Talk:Elihu Yale

Untitled

Note that Alexandra Robbins' book is called Secrets of the Tomb, not Secrets of the Tombs.... It's singular because it is one building. Still, if you insist on tombs, it's not worth an edit war. -- Someone else 06:40 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

I see there's been a brief edit war over whether or not the Bones building is called the tomb or the tombs. I can't speak for what it used to be called, but at least when I was at Yale, not too long ago, it was quite certainly the tomb. Like Someone Else, I don't want to start an edit war either, but I will go ahead and change it now. Remes 01:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wives

Mention should be made of his wives and companions, and his children. Catherine Hynmer and their 4 children, Hieronima(sp?) de Paiva and their son David, and perhaps others who were rumoured... and also of his children. +sj + 08:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any decent text bio will suffice to improve on this; but see also a few online bits.

Slave Trader Disruptive Editing

The fact that Elihu Yale is a slave trader is sourced in the article and as well as in numerous additional source mentioned here. It is a notable aspect of the man and should not be removed. Additionally, text that people have argued he was an abolitionist have no supporting citations, save one article that describes Elihu Yale as a slave trader but references past versions of the Wikipedia article. This would be a particularly obvious example of citogenesis; the claim that some consider him an abolitionist should not be in the article unless an actual source illustrating this can be found. Editors should not engage in disruptive editing without citing sources. Ummonk (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The source in the article says that "[a]lthough he probably did not own any of these people – the majority were held as the property of the East India Company – he certainly profited both directly and indirectly from their sale." That's not what the vast majority of people mean by "slave trader." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycbusiness86 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The source being used for this claim - and others - was written by Joseph Yannielli described on the source's own website as "“Digital History at Yale” was originally established by Joseph Yannielli in 2009, in his capacity as Instructional Innovation Intern for the Department of History." There is no reason to doubt the factual accuracy of Yannielli's claims - but an intern is hardly the ultimate authority on Yale. Only if the balance of sources use the term, should it be used - otherwise attributed and give due WEIGHT.

I agree that 'slave trader' is being used because it sounds bad rather than because it is the most accurate, widely used or informative term. "Arms dealer" sounds worse than "investor/manager of a company supplying equipment to government(s)", but they often amount to the same thing morally, except one sounds sleazy and morally culpable, the other doesn't. Elihu Yale, profited from the slave trade, the uncomfortable truth is that so did almost everyone, except the slaves themselves, including the people of Europe who got cheap sugar etc as a result, and the white people of America who established a profitable functioning economy, and democratic society, built substantially on the labour of people wholly excluded from the economic benefits or democratic institutions.

I think the role of Yale, and the source of his wealth deserve coverage, but present text is skewed towards giving undue emphasis to 'slavery' in the light of recent events - that isn't our job IMO regardless of modern sensibilities about the injustice of slavery. Pincrete (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Pincrete, I've seen that you've commented on Elihu Yale's talk page before about the "slave trader" term, and there is an open dispute about this term here on the talk page, and on the resolution board here at : Elihu Yale Dispute Resolution. Is it possible to have your opinion on the matter as there are not many participants in the discussion. Academia45 (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nycbusiness86, I've seen that you've commented on Elihu Yale's talk page before about the "slave trader" term, and there is an open dispute about this term here on the talk page. Will be great to have more participants in the discussions and at the open dispute about it here at Elihu Yale Dispute Resolution. Academia45 (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the idea that historic figures who didn't live by our modern values can easily end up with skewed -demonising- WP accounts, but in this instance I'm reluctant to get involved with a DRN process. Crudely though, AFAI can see, Yale isn't ordinarily called a slave-trader (it was one of many things he did rather than the main thing he was) and the coverage should be proportionate to that in best historical sources, rather than opinion and advocacy pieces.

On a purely personal level, I've always simply assumed that 'benefactors' have acquired the wealth that they dispense by ruthless acquisitiveness - Wolsey, Henry VIII, Yale, Carnegie, Rhodes, Getty and Gates etc etc etc were/are proof that fame, massive wealth and moral purity aren't necessarily obvious bed-fellows. Those who think they should be are somewhat naive IMO, they are buying into the moral simplicitude that they affect to reject. Shock, horror, the wealthiest people in any age aren't always the nicest! People acquire wealth and power according to the rules and values of their time - and everybody in the West benefitted from the slave trade to the Americas, (if only by cheaper sugar and cotton and stimulation of Western economies), so it's also naive to demonise those facilitating the trade. Recording the modern debate is apt though IMO. Pincrete (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Pincrete, thank you for your feedback! I was thinking of the same thing basically. Feel free to edit the overall page. I will keep working at preventing abuses on this page. Academia45 (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

spelling

Second sentence:

