change the wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Benefactor means somone who does good - literally good maker, so it is subject to the same objection as philanthropist in this instance. Do you prefer Greek or Latin to be (literally) wrong?Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

These days a benefactor is neither good or bad, a benefactor is just simply someone who invests/supports a person or organisation. A philanthropist doesn't invest, there are differences between the two words. Govvy (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Neither word's use bears much relationship to its original meaning and whether either word is used of a person is dictated by WP:RS, not by whether editors like the word or not.Pincrete (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Memorials section

I was thinking we need to switch the City-centre memorial statue to be above Modern reappraisal, wouldn't it make more sense to be that way around? Govvy (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

No. The statue removal is just the most high profile example of a wider and longer term process of reappraisal.2001:8F8:1D62:1A22:1:0:6CAC:18E0 (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The "retaliatory" in my summary is an autocorrect fumble for "reappraisal" btw. I'm not suggesting the removal of the statue is retaliatory. Sorry for any confusion.2001:8F8:1D62:1A22:1:0:6CAC:18E0 (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Your reversal of the edit doesn't make sense, the statue was created and placed in the city centre before it was removed. The chronological order of that section is pretty silly now, I really am inclined to restore the edit I did. Govvy (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not an improvement. The whole section needs a rewrite anyway, not a reshuffle of what's there today. It's a mess of barely NPOV edits from both sides from the last month or so that needs a ground up rebuild.2001:8F8:1D62:1A22:1:0:6CAC:18E0 (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

rewrite? NPOV? :/ Who are you? Govvy (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:WNCAA. Who are you?2001:8F8:1D62:1A22:1:0:6CAC:18E0 (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay... The only time I see IPs knowing that is when they are socking, good day to you. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed wording of second plaque as RS

Michael F 1967 is insisting [1][2][3][4][5][6] that wording proposed for a second plaque on the statue[7] “Bristolians who did not subscribe to his religious and political beliefs were not permitted to benefit from his charities." arrived at as part of a project involving UWE history professor Madge Dresser, local historians, and pupils from Colston Primary School in Cotham is an appropriated source for a statement of fact. That wording was even dropped in the next version After pressure from councillors and the council officials themselves, that initial plaque wording was dropped, and a second attempt from Madge Dresser was created with the council officer, Pete Insole, who has formally submitted the planning application. This, as it stands, is thought to be the official proposal and the new proposal is "long honoured as the city’s greatest benefactor. He made vast donations to restore churches, establish schools, almshouses and various charities in Bristol and across the country."

This is so far from WP:RS i am amazed it's even an issue. Not going to get involved in the new edit war, but do we need an RFC or something on WP:RSN for this? fiveby(zero) 16:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Please explain how a document produced by a professional historian with expertise in the subject cannot be considered a reliable source. Just repeatedly stating it's not a reliable source is no argument at all. Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: alternate wording was developed as a result of pressure from pro-Colston activists. If you read the source I'm citing in the Colston article, you will see that the eminent historian (she holds two professorships) Professor Dresser had strong objections to a pro-Colston worker who wanted to remove the reference to Colston's sectarianism. The fact that people objected to a words intended to educate people about real history doesn't mean that the words describing real history were invalid.

What matters is the source of the words, and in this case the source is, in effect, Professor Madge Dresser who's a professional historian and specializes in the field. Michael F 1967 (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Then please stop it with the silly proposed plaque text and at least use Dresser, Madge (16 June 2020). "Monumental folly – what Colston's statue says about Victorian Bristol". Apollo. ...imposed his autocratic Tory and High Church views on all those who hoped to benefit from his charitable bequests. It's not an appropriate source for the article but at least moving in the right direction. fiveby(zero) 18:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It is incorrect - and professionally insulting to Professor Dresser - to refer to the original proposed second plaque text as "silly". That text was a serious work of education in history, developed as part of a serious professional history project run by Bristol City Council, and overseen by a serious professional historian who specialises in the field: Professor Dresser, the historian you mention above as having written something else that can be relied upon. It was intended to be literally cast in metal and displayed permanently in public for educational purposes: it's unquestionably an entirely appropriate reliable source because Professor Dresser oversaw the text. We can be sure that she ensured every word of that educational text was correct. I'm not suggesting that the text of a plaque on a statue (proposed or actual) is in general a reliable source for historical information, but this particular one is.

The originally proposed text was changed due to political pressure, but: as I explain above, the original text is very obviously a WP:RS. It doesn't tell the whole story, but what it does say is certainly reliable since the text was approved by Professor Dresser who is a reliable expert in the field. Michael F 1967 (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

can we just take this to RSN and get some fresh eyes on it?Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Before that happens, it would be good to understand the objections to using as a WP:RS an educational document produced by a serious history project overseen by a professional historian. So far, the only actual reason given is that it's "silly" which isn't a coherent objection.

What exactly is wrong with using the particular text I refer to, given the nature of the text as I explain it above? Michael F 1967 (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at the verifiability policy, specifically WP:V#What counts as a reliable source which lists three elements that affect reliability: the work itself, the creator, and the publisher. For the source you are attempting to use the work itself is proposed wording which has since been abandoned. The creators are the council, Dresser, Roger Ball, and some primary school students. Not really sure who you would say is the publisher in this case, that the text is accurate as to what the groups proposed would be the responsibility of news organizations reporting—but who is responsible for ensuring these are correct statements of fact? Peer review? Fact checking and review seems to be some political process with a bunch of opinionated people yelling at each other.

Compare to the source I provided with a similar opinion from Dresser. It's a prose article, one traditional way of providing facts and opinions to an audience. We know these are the views of Dresser, she put her name to them and presumably no children were involved. We know the publisher and can determine how reliable they are for fact checking.

The source you provided was unreliable for statements of fact. It was of course reliable for wording itself, no one disputes that the wording was not proposed. The article I pointed out is reliable for Dresser's opinion, which actually should be fairly prominent in the statue article: There have been questions about Colston and his profile in Bristol since the 1920s but they remained largely ignored until 1999 when Prof Madge Dresser, at the University of West England, spoke about Colston and his involvement in the slave trade. The next morning, "Slave Trader" was scrawled across his statue.[8] But she does not get the last word in the Edward Colston article. For that Dresser should do what historians do: publish somewhere which allows her peers to critique her work. fiveby(zero) 20:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are misrepresenting the text in question. Peer review is not required for a source to be considered reliable, so your mention of that is misdirection. You have also misrepresented the production process: Bristol City Council started an educational project involving the historian Professor Dresser intended - in part - to produce a reliable and fully factual educational text to attach to the Bristol statue of Colston. It wasn't some ad hoc project: this was a serious official educational project with serious backing and a serious professional historian overseeing the work.

You asked who is responsible for ensuring that the text was a correct statement of fact. That query is further misdirection: you know perfectly well who made sure it was right since I have explained several times.

