Talk:Henry Morton Stanley

American?
How was he american? No mention of his gaining citizenship over there 62.7.226.234 (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Tim Jeal's book, he officially gained American citizenship in 1885, though Stanley had mistakenly imagined that he had been naturalized during his service in the Civil War. Rublov (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Rublov should we add it? -- Matteow101 (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted Special:Diff/1124393377, so it says "Welsh-American" again. rblv (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead
@1autumnLeaf: Following up on our conversation on my talk page: You want to remove In the 20th century, his reputation was seriously damaged by his important role in establishing the Congo Free State for Leopold II from the lead because you think it is biased (although it is cited to a reliable source). To that end, you provided a citation to a BBC news piece. However, your citation does not contradict the sentence that you want to remove. It merely quotes a Welsh county councillor insisting that Stanley was not a racist, but the sentence in question does not claim that Stanley was a racist. Also, the reference is malformed. Therefore I am restoring the sentence, again, and I encourage you to discuss the matter here rather than continuing to remove it. Ruбlov (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * you sir have clearly demonstrated your support for bias language use by clearly holding your citation on higher regard than mine. According to you now, my citation is malformed and yours is not which is clearly a subjective opinion, going back to the original point “ legacy divide of anything colonial that comes up”. As for the the statement in contention ,it is implicit in the language hence it follows with a justification that he did not directly partake. As the disagreement stands now , it is only fair that contentious language be removed or atleast moved to a section further below titled “controversy” as the wiki rules guarantees neutrality. The logical proposal therefore to you is , removal of contested language from intro and moving it to the section “controversy/legacy” with both citations cited within 48 hours. If not complied the mentioned proposal will be implemented by me. Post 48 hour ,i advice you to not engage in the same edit warring in intro and be in good faith to the wiki community.1autumnLeaf (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * When I said that your reference was malformed, I was referring only to the wiki syntax. It would need to be:, i.e. with the quote in the   parameter, not   and   which should be used for the first and last names of the author.
 * I think that you still do not understand what I am saying. The sentence in dispute is a claim about Stanley's reputation, i.e. what other people think about him, not his character or actions. So to remove it you would need a source that states Stanley's reputation was not damaged by his involvement with King Leopold. But you will never find such a source because even his defenders acknowledge that his reputation was harmed the very fact that he has defenders implies that there is something they are defending him against. I have requested Tim Jeal's book from the library again and I will substantiate the lead with more references once it arrives.
 * it is only fair that contentious language be removed this is a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. You do not have the right to unilaterally remove sourced statements that you disagree with. Ruбlov (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you have failed to grasp the point of “legacy divide repeatedly” in your increduluous supposition by repeatedly refering to Tim Zeal’s work as an absolute. You are in clear breach of wiki neutrality guidelines and have yet again misunderstood the proposal i sent you which clearly states moving the “contentious language” from the intro to “controversy/legacy” section which is logical and in persistence have further engaged in edit warring. Post 48 hours from the original post, contested language will be “moved” to controversy/legacy section. Refrain from edit warring again and operate in good faith to the wiki community.1autumnLeaf (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've come to this discussion after reading the lead, which is very poorly written. Tim Jeal's work has been referenced repeatedly and unquestioningly to assert a viewpoint which is highly controversial. Such discussion does not belong in the lead, and should not be presented as absolute fact anywhere in the article. 84.71.98.204 (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the lead doesn't look particularly biased or controversial to me. Referring to Jeal, it states (among some other things): "Although he personally had high regard for many of the native African people who accompanied him on his expeditions, the exaggerated accounts of corporal punishment and brutality in his books fostered a public reputation as a hard-driving, cruel leader". That's balanced (cf. the "although" contrast), and I don't think anyone who has some knowledge of Stanley would dispute at least the second half of the statement (I'm less sure about the first). Gawaon (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Propaganda
Is this article written by the propaganda departement of the British foreign ministery? You Are In Valhalla (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)