"he benefitted from the slave trade"

read:

benefited

Slave trader

A lead that doesn’t mention his heavy involvement in the slave trade, and summarises his career as an administrator and philanthropist, is presenting a very misleading picture, and is not reflective of current scholarship.[1] I see it’s been discussed above but, to be frank, the “whitewashing” view seems currently to hold sway. I shall gather some more sources and then attempt a more balanced lead. KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I've now included reference to the 2024 Yale Slavery study, and attempted a bit more balanced coverage of Yale's slaving involvement. To this end, I've also amended the short description. He should probably have a Slaving Categorisation, but I'm not sure which would be best. [[Category:British slave traders]]/[[Category:American slave traders]]? Recognise that this is a controversial area, and very happy to discuss, of course. KJP1 (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi. bbc.com/news is in no way a reliable source, even more when it says : Elihu Yale: The cruel and greedy Yale benefactor who traded in Indian slaves, and I can see that someone just added it to the article on https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elihu-Yale. as it shows : Last Updated: Mar 13, 2024.

The work done by the Yale Slavery Project aka this one [2] is in no way neutral. I read the paper about a week ago, and I was surprised by its lack of neutrality. Yale University paid the author to write this book and make its research and the foreword is done by the president of the university himself. It also states that it was "Published with assistance from the Office of the President, Yale University".

The reason we used Britannica Encycopledia is simply for its neutrality as the subject is emotionally charged. I think it is important to not mix Yale University and the man himself. Now I will removed for now the non neutral recently added text on the page, but I would suggest that we get administrators to help settle the dispute. Academia45 (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Setting aside whether administrators arbitrate content disputes, I don't think we yet need their input. We have a disagreement over content, and can discuss this, with other editors contributing/commenting, via an RfC if necessary. So, my view - your unwillingness to include mention of Yale's slave-trading activities in the lead, and give them appropriate weight in the article, gives a distorted view of Yale which fails to serve our readers and contravenes our policies/guidance. In particular;

• Lead - as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, this should be "an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents". The Yale article includes some discussion of his slave-trading activities under Tenure as President of Madras and has its own sub-section, Slave trade. It should therefore be mentioned in the lead, unless you are contending that Yale's slave-trading activities are unimportant.
• Tenure as President of Madras" - you removed my direct quote from David W. Blight, and replaced it with an uncited "Beyond this, the nature of Yale's involvement in the slave trade remains disputed". But Blight is very clear. Drawing on the East India Company records he identifies, "Yale’s key leadership role in the business of human trafficking". Can you point me to any historian from the 1980s on writing about the issue who disputes Yale's involvement in the slave trade? At present you use two sources. The Britannica is a three-paragraph article which has no discussion of slavery and Yale at all. As such, it has nothing to say on the issue. The Yale Daily News article is by Valerie Pavilonis, a staff writer and not an academic historian. Her article speaks of "Elihu Yale’s ties to slavery"; "Yale’s 'moral mistakes'", his membership of the slave-owning Society for the Propagation of the Gospel; and that "Yale was 'deeply involved' in the slave trade". All of these points are overlooked in the selective quotations you use which focus solely on points attributed to Steven Pincus, that Yale himself never owned slaves and was never directly involved in their sale. It would be good to see the context for Pincus's views. The difficulty with the Pavilonis aricle is that it's actually about America's culture wars, and it would be much better to be able to quote Pincus direct. Do you have such access? Was it perhaps here, [3]? So, in a nutshell, I suggest there is actually no dispute at all among academics that Yale was involved in the slave trade at a senior level and personally benefitted thereby. To claim that there is such a dispute will need you to provide sources - better than the ones you currently have.
• Slave trade - here, you have again diluted what I, quoting Blight, wrote, and cite another newspaper reporter - again not a historian - who claims "there is no evidence that Elihu Yale owned slaves". But you omit anything of the next paragraph in the article which says; "Yale oversaw slave trading when working for the East India Company". So again, you are suggesting there is something disputed about Yale's role when there is not. He was central to the slave-trading economy in India and made money from it.
• Reliable sourcing and Neutrality - I am frankly baffled by your assertions that the BBC and Yale University Press cannot be considered reliable/neutral sources. On the BBC you state "bbc.com/news is in no way a reliable source". But the Wikipedia Community says it is. What is the basis for your claim, beyond a dislike of what the article says? As to Yale's study, you say it "is in no way neutral". In support of this you point out that Yale funded the study and supported publication of the book. How on earth does this make YUP non-neutral? Is it biased for or against Yale the institution? Is it biased for or against Yale the man? Yale funds and publishes a huge array of books on an array of subjects as a reputable and professional academic publishing house. To suggest that one that it publishes on the history of Yale itself, authored by a respected Sterling Professor, should be discounted as you consider it non-neutral is frankly ludicrous, and is not supported by any Wikipedia policy/guidance of which I am aware. It is the most authoritative and up-to-date source we have that looks at the connections between Yale and slavery. Do you have any support at all, either from other reliable sources or from policy/guidance, for your claim that the BBC and YUP are biased?