I repeat once more: the person responsible for ensuring that the text was a correct statement of fact was the eminent historian Professor Dresser. Yes, eminent: Professor Dresser holds two professorships and is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society; she specializes in the subject area covered by the proposed plaque text.

Professor Dresser oversaw an education project aimed at producing educational material intended for permanent public display: professionally produced educational material is surely a reliable source, especially when the project is overseen by an renowned professional historian such as Professor Dresser. The proposed plaque text in question was objected to by politically motivated interests who had nothing to do with the creation of the original reliable educational text.

You provide no evidence to back up your baseless claim that the source I provided was unreliable for statements of fact. Since the text I cited was checked for accuracy by a professional historian with expertise in the subject, it can be assumed - unless evidence can be found to the contrary - that the professional historian got it right.

Can you find a source which contradicts the professionally produced educational material in question, which has been checked for accuracy by a professor of history specializing in the subject? If not, it should be accepted as a reliable source despite the fact that political pressure resulted in the text being suppressed. Michael F 1967 (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Also: this is Wikipedia. There is no "final word". What there is, is reliably sourced information - and that source does not have to be "traditional" or meet any fixed standard beyond verifiably reliable. Most of Wikipedia would have to be deleted if the only acceptable information was that published in peer reviewed journals. If information supplied comes from a reliable source - and I say an eminent professor of history is a reliable source when it comes to that professor's field of expertise - then it should be accepted. Refusing to accept the word of such a source requires a source more reliable than just some editor's say-so. Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Unless Dresser's view is endorsed by the majority of historian's, it is just that - Dresser's view, which should be attributed to her, not rendered in WP:VOICE. There is no special pass for Dresser, especially if any of her findings have not been peer-reviewed. Even historians have been known to get carried away by their own advocacy! Your faith in Dresser's infallability is touching, but hardly apt. Pincrete (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Rejecting sources because of bias

I was intrigued by this edit by Michael F 1967. They imply that a reference ("Edward Colston, the Dolphin Society and 268 years of letter-writing...History / Background". The Dolphin Society. 16 May 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2018.) is not reliable because its publisher, the Dolphin Society, is pro-Colston. Is the Dolphin Society pro-Colston? Is writer bias a good reason to reject a source? Should we also eliminate references from anti-Colston writers? Please discuss. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The edit itself does not look to me to be problematic. In cases like this, what is essential is that both sides of an argument are set out so that readers can come to a balanced view - WP:BALANCE. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

That policy is stated to apply applies to reputable sources, and the source in question is not reputable. The text you link to states: However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. The Dolphin Society was one of the societies which promoted the intentionally false image of Edward Colston in the 19th century as 'one of the most virtuous and wise sons of their city' as claimed on the plaque attached to the plinth of his statue in Bristol - which statue was erected due to the boss of the Dolphin Society. It's certainly pro-Colston and there are no secondary or tertiary sources mentioned.

In short, unless a neutral source can be found either to back up or discuss any claim about Colston by the Dolphin Society, the Dolphin Society shouldn't be used as a source on this subject.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The Dolphin Society may well have made "pro-Colston" claims, but other groups (which you seem to favour) have made directly contrary "anti-Colston" claims. It's not up to us to adjudicate between them. It's up to us to set out the claims in a balanced way. If you think that one side is more reliable than the other, you need to go to WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN (I don't know which would be better). Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, there is no problem with a source being biased if we don't use it to mark opinions as facts (for eg. there's no problem with using the Austro-Hungarian official history here to make a simple description of the battle, so long we don't use it for biased claims (I'm making the following up as an example) such as "the Austro-Hungarians fought much more bravely than their enemy"); except if the opinions are so ridiculous that they shouldn't be considered seriously (not the case here). The solution is not to remove it but to add balancing sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually the Dolphin source simply doesn't support the assertion it follows, which is that Colston's giving was "intended to benefit only those who shared his political and religious views". The only source which supports this "mealy-mouthed" and selective generosity, is Dr Madge Dresser, someone who is a noted local historian, but also someone at the centre of the campaign to 'expunge' Colston's name. Despite this, Dresser's opinion (and a quote from her) are rendered in Wiki-voice, but the Dolphin's account is removed! NPOV I don't think!

Dresser obviously has sufficient standing to have her findings recorded here - but they should be credited to her, not rendered as objective fact unless the balance of historical sources support her opinion. Pincrete (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Final paragraph of lead

As it stands now:

Colston's name is commemorated in several Bristol landmarks, streets, schools and the "Colston bun". Since the late twentieth century he has been a controversial figure in Bristol's history because of his involvement in the slave trade.

The bun is trivial; the statue - unnamed in the lead - is not. Its toppling a month ago got widespread media attention, and focussed the national discussion on the repercussions of the slave trade. Surely it should be included in the lead. In addition, Colston is not just controversial in Bristol's history, but Britain's. I propose replacing the above paragraph with:

Colston's name was widely commemorated in Bristol landmarks, and a statue of him was erected in 1895. With growing awareness in the late 20th century of his involvement in Britain's slave trade, there were protests and petitions for name changes, culminating in June 2020, when the statue was toppled and dumped in Bristol Harbour.

I'd rather hash this out here, and not edit-war on the live page. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I can live with either, not sure he was really all that well know outside Bristol.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I doubt if hardly anyone outside Bristol had heard of Colston until a few weeks ago and the bun has been part of local tradition for a long time - the statue was unknown until it ended up in the harbour and may well turn out be forgotten again soon! The toppling is a great deal more significant than the statue itself, which most Brits would not even now recognise if it landed on their front lawn!Pincrete (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

ps, Britain's slave trade would not be a good link, it is largely talking about 'slaving' long before Colston. Pincrete (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I agree that the late C20 & early C21 "dealing with the statue" (attempting to contextualise it, various proposed wording of plaques, its toppling, and then the what-next of placing it in a museum or similar) is far more significant than the statue itself (its artist, commissioner, funding, etc.). The wording I proposed does not assert that Colston was well known outside Bristol (although I think he was, for anyone interested in the history of the slave trade or the present of contentious memorials). The link I offer for the phrase "Britain's slave trade" is the section Slavery_in_Britain#Enslaved_Africans, which notes the resumption of the African trade in the mid C17, i.e. as Colston grew up. If you can find a more appropriate link, please amend it. I'll insert the paragraph above into the lead now. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on opening paragraph

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This conversation is effectively in a deadlock. On the one hand, Colston was considered a philanthropist for many years due to his donations to many local charities, which all would agree is a good & beneficial activity. On the other, he made a substantial amount of this wealth from the slave trade, which all would agree is a bad thing, & a business no philanthropist would be in. To follow Wikipedia policy strictly means a solution cannot be found, & further debate will accomplish nothing.

