Talk:William Wilberforce/Archive 2

Fallacies

A new fallacies section has appeared. I would like to see a citation for the first quote, othersise I think it should go. The second paragraph is better. The last sentance is very POV and unclear as to who it means.AFCR 09:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. The recent addition by 89.243.68.188 is POV and borders on mischievous vandalism, in my opinion. It should be deleted – if there are no objections, I will go ahead and do so. Agendum 15:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This has now turned into "Intolerance of other Religions", obviously written by someone with an axe to grind. I propose to do the same as above. Agreed? Agendum 23:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The remaining paragraph is exactly the same as the second para which is referred to as "better" in the first comment in this section. "Fallacies" was an awful title, doesn't really mean what the original editor seemed to think it meant. Someone else changed it to just "Intolerance", and I added the "of other religions" bit to better describe the contents of that section. As to whether it should stay or go, it was a fairly typical attitude, particularly amongst Evangelicals of that era, so it's not unique to him, but it does perhaps set him in a broader context. David Underdown 07:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily a fallacy, but I'm wondering if calling Wilberforce an "Evangelical" Christian is really necessary/correct. Remember, this is a very loaded term, and a very American one at that. Jfahler 22:03, 7 February 2007 (EST)

No it's a perfectly fair description, the term has a long history, in the UK as well as America. David Underdown (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dark Side

Someone keeps adding this stuff which is taken verbatim from a polemic essay, Keep an eye out. Jooler 23:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

i keep on adding the text, i don't understand what the problem is. i have provided good book references, would you like me to rewrite the paragraphs? is there a problem about write anything contentious about wilberforce? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artikalflex (talk • contribs) 02:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you have copy and pasted the text from an essay. Please read Wikipedia's policies on Copyright violation, neutral point of view, reliable sources and "the three revert rule". We cannot include directly copied text from other sources unless it is clearly in the public domain. There is no doubt that Wilberforce is a more complicated man than is often portrayed, but he was a product of his time which should be born in mind also. Some aspects of what you are presenting probably should be included in the article, but they cannot be incorporated in their current form. To present such a differing view from normal we'd need absolutely unimpeachable sources, and even then we must be careful of giving undue weight to what is, with all respect, a minority view. Pleae bear in mind wikipedia is not a place for righting great wrongs. David Underdown 11:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Abolition of Slavery

I have rewritten the text please me tell which laws i have violated now ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artikalflex (talk • contribs) 12:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No laws, I few aspects of English grammar and good writing perhaps... The way it was presented made several of the statements complete non sequiturs I'm afraid, so I've trimmed and tidied. unless you have personally verified the reference to the Hochschild book, the only reference should be to the essay, as that is what you are relying on. I have grave doubts as to whether this essay does actually count as a reliable source. Errors of fact like referring to Paul Foot as the son of a former Prime Minister do not exactly inspire confidence (he was only nephew of Michael Foot who was only ever Leader of the Opposition). David Underdown 13:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Following that misleading use of edit summaries just now, I'm going to request full protection of this article so that all changes have to be fully discussed here first. David Underdown 14:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest contributors look at this article by Adam Hochschild? http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/william_wilberforce_article_01.shtml It is critical of Wilberforce but less polemic than Artikalflex's citations would suggest of this author.AFCR 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Much more neutrally expressed. David Underdown 15:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• • here is another review of adam hochschild's book, 'bury the chains' ... http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/10295.html. look on amazon too.

i am not sure where you think the controversy has taken place. i have not taken hochschilds words out of context. Are you suggesting people should only use your recommended sources as references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.149.230 (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Any Objections?

i would like to add the following to the abolition of Slavery paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artikalflex (talk • contribs) 09:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mounting public pressure compelled Wilberforce and his friends to launch the Society for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery (SGAS) in 1823. SGAS advocated ideas and policies that would help slavery to survive for a further 100 years. Its members openly boasted that they wanted slavery to gradually: ‘… die away and to be forgotten …’. However, in May 1830 the SGAS passed a resolution for the immediate abolition of slavery against the wishes of its ‘leadership’ i.e. Wilberforce and his new side kick Buxton .

Sorry, I've not had time to respond properly today, and I'm now unlikely to eb able to do so before Monday. David Underdown 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Lead does not follow WP guideline: see Lead.

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 15:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

would 'the dark side of wilberforce' be a more decent title?