To summarise - you suggest Yale (the man's) links to slavery are unimportant and are in dispute. I say neither of those statements is accurate and to suggest that they are misleads the reader. I'd appreciate a response to the concerns that I've raised. We can then see if we need an RfC. KJP1 (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I mean that when a source starts with "The cruel and greedy Yale benefactor" such as the one you showed me aka this one :https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-68444807 , I am surprised that you will name it neutral and reliable. About the lead, it is because your assertion is contested and does not reflect a neutral point of view, when we use other encyclopedias online to evaluate the neutrality of the lead, like I've said previously with this link : https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elihu-Yale.

As an analogy, Julius Caesar enslaved about 1 million people in his life, yet the man is not universally named a slave trader and his case, is not even mentionned on his Wikipedia page, despite having almost 300 references on it. Source here per example : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-13260-5_5#:~:text=Julius%20Caesar%2C%20one%20of%20Rome's,at%20the%20Battle%20of%20Alesia

Same for lets says the Conquistador such as Francisco Pizarro and Hernán Cortés, it is not included in their leads, and in the case of Pizarro, not even mentionned as part of his life on his wikipage or in a neutral place like Encyclopedia Britannica, heres the link : https://www.britannica.com/biography/Francisco-Pizarro. Same for Cortes on Encyclopedia Britannica : https://www.britannica.com/summary/Hernan-Cortes

From my point of view, the subject of slavery is already way too covered than it should on Elihu Yale's page, as it seems that the only reason that it is covered that much is about the link with Yale University the institution, rather than an unbiased biography about a colonial administrator as we can see on other pages. The man was a namesake, not a hero or model or a representative of an institution. And sadly, slavery was ubiquitous back then all over Britain and other parts of the world.

Your own reference about Blight, stated at page 44 : " Precisely whether or how many people Yale personally may have owned is not yet discernable" : https://yaleandslavery.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2024-02/Yale%20and%20Slavery%20A%20History%20Feb2024%20David%20Blight%20with%20the%20Yale%20and%20Slavery%20Research%20Project.pdf

and even the sentence is misleading, as the author doesn't separate the whether and the how many, to simply mix the two to again shape the content in a certain way.

About the : "Beyond this, the nature of Yale's involvement in the slave trade remains disputed", this was not added by me, it was already there as part of the other point of views asserted by other editors that were removed or changed as part of the last edits you did.

As I said I suggest we have neutral administrators who can help us settle the matter, as these type of conflicts happened all over before on the talk page as well, and the subject seems to be emotionally charged. Academia45 (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Every source we have on this page which discusses Yale and the slave trade says that he was heavily involved, in a senior role, and personally benefited. This should be properly reflected, in the lead and in the article. Your view that "the subject of slavery is already way too covered" is irrelevant. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that it's not interested in your view, or mine. The issue was what do the reliable sources say? What reliable sources do you have that says Yale wasn't heavily involved in the slave trade? KJP1 (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Please @KJP1 do not respond with an extreme amount of information as it make the conversation more difficult to follow. As I tried to say for the third time now, you seem to be heavily emotionally invested in the subject, and as I've said previously, the man was a colonial governor whose activities included slavery, but wasn't his job or role in the company. As I used the example with Julius Caesar who enslaved over 1 million people in his life, or the Conquistadors, they are not classified as slave traders by historians, even if they were much more involved in the slave trade that the man Elihu Yale in question here. You can find an unlimited amount of articles to promote a certain view on Caesar or other governors/emperors, but in the end, it is not not the view of the majority of historians, which is why on other neutral encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica, with the sources previously provided, they are not classified as such. Your arguments seems to be original research and pushing a point of view based on your emotions. An example of a slave trader is Philip Livingston (1686–1749) who owned the ships and the slave trading business, which is not the case at all in the case of the man in question here, who was a colonial governor for the British East India Company at a time when slavery was a global institution. The subject of his role in slavery is extensively covered in the article, beyond what is even reasonable as I told you about other similar pages of colonial governors, who were all involved with slavery. The only reason why it is added even more here is because the man's name happened to be related to a famous university. Much could be added about his role as governor in relation to his affairs with spices, diamonds, gold, jewels, wars, politics, etc, yet this is not what is added. As I am reaffirming, I'm suggesting having a third party of editors involved to help resolve the discussion. Academia45 (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You continue to draw irrelevant comparisons, and to make ad hominem attacks suggesting, without any evidence, that my points are emotional OR, but you have brought absolutely nothing in the way of sources to support your view. I shall therefore redraft the article over the coming days to better reflect the sources we have, including those I have supplied. KJP1 (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1 The word "slave" which is included in the word "enslaved" and others, is already in the text 21 times, without including those you tried to add even more a few days ago. The edits that you've made were without consensus from other editors on the talk page, and even more, you tried to remove references that didn't support your point of view such as this article with the quote from professor Steven Pincus stating : "Yale opposed the slave trade during his time as a prominent member of the East India Company and governor of Madras". Besides, many of the sources on this article seems to have a conflict of interest as they come from Yale University people such as David W. Blight, Joseph Yannielli, or the Yale University Press, etc. The lead section of the article here was based on Encyclopedia Britannica, one of the most trusted and reliable Encyclopedia in the world, not related to Yale University itself, unlike many of the sources here. It also never included the term slave trader as you tried to add it not only to the lead section but also in the short description. Now, once again, without building consensus, and stating that "I brought absolutely nothing", you want to redraft the article based on your own point of view, which is not the one of previous editors either on this same talk page, who asked for more neutrality and contested the term of slave trader in the past as well. I am forced to bring a third party to the discussion, which was the 4th time I was offering it to diffuse the situation. Academia45 (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It's disappointing that you've added misrepresentation to the other errors you are making. I did not remove the Pincus material, as can be seen in the version I last edited, here, [4]. KJP1 (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Bring in whoever you like. I shall redraft the article to accurately represent what the sources say. That’s what we’re supposed to do. KJP1 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