One wonders if invoking WP:IAR here, & emphasizing the irony of Colston's situation & its effect on his reputation in the lead might break this deadlock. ("Ignore all rules" is relevant here because this would be an instance of expressing an opinion that is not attributed to an expert.) But this is only a suggestion from an uninvolved observer all of you are free to disregard. -- llywrch (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

---

The opening paragraph currently reads:

Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English merchant, philanthropist, and Tory Member of Parliament who was involved in the Atlantic slave trade. In the 19th century he was promoted as a local benefactor in his native city of Bristol in part due to having donated money to charities which supported people aligned with his political and religious views.

Should this wording be amended so as to avoid describing him as a "philanthropist"? It is universally accepted that he had close links to the slave trade, but he has been described as a philanthropist in reliable sources, and was a financial benefactor to charities during his lifetime. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Badly formed RFC, which must be neurally worded.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

What would you like to change? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It should all be replaced with "Should we describe him as a philanthropist".Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. My version is clear, neutrally worded, and gives some background for new editors. But let's discuss the substance, rather than arguing over what the argument's about. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:rfc.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I did. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Then you should have been aware that commentary such as " but he has been described as a philanthropist in reliable sources, and was a financial benefactor to charities during his lifetime." should not be in the question as it is telling the user that to look at.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your interpretation, which I'm sure we'll all find useful. I'm also sure that editors will use their discretion as to how they interpret my words, or indeed whether they choose to ignore them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin here. I regard the RfC question as neutral because the three statements:

1. "he had close links to the slave trade",
2. "he has been described as a philanthropist in reliable sources" and
3. "he ... was a financial benefactor to charities"

are uncontroversial statements of fact, rather than opinions — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• It is up to the reader to judge Colston, not WP editors. We should be working on accurate and well-sourced description of both his public works and involvement in the slave trade so as inform their decision. These drive-by comments focused on a single word are a distraction and waste of time. The lede should be scrubbed of any content or tone implying conclusion or judgement. Right now i don't see 'philanthropist' as too problematic, but wording which better presents the dichotomy to the reader is certainly possible. What i've seen of the attempts to remove 'philanthropist' and suggested replacements are simple pov-pushing and attempts to force judgement on the reader. Could we agree here that the goal should be content compliant w/ MOS:LEDE and NPOV and edit warring over a single word needs to stop? When the unsourced and poorly sourced content is removed from the article and there is adequate content to summarize then we can have informed consensus on a complete lede section. Until then these pov-pushers demanding removal of a single word should be ignored and shown the door if they persist. fiveby(zero) 14:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that it should be "up to the reader to judge Colston, not WP editors" which is precisely why many including myself feel it should not be up to WP editors to declare 'Colston was a philanthropist'. WP should be NPOV; 'Colston was a philanthropist' is a POV. The use of the word is problematic precisely because it is a POV. It is easy to use a different word, or to rephrase to say 'viewed by many as a philanthropist though others have argued philanthropy is incompatible with slave trading'. We are not pov-pushers (personal attack?) we are quite the opposite, we are asking for a POV to be removed. 2A02:C7F:2C2B:4800:DF:5BD4:DA30:136A (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Lets RFC this shall we, we cannot have 15 different threads on the same topic.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude. These are the first three definitions of "philanthropist" I ran into:

• Wiktionary: "A person who loves humankind in general." or "A very generous person or institution."
• Google: "a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes"
• Cambridge Dictionaries: "a person who helps the poor, especially by giving them money"

As a term it's both a little vague and somewhat subjective, since there's no way to measure of generosity (the amount of money? the proportion of one's wealth? the hardship resulting from the loss of that wealth? or is it the psychological inclination itself?). Secondly, skimming the article Colston's donations seem to be split between almshouses (for the poor), boarding houses (not for the poor) and religious institutions (which may occasionally but I wouldn't say necessarily result in help for the poor) so if you consider the Cambridge definition, not all of his donations would necessarily count. I'd just call him a "benefactor", which is what the article currently does, as this is both more specific, perfectly descriptive, and neutral. And, of course, there's obviously the argument that calling a slave-trader by a term which can be defined as "A person who loves humankind in general." or "a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others" is self-evidently absurd. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 20:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Include The OED has: "A benefactor of humankind; one who behaves benevolently towards others; a practitioner of philanthropy. Now usually denoting a philanthropic or charitable person, but formerly having the more general sense ‘friend or lover of mankind’, and hence applied also to benevolent or friendly gods, animals, etc." Colston fits the "charitable" part of this definition. (Emphasis added.) People notable for having given sums of their (ill-gotten or well-gotten) gains for charitable purposes can be called "philanthropists" without it being a positive label. Indeed, if someone is so described, it normally means that they have a lot of money and give some of it away for purposes of burnishing their own reputation. There is a whole section on "philanthropy" in the Sackler family article, yet there are many who would rightly prefer the Sackler name not appear on their beneficiary institutions for the misery inflicted on millions of their "customers" by means of the Opioid epidemic in the United States (i.e. the Sacklers's corporate misanthropy). The practice of laundering one's reputation by euergetism is called philanthropy, and that need not be a positive label. Wikipedia's Philanthropy article has whole section on Henry Fordand the Ford Foundation's philanthropy , and his no less racist and objectionable character does not exclude Wikipedia from calling him a philanthropist. I stress also that plenty of slave owners and traders would meet the criteria for Wikipedia describing them as philanthropists. Benjamin Franklin, notorious slave-owner, has a whole section devoted to him on the page Philanthropy in the United States, where also the foundation of Harvard College is examined, an institution that notoriously not only owned slaves in distant colonies, as Colston did, but had live-in slaves to wait upon them hand and foot. Added to all this, the word φιλάνθρωπα is extremely old, and by the 1st century AD already lost a lot of its "human-love" meaning, and stood for things like "concessions, grants, privileges, immunities, benefaction, endowment, gratuity", or "letter expressing friendly feelings". The idea that "benefactor" is somehow more neutral is a red-herring; it means nothing more than "doing good", which, if taken over-literally as appears to be happening with "philanthropist", is no more or less egregious. Neither "philanthropist" nor "benefactor" is POV, both could be accurate. I would, however, prefer to see the word prefaced by "Bristol" to make "English merchant, Bristol philanthropist, and Tory member of parliament" which is also nice because it puts an adjective in front of each noun and removes any suggestion Colston's activities were of universal benefit. GPinkerton (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Include -- This RfC is only here because the filer can't bear the thought of a good word being attached to someone who by today's standards, did some bad in his life. It's not possible to change history, and if he carried out philanthropic acts, then he was a philanthropist. Cassianto^Talk 05:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I've read the opening gambit and am still confused as to what the alternative is meant to be. Is it simply an argument of including or not philanthropist. Games of the world (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to use a similar wording to that established at the statue article, by saying something like: "Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English merchant and Tory Member of Parliament, whose reputation as a philanthropist has come under increasing scrutiny because of his involvement in the Atlantic slave trade." The issue with the current wording here is whether he should be described, in WP's voice which should be seen as neutral, as a "philanthropist" - not to completely exclude the word. But, there are alternative ways around it, such as using the word "benefactor". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