• • these are the other 2 chapters i took out

Mounting public pressure compelled Wilberforce and his friends to launch the Society for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery (SGAS) in 1823 (Hart, 2006, p. 3). SGAS advocated ideas and policies that would help slavery to survive for a further 100 years. Its members openly boasted that they wanted slavery to gradually: ‘… die away and to be forgotten …’ (Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams, 1944, p. 182). However, in May 1830 the SGAS passed a resolution for the immediate abolition of slavery against the wishes of its ‘leadership’ i.e. Wilberforce and his new side kick Buxton (Hart, 2006, p. 3).

William Wilberforce and the Abolition movement provides Europe with an escape route out of the contempt they deserve for the crimes they committed.

should they go back in?

Artikalflex

Protected

Can we please remove the unsubstantiated references taken from the above polemic essay until they are properly verified and contextualised. Jooler 23:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Abolition of Slavery is about William Wilberforce's attitude towards ending slavery itself. it is relevant, i have provide good references from recognised history books. i gave you the book titles and the page numbers. one reference is from a most credible author adam hochschild. I am simply providing a more rounded view of the character of William Wilberforce. that is what wikipedia is about, neutrality begats ying and yang which is positive and negative. Why do you want to promote a one-sided view of william wilberforce as a saint/demi-god?

--Artikalflex 12:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

One of your sources claims Wilberforce had an affair with a fictional character (see below). AFCR 12:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That has absolutely nothing to do with the article i wrote about William Wilberforce. If your not happy with the reference to the article then please check the references to the books below.

(Bury the Chains by Adam Hochschild, 2005, p. 314).

(Hart, 2006, p. 3).

(Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams, 1944, p. 182)

you could also tell me which specific part you do not agree with and i will find you an alternative reference on the internet.

Artikalflex 16:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Claims of Wilberforces use of prostitutes

The polemic article quoted (http://afrikanliberationdaylondon.com/PDF/AFRIKANSOCIETY5.pdf) makes mention of Wilberforce's mistress "Agnes Bronte". I think I have found the original website the information in this and other anti-Wilberforce essays comes from:

http://freespace.virgin.net/pr.og/agnes.html

This appears to be part of a spoof website with lots of spurious biographies of fictional Bronte family members but it has been taken as a serious source by people with an axe to grind.

If we want serious criticism of Wilberforce we should look at the work of Adam Horschild directly (see link given earlier) and avoid the less scholarly articles. AFCR 09:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

i have quoted Adam Hochschild and Eric Williams, a former prime minister, how much more credibility do you need.

Artikalflex 16:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Adam Hochschild's opinion of Wilberforce is less negative than your contributions would suggest. He ends an article on the man thus:

William Wilberforce deserves an important place in the story of emancipation, but he shares it with many others, both black and white, men and women, in Britain and the Caribbean.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/william_wilberforce_article_05.shtml

Your contributions give the impression that Wilberforce was really in favour of slavery and his major concern was to slow down the process of abolition! AFCR 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've now referred the status of the essay as a source to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard#William Wilberforce to broaden the range of discussion. Please read what I have written there to understand why I don't htink this essay is an acceptable source for what you are trying to add intot he article. As I've said before, there is no doubt that Wilberforce (and the anti-slavery movement in general) is far more complex than is often presented, and so this article could broaden it's coverage. However, you are trying to completely over-turn the conventional picture and argue that Wilberforce was a government stooge who was actually trying to slow the pace of abolition - Hochschild certainly doesn't seem to agree with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Underdown (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

Abolition of Slavery

After the abolition of the slave trade, William Wilberforce was not immediately concerned with the abolition the Slavery. Britain heavily depended on the suffering of Africans to sustain their economy, the love of money generated from the Slave plantations continued to overshadow a collective sense of morality. During this time, even the Church of England’s morality was in limbo as Bishops were still allowed to purchase slaves and the Church still owned slave plantations. Wilberforce’s morality also came into question as he advocated that the whipping of slave should not stop, but instead, the slaves should only be whipped at night.

Slave Plantation owners now became concerned with where they were going to get their new slaves from. Wilberforce had no objections to his colleagues who recommended that African people be bred like animals, as a substitute to boosting the African population in the lave Plantations. Thus subjecting, Africans to more trauma and rapes.

Mounting public pressure compelled Wilberforce and his friends to launch an anti-slavery society in 1823, 16 years after the abolition of the slave trade. The formal name of the organization was the Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Abolition of Slavery which was more commonly known as the Society for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery (SGAS) in 1823. SGAS advocated ideas and policies that would help slavery to survive for at least 100 years. Its members openly boasted that they wanted slavery to gradually: ‘… die away and to be forgotten …’.