As talked yesterday about a third party, a dispute resolution has been started on the notice board, and I've sent you the link on your wall. I hope that we will be able to build a consensus about it. I think we both want the same thing, building a neutral encyclopedia, but for now I think we have biaises or other issues that prevent us from moving the discussion forward. I'll wait for their feedback. Have a good day. Academia45 (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Slavery references in existing sources

• Source 12, The Hindu - "Yale University's history, bound up with violence against both Indians and African-Americans, is forcefully symbolised in a portrait that hangs in a campus boardroom. This picture from the early 18th century shows Elihu Yale adorned in colonial splendour, with a black slave kneeling in the foreground, silver collar and long metal chain hanging from his neck."
• Source 18, Blight - "Yale oversaw many sales, adjudications, and accountings of enslaved people for the East India Company" / "he and his agents, over Yale’s signature, 'Order’d that ten Slaves be sent upon each of the Europe ships for St. Helena, to supply that Island." / "The matter of Elihu Yale’s ownership of enslaved people or his involvement in slave trading has long been a subject of speculation, but the East India Company kept records of Yale’s key leadership role in the business of human trafficking." / "Yale and other company officials took advantage of the labor surplus, buying hundreds of slaves and shipping them to the English colony on Saint Helena" / "Yale participated in a meeting that ordered a minimum of ten slaves sent on every outbound European ship. In just one month in 1687, Fort St. George exported at least 665 individuals. As governor . . . Yale enforced the ten-slaves-per-vessel rule" / "Precisely whether or how many people Yale personally may have owned is not yet discernable, nor perhaps even a key question." / "There can be no question that some portion of Yale’s considerable fortune, amassed while British governor-president in Madras, derived from his myriad entanglements with the purchase and sale of human beings" / "a record of arrogance, cruelty, sensuality, and greed"
• Source 20, Yannielli - "Elihu Yale was himself an active and successful slave trader" / "Yale and other company officials took advantage of the labor surplus, buying hundreds of slaves and shipping them to the English colony on Saint Helena. Yale participated in a meeting that ordered a minimum of ten slaves sent on every outbound European ship" / "As governor and president of the Madras settlement, Yale enforced the ten-slaves-per-vessel rule. On two separate occasions, he sentenced “black Criminalls” accused of burglary to suffer whipping, branding, and foreign enslavement" / "Although he probably did not own any of these people – the majority were held as the property of the East India Company – he certainly profited both directly and indirectly from their sale" / "Some sources (including Wikipedia) portray Elihu Yale as an heroic abolitionist, almost single-handedly ending the slave trade in Madras. This is incredibly misleading." / "Only one year later, in October 1689, Yale had no problem issuing orders for a company ship to travel to Madagascar, buy slaves, and transport them to the English colony on Sumatra." / "The evidence establishing Yale’s involvement in the slave trade is clear and compelling."
• Source 21, Pavilonis - "Elihu Yale was “relatively unexceptional in his own time” with respect to slave trade, Witt argued" / "According to Steven Pincus, a former Yale professor of history and current professor at the University of Chicago, Yale was never a slave trader and never owned slaves — in fact, Yale opposed the slave trade during his time as a prominent member of the East India Company and governor of Madras, Pincus argued." / "Pincus said, Yale’s retirement led him to join the Society of the Propagation of the Gospel, a London-based religious group that began to advocate very pro-slavery views exactly at the time of Yale’s joining" / "one commodity he did not collect was people; the authors write that he never owned slaves, and as governor ‘prohibited the trafficking of slaves in Madras." / "Elihu Yale was “deeply involved” in the slave trade" / "Elihu Yale and his family “‘made their fortune within the slave trade and [have] since been glorified,’” and that such a legacy should not be commemorated."
• Source 57, Vietor - "on the right Yale's blackamoor servant"
• Source 69, Pandey - "Rodney Horace Yale glosses over his ancestor's role in the slave trade - something that many other biographers of Elihu Yale and recent historians are also accused of doing." / "Elihu Yale's association with slave trading over a decade ago when he came across an image of the governor being waited upon by a collared slave" / "Yale's earlier biographers have underplayed his links to slavery could be because of a lack of access to historical material in the past. But since detailed minutes of East India Company's meetings are now available digitally, the more recent scholars who have chosen to overlook the evidence is "because either they didn't want to see it or may not have considered it important in the pre-Black Lives Matter era." / "Saying that he actually ended slavery is an attempt to burnish his image. If you look at the original documents, it was India's Mughal ruler who told the company to shut it. But Yale was back at it soon, ordering transport of slaves from Madagascar to Indonesia a year later. Resistance to slavery and imperialism started in the 15th Century and there were abolitionists. But Yale definitely wasn't one."