What an absurd suggestion. There is no "reputation" of his philanthropy, likewise there is no reputation for him being a member of parliament. He was both. It was not a belief or an opinion that he was philanthropic; he was philanthropic, fact. Cassianto^Talk 17:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of editors seem comfortable with that wording at the Statue article, and don't think it "absurd". It was added in this edit, I believe. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The statue article is now no longer about the statue itself and is more about the criminal damage of it a week or so ago. So perhaps the editors there are not the ones who are the benchmark of balance. Cassianto^Talk 18:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The statue article never was "about the statue itself"... because it didn't exist before the toppling. Ideally, the two articles should be consistent with each other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you arguing that an article about a historical figure with sources from academia take it's lead from a current events article with content based on news articles, opinion pieces, blogs and tweets? fiveby(zero) 19:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not what I suggested. And please check your use of apostrophes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, if someone wants to use an apostrophe, whether it be accidental or otherwise, that is their choice. There's no reason for you to be so pointy about it, other than to mock. Cassianto^Talk 19:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto - You want me to become less "pointy"...??!! LMAO Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, have you seen me mock someone's punctuation use in order to belittle them into silence? No. That's the behaviour of an utter moron. Stop it. Cassianto^Talk 20:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, so why call it "Statue of Edward Colston" then? Why not call it "Criminal Damage to Edward Colston's statue", which is how the current article reads? And why shouldn't it have its own article? It's a listed structure by a reputable sculptor. It warrants a name change, in my opinion. Cassianto^Talk 20:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that I'm an "utter moron", but I'll let it pass as quite amusing. I've had very little to do with editing that article, so you might want to point your pointiness elsewhere. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Include per WP:NPOV as he was, quite literally, a philanthropist. And as that was probably the single most important reason for his notability and fame, it needs to be stated unequivocally in the lead - per MOS:LEAD: the lead "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable,..." The assertion that he was a philanthropist is fully supported by reliable sources (with my emphasis added)... The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for example; its introduction to him starts: "Colston, Edward (1636–1721), merchant and philanthropist, was born on 2 November 1636 in Temple Street, Bristol, ..."[9] Historic England, in their reasons for classing the Bristol statue of him as a Grade II-listed monument, say: "The statue is of particular historical interest, the subject being Edward Colston, Bristol's most famous philanthropist, now also noted for his involvement in the slave trade."[10] Couching this fact in vague language such as "believed to be", "regarded as" and "was considered" fails NPOV and should be avoided imho. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Include, as he (historically) is a philanthropist. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Include To remove is somewhat history washing and loose description of the persons character regardless of how one makes money, philanthropy is how one uses his wealth and money. Govvy (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Include - despite the Greek origin, "philanthropist" means someone who gives large sums to charity - regardless of the source of the wealth. Plenty of philanthropists have gained the funds they donate immorally. I do think the lead should place his philanthropy in context somehow though. The Land (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude philanthropist in wiki-voice, as it's contentious: the money he gave away came in large part from slavery so it's a highly contentious word. However, we can cover it nicely in the second sentence which is about his donation to various things in Bristol. That seems to saisfy the need to accurately reflect the fact that his philos for the anthrōpos was contingent on the colour of their skin. Guy (help!) 18:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: See my comment above for explanation of why this purported etymology is a red-herring and that the word has been used in morally neutral way for at least 2,000 years. GPinkerton (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, oeswn't matter, it's offensive in context. Guy (help!) 23:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I disagree, obviously. What would you say about the other contexts I mentioned where Wikipedia calls people philanthropists? Why offensive in this context and not in the context of Henry Ford, whose awfulness directly affected people still living today, or the founders of Harvard College, where slaves were kept on-campus? GPinkerton (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Include as he's still referred to as such in modern scholarship, which finds itself able to discuss a contentious topic neutrally and at a distance while describing the view of his contemporaries yet not ascribing to them. ——Serial ^# 11:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude as a blanket term. Although others claim that it means "someone who gives lots of money to charity", that is an optional secondary characteristic which neither adds to nor detracts from the core meaning of "philanthropist". You can be a philanthropist without having any money to give (no one would argue that Mother Teresa wasn't a philanthropist), and likewise you can give lots of money to charity without being a philanthropist, because it largely depends on your motivation. Deb (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Deb: Haven't you watched Christopher Hitchens' Mother Teresa, Hell's Angel or his The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice where it is cogently argued that notorious nun took far more money than she gave. Worth a look ... GPinkerton (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Certainly haven't. As he was notoriously anti-religion, I kind of doubt it was very impartial. Deb (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Anti-religion? Well that's false statement because he was Christian. Govvy (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC) No, Govvy - his brother was a Christian - that's why they didn't get on! Deb (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC) I really don't know where you get your information from, so the guy who was baptised in Bristol, Temple Church is not Christian! You really are not making sense to me, Govvy (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC) LOL. I think we can assume that Colston considered himself to be Christian. But as regards the Hitchens brothers.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC) OK lets make it simple. Do RS say he was not a christian? If not then this is irrelevant as it is wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC) I thought my previous comment might have resolved this. Govvy is talking about Colston. Deb is talking about the Hitchens brothers. Crossed wires. Nothing to see here - move on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC) jeez, did I cross the wires, I assumed as this was the talk page for Colston, the conversation was about Colston! :/ Govvy (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC) You must have missed G Pinkerton's question above. Deb (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Mother Teresa was notoriously pro-religion (and rabidly anti-choice and anti-much else) so she was hardly impartial either. Anyway the documentary is an interesting watch, and the point remains that Mother Teresa is not some acknowledged saintly being but nonetheless philanthropy is still considered one of her lines of employment. Colston and Mother Teresa are both morally questionable philanthropists and neither deserves the term any less than the other. GPinkerton (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC) @GPinkerton: I doubt that many people would agree with you on that point, but in any case the article about her doesn't refer to her as a philanthropist, which seems to suggest that there's no reason Colston's should either. Deb (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC) @Deb: Mother Theresa's political reaction is well-documented: even we have an article on it. ——Serial # 10:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC) That makes no difference to my statement. Deb (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Depends on whether you were doubting Mother Theresa was a reactionary or whether she was a philanthropist...anyway! :)

• Include extensively referred to as such in RS. Removal is just recentismBlackumbra (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)— Blackumbra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I’m not a single purpose account, and it’s a pretty shocking conflict of interest for a user who voted the opposite way to me immediately before tagging me in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackumbra (talk • contribs) 17:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I would remind users this article is not about any Hitchens, Mother Teresa or Bert Terrible, its about Edward Colston.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Just wanna say. I commend all involved in this Rfc. Though some of yas might get frustrated at times with each other, at least yas aren't threatening each other with ANI or Arb reports. No edit warring & talking it out (no matter how heated it might get) is the best way to go. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Include widely used in sources and - in case it is not obvious - the term does not mean "all round good person", it simply means someone who has given to charity/public projects - often of course precisely in order to enhance their local public standing. How he acquired all that dosh has no bearing on whether he was a philanthropist, though it might of course affect his overall modern reputation. Pincrete (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Here wp:ani is where you take users. Please do not discus user conduct here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Include His support of the slave trade is entirely different from his philanthropic works. Just like how a supporter of abolition does not make one a philanthropist or, as one previously said, how a philanthropist does not necessarily make him a good person. A philanthropist could only be supporting charities that are beneficial to his businesses. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