In the light of an increasing frequency of slave revolts and growing public contempt, in May 1830, SGAS passed a resolution for the immediate abolition of slavery.

Artikalflex 11:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

---

these paragraphs are well referenced from the books

Bury the Chains by Adam Hochschild 2005 p.314, Hart 2006 p.3, Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams 1944 p.182

David Underdown has been continually complaining about ...

Issue 1: reference to a polemic essay, http://afrikanliberationdaylondon.com/PDF/AFRIKANSOCIETY5.pdf

Yes it is a polemic essay, but that has no bearing on the credibility of the passages which are referenced in books written by Adam Hochschild and Eric Williams a former prime minister.

Issue 2: fault finding in the polemic essay, http://afrikanliberationdaylondon.com/PDF/AFRIKANSOCIETY5.pdf.

To add credibility to David Underdown mission he complains about some parts of the essay which i have not referenced at all, Wilberforce's relations to a prositute. David Underdown has concentrated his efforts on disproving something which i have not referenced. With an attitude like David Underdown we could all discredit the bible by saying it took longer than 7 days to create the world or the world is more than 20,000 years old. [David Underdown|David Underdown]] please refrain from using such a juvenile attitude.

Issue 3: references are week ie. http://www.sturgetown.com/sturge.html

David Underdown has not made any formal complaint about this reference.

Issue 4: "seems superficially well-referenced (including references to sources already used in our Wilberforce article)" by David Underdown

What makes my references superficial? I have not changed the context in which the references were written by Adam Hochschild and Eric Williams a former prime minister. Have you claimed ownership over the essay,? thats a bit polemic, anti-Wiki and undemocratic.

Issue 5: Use http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/william_wilberforce_article_01.shtml as a reference, written by Adam Hochschild.

You have already used that article, i am happy for you and i hope no one forced you to use that article. i chose to use Adam Hochschild book as a reference instead. How can you have a problem with that in our democratic land of freedom?

Artikalflex 11:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Again the suggested amendment don't reflect Adam Hochschild's opinions of Wilberforce:

...William Wilberforce, a wealthy, diminutive member of Parliament from Yorkshire, widely respected for his piety and eloquence. Except for his lifelong opposition to slavery, Wilberforce was Clarkson's political opposite. Where Clarkson was swept up by the radical currents of the age, Wilberforce feared democratic impulses, labor unions, rising wages, and women's participation in political life. Nonetheless, the two men were good friends and worked together closely for nearly 50 years. ....

When Henry Dundas, the politically powerful Home Secretary who controlled a large block of Scottish votes, rose to speak, no one knew where he stood. Dundas began by declaring himself in favor of abolition, at which those in the gallery must have felt their spirits rise. He then went even further, and declared himself in favor of emancipation of the slaves...but far in the future, he added quickly, and after much preparation and education. Then, to the abolitionists' dismay, he introduced an amendment that inserted the word "gradually" in Wilberforce's motion to abolish the slave trade.

Adam Hochschild http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_403.html

Note that Hochschild believes Wilberforce was commited to the ant-slaverey movement and that it was Dundas who inserted the "gradual" clause in Wilberforces bill, not Wilberforce himself. If you want a villan try researching the Bishop of Bristol from this period. AFCR 13:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just finished reading the Hochschild book, and must agree that Artikalflex's proposed text (which I note has been moved in part into the article already) does not reflect Hochschild's opinions and nor his conclusions, which acknowledges the highly positive and important role that Wilberforce played in abolition. The proposed text puts Wilberforce in a very negative light, and personal commentary/judgment is inserted in an unencyclopedic way e.g ( "Wilberforce’s morality also came into question as ...." Having said that, I do find that this article does suffer from the omission of those actions/words of Wilberforce's that are something less than 'saint-like' in today's eyes. These complexities and contradictions are noted, very fairly I believe, in the Hochschild book. The article would be richer if some of these were acknowledged more fully. Slp1 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Abolition of slavery section (was previously titled the Dark side ....)