Slavery references in other sources

• [5], Jonathan Holloway - "We are fairly certain that Elihu Yale did not own any slaves himself, but there’s no doubting the fact that he participated in the slave trade, profiting from the sale of humans just as he profited from the sale of so many actual objects that were part of the East India trade empire."

• • Reply : Problem here to start with is WP:INDEPENDENT, it is the Yale Alumni Magazine talking about Elihu Yale and Yale University, being not INDEPENDENT from the subject, as stated in this wikipedia policy : "independent sources that fairly portray the subject without undue attention to the subject's own views", and there is a positive or negative conflict of interest, when writing "about your company or employer". It also clearly states in the guidelines that "sources by involved members, employees, and officers of organizations are not independent", as to "avoid writing on topics from a biased viewpoint". Now once more, what is contested is the extent of the man's involvement and its qualification as a slave trader and its place in a neutral lead or not. In your own sources, there is contradictions to this concept, as previously stated from a source like this : Julius Caesar "enslaved 1,000,000 Gauls" and "sold 53,000 members of the Atuatuci tribe to slave dealers". Yet an Emperor, just as a Colonial Governor is not a slave trader in the proper sense for historians, hence why you don't see slave trader next to Caesar's biographies and to an encyclopedia lead.

• • • Reply : Now about your own source here, which is not WP:INDEPENDENT, its says "Elihu Yale rose to power and accumulated wealth through his leadership in the East India Company", "built his career on trade that navigated the ports in the British empire", and "Elihu Yale’s wealth was linked to a global economy that was deeply, practically inextricably, interwoven with the sale of human beings to other human beings." and that "We are fairly certain that Elihu Yale did not own any slaves himself". Again this is not what a slave trader is but a colonial governor is.

• [6], Edward Town - "This lack of a paper trail means that researchers can’t say for certain whether Yale or one of his relatives claimed ownership of the child. That being said, “[f]or me, it’s splitting hairs, because they’re all one social and economic and familial unit".

• • Reply : Source seems more independent here but again it involves Yale University related people talking,and you are selecting certain views without considering others, in your own source here, it also says : "Scholars sometimes argue that European artists did not paint people of African or Indian descent from real-life models but instead invented from fabricated stereotypes". Then in the same source : "The child’s precise relationship with the four men in the painting is likewise unclear", and that "Town and historian Teanu Reid note that the extent of Yale’s direct involvement in the trade of enslaved people remains unclear."

• [7], AP / [8], Independent - "experts believe Yale oversaw slave trading and other commerce when he was governor of Fort St. George in India and working for the East India Company. And there are other paintings showing Yale with slaves, including one that was removed in 2007 from the meeting room of Yale University’s board of trustees after years of complaints."

• • Reply : In the same source you provided here : "So far, the research and analysis by experts at the center have not been able to determine the identity of the boy", "There is no evidence that Elihu Yale owned slaves", "His papers, including financial records, have not been found. And it remains unclear if the enslaved child was owned by one of the other men in the painting, who researchers believe include Yale’s son-in-laws, Lord James Cavendish and Dudley North", "there is no proof Yale owned slaves". And lastly, the "experts believe Yale oversaw slave trading" is without naming the experts in question, and with ample of other sources, you have experts who will argue to the extent of that involvement as a colonial governor at a time where slavery was a global institution. And even stated here by Yale professor of law John Fabian Witt, head of Davenport College, stating that : "Elihu Yale was “relatively unexceptional in his own time” with respect to slave trade.