If Colston is to be described as a 'philanthropist' in the opening paragraph, then he should also be described as a 'slave trader'. It is wrong to call him a 'philanthropist' while using weasel wording such as 'was engaged in the slave trade'. Say 'philanthropist' and 'slave trader', or 'was involved in the Atlantic slave trade' and 'later engaged in restricted philanthropy.' Michael F 1967 (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Michael F 1967, the current wording is fine. Unless I'm mistaken, there are no sources that say he was a man who attended slave markets to sell and buy slaves; neither was he someone who undertook auctioneer duties. So "was engaged in the slave trade" seems fine until it is confirmed otherwise. Cassianto^Talk 06:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Your reasoning is incorrect. He was a merchant who traded in slaves. "Engaged in the slave trade" can mean "was a slave" or had any other link to the slave trade. His role was as merchant who traded in slaves. You do not have to actually visit slave markets to fulfil the role of slave trader. Colston's money bought slaves, and he gained profit from his agents selling them, thus: he was a slave trader. This is an an established and uncontroversial fact. For the sake of a neutral point of view and accuracy, the phrasing "slave trader" is the only appropriate language.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Engaged in the slave trade" can never ever mean you were a slave. "Engaged in" does not mean "part of as a commodity".Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm - really? I think if you wanted to be picky, it could. But that's not really important. Colston was a shipping merchant: he traded things carried by ships. The most profitable trade at the time was the slave trade. Colston traded in slaves: he was a slave trader long before he ever did any philanthropy. Saying he was "a philanthropist" and then "engaged in the slave trade" is not using neutral language. The paragraph should either say he was a slave trader and philanthropist, or that he engaged in the slave trade and engaged in philanthropy. This is necessary to maintain a WP:Neutral point of view. Michael F 1967 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait until we have consensus before deciding what we should say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

And your last edit did not even obey the style you laid out here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite right. I have now followed my own advice and used genuinely neutral language. My previous formulation was wrong. I am correctly applying the requirement for WP:NPOV and my edit should not be reverted to the non-neutral formulation. If someone objects, pick a better but equally neutral form of language.

"Philanthropist" is already agreed to be a disputed term - achieving consensus on that one seems to be out of the question. "Slave trader" is not in question as a correct term, which is why I used it.

I really don't see how there can be any controversy over calling a slave trader a slave trader - how is it possible to object to the term?

Please explain. Michael F 1967 (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Well first off was he primarily a slaver trader or a philanthropist, what is he most know for, did he only trade in slaves? Now you have been undone multiple times, one reason is the RFC is still open, and so discussion is still on going. If you want to SUGGEST and edit here do so, and lets see if it gets any traction.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if it's technically correct to say he used his money directly for slave trade when the buffer appears to be that for the entity of the Royal African Company. :/ Govvy (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The research I've read indicates that he made the bulk of his money from slave trading over the course of around 28 years, and engaged in philanthropy late in life. He was a prominent member of the biggest slave trading company in Britain - actually its boss for a while. And slave trading was the biggest money-maker at the time for these people: hugely more profitable than shipping fruit and veg, for example.

So "slave trader" seems like the ideal label for him. If we can't call him a slave trader simply because he ALSO traded in other goods, then that means no-one should be called a slave trader, because after all everyone who traded in slaves also traded in things other than slaves. That's obviously absurd.

The problem with Colston is that he was promoted as a ideal capitalist by pro-Colston groups in the 19th century, which promoted his philanthropy and said nothing about his slave trading: they intentionally re-wrote history for their own purposes.

Be that as it may: I can't see that there's anything to object to in the formulation below, bearing in mind that in his day, he was in fact a prominent member of a company that had the British monopoly on trading slaves from Africa, which was the most profitable sea trade of the era. Colston continued to trade in slaves after he left the Royal African Company. Given the profitability of slave trading (I do have a source if anyone's interested), slave trading was where most of these people made most of their money.

So, please someone tell me: what is wrong with this:

Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English merchant, and Tory Member of Parliament who engaged in the Atlantic slave trade and gained fame for his philanthropy in later life.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you having a laugh? Plenty of sources clearly say he made a lot of money with other commodities, such as Textiles, gold, silver, gems and sugar, there are also notes that he in fact traded rather large quantities of sugar cane on shipments coming back in to England. Govvy (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

All sources agree that everyone who traded in slaves also traded in other things, so by your argument, there never was such a thing as a slave trader - you have failed to raise a valid objection. Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

What argument? Did you read what I wrote correctly? I never provided an argument, you seem very rash and aggressive in your editing, you seem to be pushing Slatersteven up the wrong way! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Rash and aggressive? What? Be bold is the rule, and that rule I have followed. Calling me rash and aggressive is a quite uncalled for personal remark. And yes, I do seem to have attracted the ire of User:Slatersteven for reasons that I do not understand and cannot get an explanation for.

As for your argument: as well as I could understand your meaning, you suggested that because Colston traded in things other than slaves, the fact that he also traded in slaves didn't make him a slave trader. If that was not your argument, please explain my mistake. You began your remark with the uncalled for personal comment Are you having a laugh? which I found a little off. Michael F 1967 (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

A DR has been launched so I suggest we let that run its course.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel it would be helpful for Govvy to respond so that I might better understand his thinking in this particular instance, which has nothing whatever to do with the DR I raised.

