Talk:Melville Monument

Coleridge on Dundas
Kindly refrain from making editorialised comments in brackets. If you disagree with what Coleridge said about Dundas, kindly find a reference to counter what he said.Mikesiva (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Controversy over Dundas and the abolition movement
In the interests of preventing an edit war, I think we should take the issue of recent edits to the "Controversy over Dundas and the abolition movement" to the talk page. For my own part, the case that this section should exist is beyond dispute. It's an important part of this monument's place and history and this article is the place to explore issues relating to the monument in more detail than they can be addressed on the article about Dundas himself.

Nevertheless, it is important that this is the article about the monument and discussion of Dundas' activities and legacy should be here as far as relevant to the monument. The article on Dundas himself explores his wider legacy quite thoroughly. I have added information from this article to the article on Dundas where relevant to increase that thoroughness. I tried to keep to relevant information in my own edits. As it stands, the current section contains a lot of information about Dundas that is simply a broader discussion of his legacy rather than anything especially relevant to the monument. This is creating an imbalance in the focus of the article. Yes, the monument is a site of controversy: the article should reflect that; but it's also a major Edinburgh landmark: the current jumble of start-class information about the monument itself does not reflect that. Balance in articles is better created by adding information rather than by deleting it.

To correct this imbalance, I suggest editors do two things. First, we make sure the section on Dundas' legacy is chiefly relevant to the monument and not an overall discussion of his legacy. My own restoration of relevant information was an attempt to do this. Second, we add more information about the monument itself.

I would appreciate your thoughts before any of us plough ahead with further edits. CPClegg (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for starting a discussion, CPClegg, and apologies for not replying sooner. My thoughts on the matter are similar to yours. The issue should be mentioned but does need to be focused. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Richard Nevell, you'll see I've add quite a lot to the page, which I hope reflect the issue. CPClegg (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

This article does read much better now. After the line on the slave trade, I added a sentence about the attempts by Dundas to restore slavery in Haiti during the British invasion. That is key, because it addresses the controversy about whether Dundas really was an abolitionist.Mikesiva (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Melville Monument, Edinburgh → Melville Monument – It is the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:CONCISE. There is no other on English WP. This could have gone to WP:RM/TR. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, with hatnote to Melville Monument (Greenland). 162 etc. (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder why my search didn't find that. Still, stet. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support. A hatnote will cover the other one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

"Alledged"
86.142.106.13 has added the word "alledged" before "legacy" in the lead section along with poorly-formatted and unrelated citations. I believe this is editorialising as the word (correctly spelt or otherwise) seems aimed at undermining the plaque's veracity when simply saying "legacy" is effectively neutral. The user has repeatedly reverted my and Sahiab3005's edits without explanation and has refused my offer to take the issue to the talk page. I would invite the user or others to discuss the matter here.CPClegg (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 81.154.104.143 For your reference. Please contribute here before making further edits.CPClegg (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 81.147.111.162 For your reference. Please contribute here before making further edits.CPClegg (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)