• [9], Art News - "Although he is not known to have owned slaves, three of the seven paintings show him with an enslaved attendant: A portrait depicting Elihu Yale with a servant of assumed Indian heritage was removed from its position above the mantel in the university’s ornate Corporation Room in 2007 because of its racial overtones".

• • Reply : From your own source here : "It was hard for me to hear because from my vantage as an art historian, it’s a minor painting by a minor artist, and we have major paintings by major artists”, "attesting to the nation’s investment in the trans-Atlantic slave trade," "It’s hard for me as an art historian to give this painting credence", and lastly : "The team sees the work as a family portrait intended to shore up the legacy of Yale, a wealthy merchant and former colonial administrator in India, in his final years in London. His reputation was under assault, Martin notes. ‘"Like a number of other East India Company officials who had enriched themselves” through profiteering in India, “Yale was derided by those in London jealous of his wealth and judgmental about his relatively humble background."

• [10], Johansen - "Elihu Yale was an active slave trader".

• • Reply : the author cover only a few sentences in the book regarding to Yale and the Black Lives Matter, and as counter arguments, that are way stronger in term of reputability, we get this source here, aka the book named Elihu Yale, Merchant, Collector & Patron, we have the co-author Benjamin Zucker, stating that : "major part of Yale’s fortune derived from diamonds, the most precious and beautiful of all stones, and his trading activities provide fascinating insights into the market for these stones, and how they were mined and acquired in India, exported, and finally sold in Europe", and that "Through the enterprise of the employees and the wise decisions of the directors, the East India Company succeeded in establishing London as the centre of the lucrative diamond trade, previously dominated by the Portuguese and then by the Dutch, and Yale’s involvement continued there, for far from retiring he carried on as a successful dealer in diamonds".

• • • Reply : again the source here from Going Global, Staying Local: Elihu Yale the Art Collector by Indian-American art historian Romita Ray on JSTOR, stating at page 35 that : "Yale.. rising steadily to the rank of governor, the highest position at the fort. By the time he retired in London in 1699, his fortune amounted to nearly £200,000, much of it made by selling diamonds from the famous mines at Golconda, in Southern India".

• [11], Zorach - "a portrait of the slave trader Elihu Yale".

• • Reply : well this is pretty impressive for an art historian as she calls him a slave trader, covering the man in basically two sentences in her book, and she qualifys the painting as ""Elihu Yale... and others, in the gardens of Chatsworth, Cavendish's estate (fig. 46)." Well, the painting wasn't painted at Chatsworth at all. A basic google research would have give you the information such as this source here : Yale Center for British Art redisplays controversial painting stating that : "Completed around 1719 and believed to have been painted at Yale’s house in London". If she cannot even get the place of the painting, as an art historian, from a book written in 2024 on art, what credence can we give to this author ?

• [12], Arcenas - "Elihu Yale, the prominent East India Company official, slave trader, merchant and college benefactor".

• • Reply: well, this one note in a book, she seems independent as an author but provides no sources to her one line. As a counter argument, from a full book on the man, English art historian Diana Scarisbrick naming him as the title of the the book she wrote on him as : Elihu Yale: Merchant, Collector, and Patron.

• [13], Andrews - "Elihu Yale, a slave trader who also enriched himself in colonial India".

• • Reply : Counter arguments, from the Yale & Slavery Research Project by Teanu Reid, PhD candidate in African American Studies : "Britain’s economy was inexorably bound to chattel slavery, and London awash with its profits. Elihu Yale was product of a rapidly changing and increasingly connected world", that "Elihu Yale and his council acquiesced to pressure from their Mughal hosts and neighbors to prohibit the purchase or shipping of slaves from Chennai or nearby port upon pain of fines", and that "Nor is it clear to what extent Elihu Yale profited directly from involvement in either the Indian or Atlantic slave trades. And, efforts to uncover this information have been frustrated by the loss of his person papers. Like many EIC operatives Yale certainly enriched himself through private ventures– namely, the extractive and exploitative trade in precious stones, which generated vast wealth off the backs of cheap labor." Again this is not what you call a slave trader, but rather a colonial governor involved with slavery at a time when it was a global institution.

• [14], MacLean - "He [Yale] also almost certainly profited from the burgeoning slave trade in Madras".