• Include "Philanthropist". 1. The reliable sources (the things by which we should write articles, rather than a personal POV, even if that POV is entirely understandable) list "philanthropist" as one of his roles in life; 2. There are countless examples of philanthropists who earned their money in dirty ways (Victorian mill owners were happy to starve and degrade their employees in a near-servile state; slave owners who got rich on the crops of cotton and tobacco; those who bought and sold slaves: all these are - to our modern eyes - repellent ways to make money, but the fact is that many of them also gave some of their profits away, and they are still called philanthropists. The source of their money does not detract from the fact they gave their money to charity. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Include the Cambridge Dictionary defines a philanthropist as a person who helps the poor, especially by giving them money [11]. Colston donated large parts of his wealth as seen under Edward Colston#Philanthropic works. Moreover, Colston has been widely described as a philanthropist in reliable sources:[12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Even an in-depth book about Colston is called Edward Colston, the Philanthropist, His Life and Times: Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude. It's a well-sourced and verifiable thing to say, but there's nothing in WP:RS or WP:V, or anywhere else in policy, that obliges us to include everything well-sourced or verifiable. There's also the matter of good editorial judgment. Edward Colston did make many charitable donations for the white people of Bristol and elsewhere, but we can say so without using the word "philanthropist", and it's needlessly hamfisted and tone-deaf to use words like "philanthropist" to describe a man whose wealth came from the slave trade. We shouldn't call ourselves "editors" if we can't use language better than that.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Include: Many reliable sources for it. What was evil in him does not blot out what was good in him. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude. No need to use a word that can easily be misunderstood by readers, when clearer language is readily available. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC).
• Exclude: No justification to use present-day voice when describing a historic opinion which has now fallen by the wayside. If 'philanthropist' absolutely must be in the lead then it should be included in context, i.e. "Formerly considered a philanthropist". Bonusballs (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Bonusballs, how can someone be "formerly considered a philanthropist"? Either they were or they weren't. First of all, who "formally considered" him a philanthropist? Will you be doing a roll call of everyone who "considered him to be a philanthropist? You don't just stop being something, 400 years later, just because of today's woke society. I hate using this analogy but Rolf Harris is not described as being someone who was "formally considered to be a TV personality. He was a TV personality. No "formally considered" about it. Cassianto^Talk 17:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Cassianto - firstly, the word is "formerly", not "formally". Formerly means 'once' or 'previously', 'in a time before today', etc. Secondly, I'm not sure that ranting about "woke" society is helpful to this debate. To use another example, Jimmy Savile did a lot of work for charity and was once considered a philanthropist too. Today that word is almost never used in relation to him, because his other activities have outweighed that - because times change and so does the general opinion of society when we know more, and know better. Bonusballs (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Bonusballs, have you heard of "predictive text"? Perhaps not. Perhaps you've cancelled that, too. Anyway, if I could take your condescending mind away from semantics for just one moment, Jimmy Savile did a lot for charity, irrespective of his filthy behaviour. For that he will also be known. You cannot delete history, however much you may want to. Cassianto^Talk 19:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Cassianto using accurate modern language to describe someone is not "deleting history". As stated, almost no-one refers to Savile as a 'philanthropist' these days because the word is an honorific which conveys praise or respect which current civilised society feels is no longer due to him. The same applies to Colston. It's quite appropriate to recognise his past philanthropic activities, and to recognise his former reputation as a philanthropist, if that history matters so much to you. It is rather less appropriate to baldly name the man as a "philanthropist" by present day standards. That's all that is being discussed here. Nothing being cancelled or deleted. You seem very angry about this, to the extent that it almost seems like you're deliberately trying to be confrontational or start a fight with me. I'm afraid I must decline. I hope that you find some peace. Bonusballs (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  Bonusballs, bad does not outweigh good. Why must you be so negative? That is the cancel culture, right there and it is not a pretty culture to belong to. Can you direct me to somewhere where it categorically states that bad outweighs good? I was just a boy when Savile was in his prime, but I cannot help but remember him for the good he did with charities - he was even knighted for it - whilst of course also bearing in mind the bad. But I wouldn't deny the good he did. I am able to do that because I like to see good in people. Sadly, for people like you, it's an uncomfortable truth that some who were bad also did some good. Colston could've invented a cure for cancer and achieved world peace and still he'd have been castigated for doing something that was, back then, perfectly normal. Bristol owes its status today to the the slave trade, no doubt about that; but let's not forget, it was Colston who chose to redirect the money he earned from the slave trade to Bristol. Do you want to cancel Bristol, too? Cassianto^Talk 11:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Bonusballs: Cassianto sums it up well. We don't denigrate Caesar's achievements as a leader of his people just because most of his funds came from Gallic booty - and surely, the Gallic wars were far more horrific than anything Colston did... HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Time to close

I think we have all had our say and this is getting a bit off track. Do we think we can now judge consensus?Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Ye, seems a closed case, you could post in WP:AN asking for one of the admins to close maybe. Govvy (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. I propose that the previous consensus text should be reconsidered. It's better than my attempt, and far better than the current text.

Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English merchant, philanthropist, and Tory Member of Parliament who was involved in the Atlantic slave trade. In the 19th century he was promoted as a local benefactor in his native city of Bristol in part due to having donated money to charities which supported people aligned with his political and religious views.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The RFC was only about should we call him a philanthropist, not any other issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I see. So what about the other problems with the first paragraph? You have told me to discuss the matter to achieve consensus. I am trying to do that. What now? I seek to make progress and improve this article. Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

A separate issue for another thread or RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you've perhaps forgotten the original question, which was:

The opening paragraph currently reads:

Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English merchant, philanthropist, and Tory Member of Parliament who was involved in the Atlantic slave trade. In the 19th century he was promoted as a local benefactor in his native city of Bristol in part due to having donated money to charities which supported people aligned with his political and religious views.

The question posed for this RFC was: 'Should this wording be amended so as to avoid describing him as a "philanthropist"? It is universally accepted that he had close links to the slave trade, but he has been described as a philanthropist in reliable sources, and was a financial benefactor to charities during his lifetime.'

It seems to me that until consensus is achieved, the opening paragraph must be reverted to the form given at the start of this thread. Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep, until the RFC is closed the first paragraph should not have been altered.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so I'll do that in line with this talk page discussion: simply reverting the language back to what we seem to agree it should be until consensus on philanthropy is reached. Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not say YOU should.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You said the paragraph should not have been altered. That is in line with policy and my own opinion. So I did made the necessary reversion to the previously agreed text - it does not matter who does it, so long as it is done.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It does if it pushed then over 4RR.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Your reasoning is unsound, since what I did was not repeatedly reverting something. What I did was discussed the matter on the talk page, found agreement, and made an agreed edit in line with the discussion to a form of text that had consensus agreement. The immediate response was to revert the change despite the discussion and agreement here - I do not understand why.

Since you seem to think that if I make the edit, it is bad and wrong, please make the agreed edit yourself to restore the text to what you agree it should be. I ask you to do this to avoid me having to engage in any formal dispute resolution processes.

You know the edit needs doing: please do it. Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this a suitable way to go?

Back to the main question. This discussion was meant to resolve the issue of:

The opening paragraph currently reads:

Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English merchant, philanthropist, and Tory Member of Parliament who was involved in the Atlantic slave trade. In the 19th century he was promoted as a local benefactor in his native city of Bristol in part due to having donated money to charities which supported people aligned with his political and religious views.

The opening paragraph has been changed since then. A question arose as to whether he should be called a philanthropist. There is a parallel issue of whether he should be called a slave trader rather than merely mentioning [he] was involved in the Atlantic slave trade.

I propose that 'philanthropist' should be used if suitable reliable modern sources can be found to justify the term. Likewise, "slave trader' should be used if suitable reliable modern sources can be found to justify the term.

I suggest modern sources are required since we are writing for a modern audience - and in the case of Edward Colston, all modern reliable sources agree that his reputation was historically intentionally distorted by those intent on promoting his philanthropy while hiding the true source of his wealth.