I've removed this whole section which had been edited to the point of being ungrammatical. The source (the polemic essay noted above) does not pass the reliability test. It is factually incorrect to the point of fantasy in at least two areas (Paul Foot and Agnes Bronte); is polemic and self-published; and the selected citations from Hochchild's appear to be out of context. Jooler 22:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It would also appear that Artikleflex (or someone) is trying to drum up support for the inclusion of this material with other parties outside of the Wikipedia community. See [1] Jooler 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section was inappropriate. Had you not done so, I was about to remove it. The alleged conclusions from Adam Hochschild's book (which is far from being the last word on Wilberforce anyway) were taken out of context, and certainly do not reflect the author's meaning or intentions. Agendum 23:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I have the book to hand I can confirm that the causations, conclusions and commentaries in the deleted passage do not accurately reflect Hochschild, even if some of the 'facts' are there. Here is the actual passage, from p314, of the book:

In contrast with Clarkson's welcome of the black king's widow and children, when Wilberforce in 1816 chaired a public dinner at Freemasons' Tavern for something called the African and Asiatic Society, the handful of Africans and Asians present ate at one end of the room, behind a screen. Once the slaves were finally free, he believed, they should still know their place in the social order. "Taught by Christianity, they will sustain with patience the sufferings of their actual lot....[and] will soon be regarded as a grateful peasantry." In the meantime, he remained as wary as ever about any proposals for reform of the system. Completely banning the use of the whip, for instance, he felt was going too far. Instead slave whippings should be done only "at night after the day's work".

I agree with the deletion of the quote and believe that the essay is a thoroughly unreliable source. However, Hochschild isn't, and as I noted above I think the article could be improved for the better if it contained a more nuanced description of his small 'c' conservative views. I also think many more citations would be helpful, since some of the current text seems to be personal commentary, but on the positive side (!) For example, "whose single-handed energy and determination helped to eventually overcome the powerful pro-slavery lobby in Parliament". My reading suggests it was actually quite a team effort.--Slp1 00:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed – with most of what you say. It most certainly was a team effort, and while Wilberforce is quite clearly the most high-profile member of the team, it was people like Clarkson, Middleton, Stephens and Porteus who, behind the scenes, did much of the 'legwork', researching the facts, lobbying in parliament and church, and eliciting public support and donations for the campaign. Wilberforce's attitude towards Africans and Afro-Caribbeans was, of course, coloured by the prevailing cultural attitudes and notions of the day, and I believe (from memory) that Hochschild does make this point. – Agendum 11:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for the article to b protected again, particularly in view of the off-wiki attempts to drum up intervention. Some of Wilberforce's more reactionary side is already noted in the article, but could be expanded - and on a slight tangent the article as it stands has rather a lot of repition and could use a re-structure in any case. The lack of a proper lead has already been pointed out on this talkpage. On the subject of the mores of the day, in view of the stuff about whippings it should be note that corporal punishment was at the time in regular use throughout society, certainly in teh military of the time other ranks could receive what now seem horrendous punishments for trivial crimes, the stocks were still in use etc etc. David Underdown 12:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all that you both say, including that of the prevailing cultural attitudes and also the likely benefits of a solid look at this article (repetition, lead etc). I sometimes find that these controversies are a good push to get articles brought up to scratch, which I guess is a silver lining of a sort! I will start working my way through the Hochschild book for this as a start. --Slp1 12:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

One must remember that Wilberforce for all his humanity was a man of his class and a man of his times. At the time we are talking about, flogging in the British Army and the Royal Navy was part of military discipline and a common occurrence. It was only reserved for formal punishment in the 1860s and finally abolished in 1881. And I suspect that Wilberforce may well have balked at the idea of entertaining the local rat-catcher to dinner. Jooler 19:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, no question. But a full picture of the man should capture this, no? There is no need to gloss over the ways in which he was a man of his times, and just emphasize all his more forward looking social reforms.Slp1 19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Structure of article

I am considering whether it may be best to amalgamate some of the shorter sections into a more chronological and logical description of Wilberforce's career. This would make more sense, as his campaign for the suppression of vice, for example, or for the Reformation of Manners, no doubt had some effect on his passion for his later work on the slave trade. What do others think? It just seems a little 'bitty' at the moment, and not quite what I would expect of an encyclopedia article. Agendum 12:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this approach, which would greatly help with readibility. Where I have got so far...I obtained the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article which should be a great resource, as well as a few other journal articles. I can send copies these to people if desired. One hitch already discovered is that National Lottery section in the current article is a direct copy from part of [2]. Hopefully it is just that section that was a cut and paste. --Slp1 19:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Some tips for improvement

I lived in Hull for a year, so the Wilberforce legacy is greatly etched on my mind. This article has a lot to offer, but several key changes need to take place in order for it to advance from a B article (which I think it can do)! Here are some pointers to the regular editors here -- I'd rather advise and not step on anyone's toes. :)