• • Reply : As previously stated "almost certainly" does not mean undisputed like the edits you made when you removed opposing point of views that contradicted the certainty of your statements. Disputed is disputed from the moment you have other historians/authors with credibility that challenges it. Calling him a slave trader with certainty, and stating like in your past edits, that it is undisputed is misleading and in opposition to wikipedia guidelines such as WP:NPOV, which states to "Avoid stating opinions as facts" to "Avoid stating facts as opinions", to "Prefer nonjudgmental language", to "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" aka not deleting them, and that "In some cases, the name chosen for a topic can give an appearance of bias."

• [15], Jordan - "Elihu Yale was a strong proponent of slaving".

• • Reply : The argument here that he was a "strong proponent of slaving" from your author is that he insisted that "every ship bound for England should carry at least ten slaves". Well the ships didn't go to England but to Europe. The author cannot even get the information right, and with again a few sentences in a book not on Elihu Yale. As counter arguments stated by Steven Pincus, professor of British History, : "Yale was never a slave trader and never owned slaves — in fact, Yale opposed the slave trade during his time as a prominent member of the East India Company and governor of Madras", and by Damian Alan Pargas, professor of the History and Culture of North America at Leiden University, and executive director of the Roosevelt Institute for American Studies in his book : Critical Readings on Global Slavery, p. 1428, stated that : "Elihu Yale and his council banned the purchase and exportation of slaves from Madras and neighboring ports".
  • Reply : May I add, for the 5th time, a neutral source like Britannica Encyclopedia ? who is not mentionning him in relation to slavery or as a slave trader at all, only an automated news that was updated a few days ago in the section news of their website, not part of his lead, and will not even appear in a few weeks as it is an automated process to show news next to articles on their website. Their biography lead is here : Elihu Yale. Also, your previous argument that this encyclopedia lead was too short to describe the Elihu Yale page like we have here, well, I counted the amount of words, Britannica has 288 words, while the Elihu Yale wikipedia page lead has about 156 words. Britannica has about 85% more words, yet it does not even link him with slavery in any way, as it is a neutral encyclopedia

• [16], John Fabian Witt - "Elihu Yale served as the governor of an East India Company colony that engaged in the slave trade at the end of the seventeenth century."
• Elihu Yale with Members of his Family and an Enslaved Child - need mention of this.

Dispute resolution

The subject of Elihu Yale's links to slavery is under discussion here, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Elihu Yale. Any interested parties are invited to contribute. KJP1 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I replied to some of your sources above, as there was way too much. I hope it will help with the discussion. Academia45 (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"as there was way too much"...evidence from the sources against the position you're advocating? Well, we are agreed on that. KJP1 (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1 No, I could refute all the references you added but I don't have to. I've already shown that your statements are not undisputed but contested, yet you keep adding sources to push a point of view, aka Wikipedia:Advocacy, which is not what wikipedia is for. Besides, I will repeat my self again from what I've written on the Dispute Resolution page :

The overall page has a major problem which is is the constant mix of sources that are not independent from the subject, aka WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:COI, and the constant "fights" of Yale University related people toward adding "slave trader" to its lead. The sources relating to the slave trading stuff is almost always from Yale University, Yale University Press, Yale students, Yale University professors, Yale departments, Yale Daily News, etc. The dispute here is just one of many that I've seen on the page's history with editors fighting against each other to add and remove the slave trader term. It is what I would desbribe as a battle of idealogies, not of encyclopedic terms. The man, Elihu Yale, was a colonial governor at a time when slavery was a global institution under the British Empire, working for the British East India Company. He had per example 400 personal body guards at Madras Palace, and the control of the Madras Army (47,000 soldiers in 1847). He also ruled as President of Madras, about 1/4 of the overall territory of India. See Madras Presidency Map. The activites in relation to slavery were part of his job as governor, not his role in the company, just as Julius Caesar, who traded probably the most slaves in history, Source Here, is not qualified as a slave trader by historians or on wikipedia, simply as a Roman Emperor. All Roman Emperors were slave traders, and all aristocratic Roman families were slave owners, yet there are not qualified as such by historians, and certaintly not in their lead on Wikipedia. There is a constant push toward adding "slave trader" next to the guy's page, which is simply not based on historical terms but on modern conflicts between Yale University related people. The last source added from David W. Blight, well, the man himself is an employee at Yale, hired by its president to "work" on their PR Campaign in relation to the George Floyd protests and the naming of monuments and institutions, etc, even with a timeline "that" was somewhat controlled.