The following links all call him a slave trader, implying that according to the Guardian, the BBC, the Bristol Post, and The Independent, "Slave trader" is currently an appropriate term with which to describe him. None of them call him "a philanthropist".

The Guardian and the BBC both have a reputation for making an effort to write news stories with a neutral point of view.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/17/bristol-should-make-peace-with-slavery-past-says-colston-descendent

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/gallery/removal-edward-colston-statue-bristol-4215124

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-53240033

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/edward-colston-statue-bristol-slave-trader-black-lives-matter-protest-a9553946.html

Comments?

Michael F 1967 (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Also:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/edward-colston-statue-out-bristol-harbor-scouts-robert-baden-powell-removal-planned/ calls him a slave trader only.

https://www.artuk.org/discover/stories/pushed-off-the-pedestal-who-was-the-slave-trader-edward-colston# calls him a slave trader, and mentions 'Until [the 1990s], historians had largely portrayed Colston favourably, as a successful tradesman who had become a generous philanthropist later in life.'

https://time.com/5850135/edward-colston-statue-slave-trader-protests/ calls him a slave trader, and refers to 'various societies that were set up in Colston’s name after his death, helping preserve his reputation as a philanthropist, rather than a slave trader.'

https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw143985/Edward-Colston refers to him as 'Slave-trader, merchant and philanthropist'

From these references, it seems that to match modern sources, the lede must describe Colston as a slave trader if it also refers to him as a philanthropist.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No, facts do not change with time, so reliable sources of any age remain valid. If what you mean is that the interpretation of facts change with time, or the meanings of words change with time, then perhaps that should be covered in the article with appropriate context. The last thing we should do though is try to write our own (i.e. WP:OR) version of history. And sure we can cherry pick recent news sources based on the terminology used in them, but for every one that you find that doesn't call him a philanthropist, you could probably find one from the same news site that does. As for whether he was a slave trader, all we can do is go with the consensus of reliable sources of all ages. If there is no clear consensus or it clearly changes with time, then that probably needs fully covering too. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion above is exactly that we should not write our own version of history, but describe history as it is currently described.

Interpretation of facts change with time, and new interpretations cast new light on old sources, changing the view of reliability. New facts also come to light, facts which were once ignored become considered, and so on. History is not a fixed list of facts: it is an ever-changing interpretation of what historians are currently considering. Historians since the 1990s have been considering a wider set of facts about Edward Colston, which certainly shows that older sources on the subject of Edward Colston are much less reliable than newer sources.

Or, to put it another way, your objection above is without foundation - the reliability of sources is not fixed over the passage of time as you falsely claim.

I can find what have been considered reliable sources from the past which explain just how necessary slavery and the slave trade is to national prosperity: should such a source be used in this article as a reliable source, just because that's how it was seen when it was written?

To my mind, it is cherry picking facts to describe Colston as a philanthropist but not a slave trader in the lede, as is currently the case; I have provided reliable sources to back up this point of view.

If we are to avoid writing a cherry-picked view of history to suit the views of particular editors, then such reliable sources must be followed as I suggest. If anyone thinks Colston should not be called a slave trader in the lede, then they must cite reliable sources to back up the idea.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't confuse "facts" with "interpretations of facts". Facts don't change with time. If he was a philanthropist during his lifetime, then that is set in stone. Older reliable sources that record those facts are just as reliable now as they were when they were published. How people choose to celebrate him and interpret his philanthropy though have changed with time. And that change is largely due to the changing attitudes towards just one of the sources of his income, the slave trade. That trade was part of 'the establishment' in Colston's day, and seen as a mainstay of the Bristol economy. The livelihoods of countless Bristoleans relied on it. And even though it is uncomfortable to acknowledge it now, it was a legal, and an almost universally condoned activity at the time - that is clear from the roll-call of establishment figures and personalities who invested in it and supported it. We cannot, and many would say should not, try to erase that chapter from history. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You accept that the way in which words are interpreted changes over time. In the C19, "philanthropy" simply meant doing good deeds such as setting up a charity - without any consideration as to where the person's wealth came from. To many readers now, that is extremely jarring, as it is now widely known that his wealth was built, in large part, on human trafficking. The fact that he was described in the past as a philanthropist does not mean that he necessarily needs to be described as a philanthropist in 2020 - we could, and should, use other words that would be more clearly interpreted by readers. We present information that can be readily understood now, not as it would have been understood in the C19. "If he was a philanthropist during his lifetime, then that is set in stone" - not so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the meaning of the word "philanthropist" has not changed. But because one of the sources of his income is now abhorred, the way some people choose to celebrate him and interpret his philanthropy now has changed. We should not warp history by rewriting historical interpretations using modern-day standards. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we should. What I suggested is that we should take into account what readers now interpret words to mean, rather than what readers 50 or 200 years ago would have understood. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

But the meaning of the word hasn't changed. A person would be called exactly the same thing today if they gave vast amounts of their entirely legal income to good causes, as Colston did. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Why are we obsessing over one negative aspect of this person's life? His links to slavery are terrible, but this shouldn't be the sole focus of this article. The man founded (and funded) Bristol, let's not forget that. Cassianto^Talk 19:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

He "founded Bristol"...  ??!! You must admit, that is a somewhat excessive claim. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• • I can find sources that do not say the sea is wet...that does not means its not. Now as far as I can see there is no consensus to remove the word. And not not dropping the stick is wp:tenditious.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

"Tenditious" is not a word. Words matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I am just ignoring the stupidly around here now, WP:OR is rife and some of you guys are nattering on and have lost the plot. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Click on the link.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

OK as "words have meaning" what does "philanthropist" mean, according to RS?Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Why are we having the exact same stupid discussion about the meaning of philantropist as just under three weeks ago? This was discussed at WP:NPOVN (the section is still there, if you're interested). Regarding RS; see this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This is why I said its getting wp:tenditious (note the link works, even if the word is not correctly spelt). This RFC gas clearly run its course, and it need to be closed and the matter dropped.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

" he was promoted as a local benefactor ...... in part due to having donated money to charities which supported people aligned with his political and religious views". Now the second part may well be true, since most 'givers' tend to give to causes that they support - surprise surprise, lefties don't give to right-wing causes on the whole! However, not a single source above AFAI can see makes this "aligned with" point and yet Michael F 1967 wants it in the opening para. Colston's giving was to causes thought worthy in his own time, much of his money was acquired substantially in ways we now find repellent (as - to a greater or lesser extent - were the fortunes of everyone trading with the Americas/Caribbean at that time). But we have no business rewriting the sources to discredit him at every opportunity, which that text is a patent attempt to do IMO.Pincrete (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Virtually all philanthropy has some questionable origins. I'd dare anyone to find philanthropy of large sums of wealth which weren't at least to some extent made through exploiting some people along the way. Maybe the approach to the word is arse-backwards and instead it's fine to call him a philanthropist if we don't assume the word necessitates a particularly good person but includes an intention to influence or otherwise launder ones reputation. EnglishWoodsman (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, time to close. He was certainly a philanthropist, and like most, favoured some kinds of philanthropy more than others. Entirely different from his slave-trading aspect. The discussion should be closed by now; there is a consensus for it, and that tag hanging over there is probably implying to many that he isn't really a philanthropist. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Shall I do the honours? HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Should this not be done by an uninvolved editor via WP:ANRFC? Your personal view is apparent from your earlier comment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: Fine then, we'll go by that route. I was just suggesting, since a consensus has been established. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached

I disagree that consensus has been reached. Claims above about certain facts not being represented in cited sources are untrue.