• The lead is only one sentence long. According to WP:LS, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."
• As it stands now, the External links section looks bloated and may contain links that would either work better as references or links that may be removed in entirety as per WP:EL. It's also possible that it can be broken down into categories for easier reading.
• I highly suggest editing the article in terms of Good Article Criteria, including careful referencing.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any questions. María (críticame) 17:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, which is very helpful. I couldn't agree more with your observations. We will get there, as you say, slowly but surely, but other eyes and editors are always welcome. --Slp1 17:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your comments are most welcome, María, and just the kind of constructive criticism that we need. We will certainly act on your suggestions – much appreciated. – Agendum 20:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Continuation of slavery in the British Empire after 1833

It seems to me that the revision made by User:Artikalflex [3] is entirely misleading, and the subsequent modification into the current wording only marginally better. I may be entirely wrong in my understanding, but I am assuming that when it is stated that slavery continued in these territories (in the form of slavery as opposed to indentured servitude), we are not talking about British slavemasters, but the existence of the condition of slavery as practised by natives and/or others. Note that User:Artikalflex had made virtually the same edit at Abolition of slavery timeline‎. Furthermore the dates given for abolition in these territories appears to be more related to the establishment of local legislative institutions rather than a sense of indifference during the intervening period. For example the article on the History of Gambia notes the establishment of such a legislative body in 1901 and an ordinance to abolish slavery in 1906. The date of 1860 for India follows the Indian Mutiny and transfer of government to the Crown (re: Government of India Act 1858). Jooler 08:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Jooler 08:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have watched carefully as the argument regarding the Emancipation of Slaves section and the continuation of slavery in some parts of the empire after 1833 has raged, and the various discussions regarding the edits of User:Artikalflex in particular. It is my opinion that there is a loud noise of axes being ground here and, although I am far from being an apologist for Wilberforce, I feel that this whole section would be much better placed in the article on Abolition of the Slave Trade, rather than here, as it is not relevant to the biography of William Wilberforce – these are events that happened after his death.

What I propose to do is delete the whole section beginning "While Wilberforce had succeeded in Parliament..." and ending with the quotation by Governor Ransford Slater. Comments, please. – Agendum 20:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry – I meant the quote by Joseph Hanlon in the Guardian Unlimited. – Agendum 20:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Post-Wilberforce is not relevant. also the section currently implicates the British in continuing the state of slavery in these lands which seems to run counter to work of the West Africa Squadron at this time which was doing everything it could prevent it. As stated above the edits made to Abolition of slavery timeline‎ worry me too. Jooler 20:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have proposed that the one-line stub at Barbara Spooner be merged (effectively, redirected) to this article. After a reasonable search I cannot find any additional information on Spooner beyond the statement of her marriage to Wilberforce. This is not suffficient to justify a separate page on her.

I have proposed a merge rather than simply carrying out the redirect to ensure that there is not material that would justify the Spooner page that I am unaware of. Any comments or pointers to additional information and so on are welcomed. Otherwise I will do the redirect in a couple of days. Euryalus 02:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely fine with me. In my opinion she does nor merit an article of her own. – Agendum 12:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely.--Slp1 12:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not merge this article. It is now more than a ‘one line stub’ and there is more to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leightonmowbray (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Barbara Spooner should be merged into this article. Children who need homework help or adults who need information about a certain person or event don't want to be confused by additions as it may put off the reader. Children who need information on a specific subject don't want to have other sections included that involve different people to whom they are interested in. I strongly disagree with this merge and if it is included then my loyalty to wikipedia is over, done, end of, finito. Now do you think the merge is such a good idea after all?.?.?.?.? <----hand_signed_by_snapplisch----> 29th October 2007 20:02

Thanks for adding to the Spooner article, which is certainly more comprehensive than it was. I am still not convinced that Spooner is notable enough for an article even with the additional material, but that is a separate debate.

It appears there is no consensus for a merge of these articles so I am removing the merge tags. Thanks to everyone for having a say. Euryalus 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reinstatement of the paragraph about slavery in the British Empire after 1833

It was the deprivation of core moral values which started and sustained the slave trade, this highlights that people still have more work to do.

Britain was the colonial masters of burma, hong kong, nigeria, ghana and india while slavery was going on, well after the abolition of the slavery. Only sierra leone could be defined as a pertectorate, when the league of nation criticised slavery in sierra leone they criticised britain. People have said i have an axe to grind and it is true. i want to present a different side to the story, not just from a one sided christian patriotic angle. wikipedia is about presenting facts, not creating a platform to glorify and almost deify people.