• 1) Now about the lead, my conflict here is the push to add slave trader to it. I am in complete disagreement with that term as this is not what he was in historical term, but how he is portrayed by Yale University related people and sensational news articles. A more historical term to add to his lead could be that he was among the largest diamond merchant in the world at the time, which was the basis of his fortune. He also waged his private wars, did diplomacy with Sultans and Emperors, dealt in spices to a very large extent, etc. Slavery was a side effect of the role of a colonial governor, there is nothing special or different from him and other governors during this colonial era. What is different here is that he is related as a namesake to an institution. Therefore, I am asking for WP:NPOV, which means simply treating his wikipage as any other colonial governors page.
• 2)I don't mind that things around slavery be added to the Yale University section of the article, as long as it doesn't get out of proportion, as it seems already. I suggest they go write their Yale University stuff to Yale University page rather.
• 3)Other issues, well, to solve the problem definitely on the guy's page as it keeps repeating it self among editors, I am suggesting the removal of all Yale University related sources from the page to start to clean it up, starting with Blight, Yale employees, Yale students, Yale statements, Yale News, research, departments, Yale University Press, etc, and allocate to the Yale University page what belongs there. By having it all removed, maybe we could restart this page with a foundation based on neutral sources, independent of the subject and of Yale University current conflicts that doesn't concern wikipedia. As an example, the House of Windsor page is clean and independent from all current news on the British royal family, as editors constantly remove them. See the page history.

Academia45 (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC) Academia45 (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Ancestry

While Yale's slaving trading connections were, in my view, underplayed, the Ancestry section seems considerably more detailed than is appropriate. Do we really need lots of stuff on what may have been going on in Wales hundreds of years before Yale's birth? I'm also concerned by the sourcing. As far as I can see, every source is at least 100 years old, mainly 19th century ancestry studies. While there's no strict time-limit on RS, such works do need to be used with caution. And that fact that Elihu Yale is not mentioned a single time in the whole section is telling as to its [ir]relevance. Would most/all of this be more appropriate on a Yale family page? I've pinged User:Academia45, who I think wrote most of this section. KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi KJP1, the ancestry section was added for a few reasons, one is that the man's name was featured in a lot of Burke landed gentry books about his ancestry, as the Welsh had a culture of keeping records of their ancestors. Second is to explain to the reader the link of his coat of arms and the families who were involved with its creation. Also, it explains the origin of the Yale name and how the man came to be related to the founding of a college, aka protestantism, in relation to his great-grandfather who was a Chancellor and his great-great-granduncle, etc. The section was put at the end to not distract the reader, as at first it was placed at the beginning of the page. His name could be mentioned in the section, as he is in the sources if you click on them. I think it is important to not erase history, as wikipedia is an encyclopedia. For the family page, I am working on it, to have a normal page rather than a list of surnames. Academia45 (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Update

Following the DRN, I have made updates to the article. The principal aims are:

• To ensure that the lead reflects the content of the body, per MoS;
• To reflect the most up-to-date scholarship;
• To give a chronological narrative - the previous version was very back-and-forth in relation to Yale's years in India;
• To properly reflect his involvement in the slave trade.

I think there is more to do;

• The cites are frequently a mess;
• The Ancestry section appears to me to be Undue; largely irrelevant, Yale is not mentioned once; and poorly sourced to a bunch of 19th century genealogical histories, of questionable reliability. This point has been made previously on the Talkpage. I think it would sit better, if anywhere, in a Yale Family page.

Very happy to discuss any issues here. KJP1 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Academia45 - If you continue to remove relevant. sourced and cited material based on your misunderstanding of Neutral and Independent sourcing, it will be necessary to take the matter further. KJP1 (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @KJP1. May I ask why you reverted all my past edits today ? and why you a threatening me to take the matter further ? Some of the material you added recently was biased and I corrected the informations. If you disagree, let's debate then as we should. After the lack of communication during the past Dispute Resolution Board, I've simply disengaged as stated in the WP:DR when two users cannot agree. It is not because you added content recently that this is now the "final" truth about the topic, and that other editors cannot modify or change what you have written. Academia45 (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Academia45 - Certainly. You are removing relevant, sourced, and cited information and you have no basis in policy to do this. If you revert again, you will be edit-warring at three reverts and that is a conduct, not a content, matter. KJP1 (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Academia45 - For a long time you have sought to sanitise this article, by over-emphasising Yale's aristocratic relations and his supposed pedigree while seriously underemphasising his involvement on the slave trade. To do this you are removing relevant, sourced and cited material. You have no policy basis to do so, as you misunderstand both NPOV and Independent Sources. I shall again re-instate this material, and remain very willing to discuss it. But if you again just remove it, I shall take the matter to the ANI Edit-warring board. KJP1 (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Making an effort to understand your perspective, can you set out your rationale for not including the image, Elihu Yale with Members of his Family and an Enslaved Child and discussion of it, yet including a detailed section on his ancestry, sourced to very out-dated works, which doesn't mention him once? It seems to me that the portrait, and 21st century discussion of it, are both very relevant to Yale the man, as well as to his heritage as a contributor to Yale University. KJP1 (talk)