Also, while facts do not change, information about facts does change. I suggest that rather than use obviously biased editorial judgement seeming based on original research and personal prejudice (both of which seem in evidence above), we could follow reliable sources.

Biased? Well, I did read this:

Now the second part may well be true, since most 'givers' tend to give to causes that they support - surprise surprise, lefties don't give to right-wing causes on the whole! However, not a single source above AFAI can see makes this "aligned with" point and yet Michael F 1967 wants it in the opening para

The point about 'Lefties' not giving to right wing causes (Lefties being a derogatory term indicating a political bias in action) is irrelevant and also unsourced original research. I contend that people when giving to charitable causes such as the relief of the poor tend to assume that the money will be used even-handedly rather than excluding people on the basis of their political ideology or religion. That is the modern assumption: it's sensible to mention Colston's restriction on his charity in the lede because it's so unusual.

A reliable source tells us that Colston's restrictions on his charity were considered contentious in his own time. His restrictions weren't normal then, aren't normal now, and have been contentious the whole time. Therefore, it makes good sense to mention the matter in the lede.

It’s worth remembering that Colston had been a divisive figure in his own day, as he imposed his autocratic Tory and High Church views on all those who hoped to benefit from his charitable bequests.

There are at least two references from an undeniably authoritative source on this subject that I've cited which make the 'aligned with' point - claiming otherwise is incorrect.

Facts are facts, but reports are not facts: they are information about facts.

Now then, information about facts changes. Modern information about the facts relating to Edward Colston tells us that older information about Edward Colston is not reliable information.

This discussion is about what to put in the first paragraph. I say that an appropriate one sentence summary of Edward Colston should follow modern descriptions, since modern information about the facts is known to be more reliable.

If any editor wants to suggest a particular wording, please use a modern source rather than your own personal ideas about what's appropriate. I've suggested some modern sources. Are there any more?

Michael F 1967 (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

A proposal based on all the above. The original issue related to the previously agreed opening paragraph, which read:

Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English merchant, philanthropist, and Tory Member of Parliament who was involved in the Atlantic slave trade. In the 19th century he was promoted as a local benefactor in his native city of Bristol in part due to having donated money to charities which supported people aligned with his political and religious views.

Based on the above discussion and modern information which universally describes him as a slave trader (reliable sources point out he was involved in developing the slave trade beyond the Atlantic), I propose:

Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English merchant, slaver trader, philanthropist, and Tory Member of Parliament. In the 19th century he was promoted as a local benefactor in his native city of Bristol in part due to having donated money to charities which supported people aligned with his political and religious views.

Everything in that paragraph is backed up by references - including modern references which as I've shown above universally describe him as a slave trader, which means Wikipedia should also do so.

I suggest that any suggested modification should be backed up by reliable sources.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue was do we mention philanthropist. That is what the RFC should be closed on.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion elsewhere, it seems to me, opened up the range of what this should deal with and many editors have offered opinions on aspects of the lede other than just that one word. So how about we consider concrete proposals of what the text should read and see if a clear consensus can be reached that way.

What is your proposal?

Michael F 1967 (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That we discus anything other the inclusion of philanthropist in another thread, and close this as consensus has been achieved to include it.15:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I object to the inclusion of the word philanthropist given the other wording in the lede since I view it as biased to describe him as a philanthropist without also calling him a slave trader; also, I can find no reliable source which describes him as a philanthropist without also calling him a slave trader. I could accept:

Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English merchant and Tory Member of Parliament who was involved in the Atlantic slave trade and engaged in philanthropy late in life. In the 19th century he was promoted as a local benefactor in his native city of Bristol in part due to having donated money to charities which supported people aligned with his political and religious views.

What text for the lede do you propose?

Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes and the consensus is we include it. You cannot hold up a close just by going over the same ground 15 different ways.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong to claim consensus had been reached. I am part of this discussion. I left it alone for a while for personal reasons. Consensus has not been reached because I strongly object to the use of the word philanthropist for the reasons given above.

I am trying to resolve the issue by making concrete, practical proposals. You cannot just say that consensus has been reached when that clearly is not the case.

How about making a concrete proposal for the wording of the lede which might achieve consensus, as I have been doing?

Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, and nor is a lack of unanimity a reason not to close. I think you need to WP:JUSTDROPIT now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the above discussion which supposedly achieved consensus is that it involved an awful lot of claims that are just plain wrong and did not appear to consider the context in which the word 'philanthropist' would be used.

I have legitimate objections which I have not aired in this discussion for a while - I thought it best to just step back for a while, which is suggested as a sensbible thing to do from time to time.

I still do not accept that calling him a philanthropist is acceptable given the other wording in the lede, and I think the discussion to date has been fundamentally flawed by failing to consider the context in which the word 'philanthropist' is to be used.

So, like I said, what is your concrete proposal for the text of the lede? I'm not just sitting here trying to stop progress: I'm making practical proposals.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Close does not mean "did not get my way", a closer takes into account the strength, the quality not the quantity of the arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(Taking a break until tomorrow) Michael F 1967 (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is good as it is, but Slatersteven is right. That's not the point of this discussion; the point of this discussion is his description as a philanthropist, which has overwhelming consensus. For the rest, a separate discussion can be opened. While the man played an appalling part in the slave trade, there was another side to him - he was a philanthropist, as described in many reliable sources. (Even the Grauniad acknowledges this.) For any misuse of his philanthropy, EnglishWoodsman has already explained that the word need not imply goodness alone; anyway, heckling over the meaning of the word is pointless. As a neutral source of information, we should present all facets of him - not bend under recent circumstances to imply something negative in all his actions. As I said earlier, there is broad consensus for retaining the word, so we should WP:JUSTDROPIT and move any debates over the opening paragraph to a new section. Cheers, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I have now requested a close.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Include There are reliable sources labelling him as such. Removing it would be an affront to Wikipedia's neutrality. ~ HAL333 18:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

References

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

Perhaps the word “philanthropist” could be replaced by “donated to various charities.” I do not believe a person can be called a philanthropist if he deals harshly with a large proportion of humanity, while only supporting what is, in reality, a minor part thereof.

101.162.138.186 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The Welsh dragon has spoken, let the sleeping dogs lie. Govvy (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)