Agendum has deviated from the truth, he has described these places as protectorates when they were colonies, regardless britain were heavily involved with the decision making. he also suggest the whole paragraph should be moved to the Abolition of the Slave Trade, he has not made the relevant changes there. Agendum has removed the uncomfortable and damming information to undermine the essence of what wikipedia is all about. he has changed the Abolition of slavery timeline‎ too. He has succeeded in maintaining the global illusion within the confines of wiki that slavery was abolished in british occupied territories in 1833. This is not a personal attack, just check his edits.

Artikalflex 09:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Organisation of article

I propose to try to organise the information in this article more logically, with the use of sub-heads, etc. This will involve moving material relating to Wilberforce's personal life and career, as well as the other campaigns with which he was involved, and keeping the description of the campaign against the slave trade together – by revising the Contents and the use of sub heads. Any further suggestions for improvement of this from established editors are welcome. – Agendum 08:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Slavery after 1833

Regarding the recent edits to 'Last Days', this is interesting. I was not aware of these dates before. I hear what you are saying and would urge you to make this important point in the articles on Abolitionism and Abolition of slavery timeline. I am still not sure, however whether it has a place here in this biographical article. After all, Wilberforce was dead when freedom eventually cames to the slaves – and this is a biography of Wilberforce. The important thing is to convey the general import and essence of his major contribution to emancipation – a detailed listing of dates belongs elsewhere. What do other editors think?

At the risk of being accused of namedropping, I was speaking to Prof Walvin last week and he is of the opinion that slavery generally ended in the British colonies between 1833–38. Cheers – Agendum 23:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it reasonable to point out that there were exclusions in the Act, one possible solution would be to turn everything after "There were notable exceptions in this Act, the territories controlled by the British East India Company were exempt, and there were other exclusions in the Act" (and speaking as the author of this sentence, if someone can re-write it in better English, please do) into a footnote, then the info is there for those who want more detail, but it doesn't over-balance the main article with information not directly relevant to Wilberforce (since he was dead even before the 1833 act came into force). However, it's certainly better to go into details on dates here, rather than in the lead.... David Underdown 09:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead and "final" date for abolition of slavery in Empire

Right, this edit-warring over a single date really is getting silly. In my view there is no need to include the 1928 date in the lead. Without additional context which would be far too much detail to put in the lead section (which is supposed to provide an overview of the article as a whole) this date is just as misleading to readers as to say that slavery was abolished by the Act of 1833. The wording "paving the way for the complete abolition of slavery in the British Empire" is sufficient to establish that this date is not so clear cut as maybe generally thought, and allows for greater elucidation later in the article (the proper place). So far as I can see, only User:Artikalflex and User:89.240.212.81 are insisting on the inclusion of this date in the lead. Lets see what the actual consensus is.

The 1928 date is contentious and confusing in the lead paragraph. It has little to do with Wilberforce. I would say it isn't relevant to the article at all. It might belong in the detailed discussion on Slavery in general but not here. AFCR 17:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Regarding the 1928 date, I think it should be pointed out that Joseph Hanlon's view, expressed in the Guardian Unlimited's Comment is Free blog (which is quoted as a reference), is his own personal opinion, for which he offers no references – and which runs counter to the writings of most eminent historians. I could cite Hochschild, Walvin and Thomas. You'll get no argument from me that Britain was profiting from the trade well into the twentieth century – in many ways, it still is. But the real point is that, in an article about Wilberforce, it seems irrelevant to get stuck in an argument about a date which would (and should) be better voiced elsewhere. The accepted wisdom is that British slavery ended in 1834, the bill having been passed the previous year, in 1833. I propose that we stick with that date in this article, and omit any mention it in the lead, where it is superfluous. – Agendum 18:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to see things from wilberforce's side, he was extremely patriotic and he was deeply concerned about the tribulations of enslaved of Africans. yes he was overjoyed when Britain signed the act to abolish slavery, but he would be even more satisfied with the total abolition of slavery in the British empire. the wording "paving the way for the complete abolition of slavery in the British Empire" is misleading, one might think the end of the misery of enslavement in the british empire was imminent. That is why i have suggested you remove this sentence all together and i promise i will not to accuse anyone of wanting to hide the truth.Artikalflex 23:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I meant to suggest above adding the word "eventual" to the sentence to indicate that it was not a strightforward process. It seems to me that the 1833 Act was the "Tipping point", with it passed there was a defintive change in public opinion (though of course there were those who continued to profitfrom slavery). David Underdown 09:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

adding the word eventual is a good solution. please note, the slave revolts were the actual tipping point, wilberforce was quiet between 1807 - 1823 because he was not too concerned. if he was concerned he would have pushed for the total abolition in the first place. he was well aware of the atrocities through the slave naratives he read.

Change slaves, black or african slaves to enslaved african

I propose we change all occurrences of slaves, black or african slaves to enslaved africans.

From an imperialistic perspective we can dehumanise africans take away their self respect and ignore the fact that these people were human by continuing to refer to them as property, i.e. slaves.

In reality when they were born they were human, they were africans and they became enslaved. Hence they are enslaved africans.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? User:Arkitalflex 23:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it seems a rather clumsy phrasing on the page, to me. I think the article does after all encompass in its use of the term those who (through no fault of their own, obviously) were born into slavery in the West Indies, as well as those taken from Africa. The fact that they were enslaved dos not stop me seeing them (in the words of the famous abolitionist slogan), as "Both a man and a brother" (and of course woman and sister) as well. David Underdown 09:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NO ONE CAN BE BORN A SLAVE. Calling someone a slave is reconfirming it is possible for someone to own another person, at birth, this may be possible under the laws of a land but it is not possible under divine natural laws. regardless of doctrine it defies logic too. Africans were treated like cattle but it is criminal to continue to refer to them as cattle. Artikalflex 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I agree that "enslaved Africans" or "Africans in slaverey" might be a good substitute for "African slaves" - but the editing would have to be done carefully to make sure this was a correct substitution each time. The implication would be the slavery was something the people had imposed on them - rather than was a state of being intrinsic to them. AFCR 12:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposed to using these phraseology on some occasions during the article where these are appropriate. However, it should be noted that Wikipedia is not the place to try to change the vocabulary that the world uses, and and I suspect, (though I haven't looked), that "enslaved Africans" is not a very common turn of phrase as compared to "slaves". As an encyclopedia, we are not supposed to be a pioneer of original research. Having said that, for the sake of variety apart from anything else, some appropriate examples could be changed as noted above. --Slp1 12:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In wikipedia we use language which is politically correct. calling an african a slave is an insult it implies that it was a god given purpose was to create a soul to serve europeans. just think about it for 30 seconds, this is the classic example of the residual trauma which revolves around the Enslavement of Africans. I wonder how other language cope? Artikalflex 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Artikalflex, honestly, I have a lot of sympathy for your opinions and appreciate the challenges to "conventional thought" that you proffer. But I just don't think you are right when you say "In wikipedia we use language which is politically correct". Which policy or guideline do you get this from? Slp1 00:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

i was really talking about in general we tend to use politically correct terminologies. with a little more thought i guess this is not necessarily the cases when you are writing about history. we do in wikepedia refrain from using insulting language, regardless of how africans were perceived during their enslavement, it is an insult to continue to refer to them as slaves. Artikalflex 09:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

let put things into perspective, one human cannot own another, only through demonisation and subjugation can one human heavily influence the behaviour of another. this article and others has inadvertently been written by people who have a slave masters mentality, this is not an insult this is just one of the perpetuated traits of slavery. i appreciate that people can honestly be ignorant of their inherited traits, but now you are aware of the ignorance, it is no longer excusable in this article.Artikalflex 09:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. Two weeks ago I attended a lecture given by Prof. Walvin on the subject of the Slave Trade Act of 1807. Strangely, he gave his personal opinion that in a year’s time, or so, we would be referring to slaves as ‘the enslaved’ — so Artikalflex may have a point. Acceptable language changes (just as we generally no longer use the word 'negro'), and this may be an opportunity for Wikipedia to be at the cutting edge of that linguistic development!

I suggest that, at this stage, we use both forms — if people are agreed, I will go through and replace roughly half the uses of the word ‘slave’ with ‘enslaved Africans’, which is imho quite appropriate, as Wilberforce was deeply conscious of the fact that these were people from Africa and referred often to the ‘African problem’. – Agendum 12:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the change from "Slaves" to "enslaved Africans" as it removes the need to discuss slaverey in the empire as a whole and all that "1928" bussiness.AFCR 13:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

I have cut down the list of links drastically, as recommended, deleting those which are no longer available and which are not directly connected with Wilberforce. I have also removed those which, although linked to his name, may give no further information or add to our understanding of his life and work. I have, nevertheless, included one or two about the ongoing work against slavery in the name of Wilberforce. Please contact me if this causes you any problem. Cheers – Agendum (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. On another topic, Agendum, could you check your refs about the following points,

Everything I have read suggests that the meetings with Pitt in the parliamentary gallery happened before, not after they became MPs. It makes more sense in any case! Do you have anything that says differently? --Slp1 (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check that one out. – Agendum (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplication

The following two sections are almost identical:

"The death of Fox in September 1806 was a blow to the abolitionists. In 1807 Wilberforce was again re-elected for Yorkshire after Grenville called a general election. He and Clarkson had collected a large volume of evidence against the slave trade over the previous two decades. Wilberforce spent the latter part of the year following the election writing A Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade, which was an apologetic essay summarizing this evidence. After it was published on 31 January 1807, it formed the basis for the final phase of the campaign."

"After the death of Fox in September 1806, Wilberforce spent the latter part of the year writing A Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade, an apologetic essay in which he summarised the huge volume of evidence against the trade that he and Clarkson had accumulated over two decades. It was published on 31 January 1807, and formed the basis for the final phase of the abolition campaign."

Also, there is a movie, "Amazing Grace," which shows this. Honestly, I have learned nothing from this page.

Ress1757 (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Ress1757

Dougher (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The main picture...

The main picture, the first one you see, makes him look like somewhat of a drunkard. Can we put switch the first and second portraits, just so he doesn't seem so inhumane? Thanks. 70.181.168.148 (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tory??

Hi Agendum, You have been doing lots of great work! I have removed the 'nominally a Tory' thing, because it isn't in the Hague pages cited, and to be honest I haven't found anything of a similar nature elsewhere. Hague seems at pains point out his independence e.g. "He resolved within hours of his election to be 'no party man', indicating from the outset an absence of appetite for ministerial office and a detachment from the main political groupings which would resurface much more strongly in his later years." pp 36. And Tomkins p. 37 "Wilberforce did not join Pitt's government; instead he formed a club of about forty independent MPs,.." Do you have some other refs that say differently? --Slp1 (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have always been under the impression that he was a Tory, albeit a very independent one. Since you deleted the word yesterday I've had a quick look through my sources and can't find reference to it anywhere, so it may have just been my assumption. I restored the word (qualifying it by using "nominally") as a compromise. But if there's no evidence for him being a Tory then, by all means, let it stand as it is.

You've done a great deal of good work, yourself! – Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will try to do a bit more today, but have many other mundane domestic tasks to accomplish too! --Slp1 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Evangelical Christianity

Comment on the definition of 'evangelical'...the 18th C definition is not the same as the popular 21st C definition. From the American Heritage Dictionary, evangelical for Wilberforce would be the definition: "Of or relating to the group in the Church of England that stresses personal conversion and salvation by faith." The popular definition today, of course, is :"of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism" as the Encarta dictionary states. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comment. I am not sure that the Encarta definition would be considered true in the UK, even today, but that is just my opinion. Worth thinking about further, I think. --Slp1 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, westcoast – I would certainly recognise the former definition (from the American Heritage Dictionary) as being accurate here in Britain. I think we have many differing ideas between the UK/US regarding evangelicalism/fundamentalism. "Two countries divided by a common language," etc, etc! Cheers – Agendum (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just 'two countries divided ...' but 'two centuries divided ...'. There is nothing like the evolution of meanings to cause confusion! By the way, another possible source of confusion is "...underwent a conversion experience..." It is correct but, by analogy, his conversion was more of a Clinton supporter becoming and Obama supporter; rather than a Clinton supporter becoming a McCain supporter. The problem is best expressed by the Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition which defines conversion as

• "The act of changing one's views or course, as in passing from one .... religion to another. Conversion to Christianity."

or

• "A spiritual and moral change attending a change of belief with conviction...

Wilberforce underwent the latter sort...but it might be misunderstood.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Evangelical is still reasonably well understood in its earlier sense in the UK, though the more fundamentalist version is perhaps gaining ground. As to the conversion experience, again the more modern version might be to "become a born-again Christian". David Underdown (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What is telling for me is that the words 'conversion' and 'evangelical' are used over and over again by the biographers and other reliable sources. I don't think we need to worry too much if we follow the sources in this matter. Slp1 (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image size problem

There seems to be a Wiki-wide image size problem. The discussion is here:Wikipedia talk:ClickFix No doubt it will be fixed soon. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'd figured out there was a widespread problem. I've now tried, as far as I am able, to correct the dimensions of the main image using the 'px' solution recommended, and with a few variations, but to no avail. I think, rather than us all having a go at putting things right, the best thing is to leave it as it is for now – especially as the article is up for GA review.

Unless there is someone there who really does know what they're doing and can correct the problem! Cheers – Agendum (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)