Talk:Statue of Edward Colston/Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Edward Colston Thrown Bristol Harbour.webp

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Edward Colston Thrown Bristol Harbour.webp

Statue destruction
The people that destroyed the statue and subsequently dumped it in the harbor should not be referred to as "demonstrators". It is more accurate to call them vandals or rioters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.223.109 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is that contentious labels should be avoided unless there is a clear consensus to use them in the referenced reliable sources. See WP:LABEL for more information. The term "rioter" is contentious, and less neutral, than the term "demonstrator" or "protestor". Nobody would dispute that they are protesting; some might dispute that they are rioting. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 16:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Criminal damage is not 'demonstrating' or 'protesting' 2605:E000:100B:AEB:D0BA:594:83AD:3729 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The term "criminal" involves a conviction by a competent court. Demonstrator is an appropriately neutral term in this case. Blindlynx (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blindlynx (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, Blindlynx. No person has been arrested, charged, tried or sentenced for causing criminal damage. Follow the legal process sequel of events.Cloptonson (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is early days. Police have already announced that the actions were not legal. Also, not pursuing legal action does not negate it from being illegal. Simoncrowder (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The police may have alleged that the actions were not legal. The UK not being a police state, it's not their decision to make. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that it's criminal damage. In addition, all the protests in the UK are illegal - because gatherings of more than 6 people are outlawed for very good reason. Jim Michael (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty rare that there'd be no doubt in a legal matter! Justification is a defence, and one can easily imagine a lawyer arguing justification for removing the statue and for the protests, rendering both of these actions legal. We definitely cannot say this was illegal unless and until someone is prosecuted for it.Wikiditm (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There aren't exceptions to the ban on gatherings of over 6 people, nor to the law against criminal damage. Jim Michael (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This does not mean that wikipedia can declare something to be an illegal act when nobody has been prosecuted or even charged, and so it may not be an illegal act. We cannot decide case law. This matter would be a debate over justification which will possibly be settled in a court - it is not for wikipedia to decide.Wikiditm (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're misinterpreting justification. If your definition of it were true, any controversial thing could be forcefully removed by a mob, without following the correct process, with no consequence, citing "justification". but that's beyond the point.
 * The overall point here is correct: we cannot label them 'rioters' or 'vandals' or 'criminals' unless our reliable sources do. As far as I'm aware, they do not yet, so we cannot. We don't determine which term to use. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I perhaps didn't make myself clear. I'm not saying what happened was definitely legal, but rather that it might be. That's a matter for the courts to decide, not wikipedia. I'm not saying that a justification defence would work, but that it might, and this is sufficient reason for wikipedia not to be declaring things illegal when that would be decided in court. Calling what happened here "criminal damage" would be stepping beyond the scope of wikipedia in the same sense that calling George Floyd's killing "murder" would be. We don't know yet. The courts will decide. Not us, not the police, not politicians.Wikiditm (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the word "destroyed". The effigy was toppled, damaged, and dumped.  It could easily be removed by the authorities, repaired and put back in place.  Presumably it won't be, but - unless a conscious decision is taken that it should remain symbolically dumped in the Harbour (not river, by the way) - it could be, so that "destroyed" is not really the correct word to use.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Everyone involved was linked with the BLM demonstration yesterday. Using the word "vandals" suggests no relation to the demo, and using the word "rioters" is absurd - there were no riots. Demonstraters is definitely the correct word to use here.Wikiditm (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The mayor of Bristol has indicated that the statue will be retrieved from the harbour and most likely displayed in a local museum. Michael F 1967 (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - That's already in the article.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

M Shed has confirmed that the broken section of the coat tails from the statue were not recovered Heimasími (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Location
Need we update the co-ordinates to the statue's new underwater home? 202.168.8.142 (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I almost just spit out my coffee from reading this! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Coords are roughly 51°27'00.4"N 2°35'54.5"W if consensus is to change it. U-dble (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Appears someone has in fact changed it! U-dble (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Historic England listing here is for the whole structure - the plinth plus the effigy. The article should be about the whole monument.  Only the effigy has been removed - the plinth is still where it was.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm aware this is probably a joke, but it shouldn't be altered, and perhaps it shouldn't even be listed as destroyed, nor should we use 'was' over 'is', until reliable sources confirm that it is indeed destroyed and that the government has no plans to fish it out of the water, clean it up and pop it back on. I doubt it's sufficiently vandalised to the point where they cannot bring the statue back, if they desire. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made basically the same point in the thread above this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, I work in geo so always like to keep locations accurate and up to date :-), but I'll defer to Ghmyrtle regarding the bulk of the installation still being at the original location. Leigh (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Inflammatory opening
The article is about a statue, however the opening to the article almost immediately begins with text about Colston's connection to slavery. This is not impartial, it is not to do with the statue itself (which is what the article is for), and is to do with the person who already has his own wikipedia entry. This text should be either removed or given the statue itself is controversial and was recently toppled, be added below in a section about why the statue was removed and the controversy surrounding it instead of put as an inflammatory headline. Simoncrowder (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As the statue was toppled because of Colston's connection to slavery, along with earlier responses (eg 1998) there does need to be an acknowledgement of this in the lead. Whether it needs to be summarised is another matter, but three sentences doesn't seem egregious. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't just about the toppling either. As others have noted in other discussions, this status has been highly controversial for a while now. Maybe for a lot shorter than it should have been, but whatever. The reason for this controversy is almost exclusively due to Colston's connection to slavery. Indeed it has been noted that grade 2 historic buildings are not always notable. Yet this was almost definitely was even before the toppling even if we didn't have an article. And a big part of the reason is is because of Colston's connection to slavery. Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Changing the tense of the lede
The statue is no longer there. While the plinth is currently still in its place, the fact is that the actual effigy (which is what most people & secondary sources consider to be the statue) is destroyed. The Guardian, The Telegraph , Time magazine, and the BBC  all consider the statue to have been toppled and thrown into the water without any qualification as to it only being part of the statue that was destroyed. We need to reflect what reliable sources are saying here and describe the statue as being toppled & in the water, as the article is about the statue and not the monument as a whole. That is unless anyone is willing to move this article to Monument to Edward Colston or something like that? Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 21:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why, it says the statue is in Bristol in England, technically it still is, it's just in the water now!! Govvy (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The English Heritage citation - which is a reliable source on listed buildings, which this is - calls it the "Statue of Edward Colston", here, but clearly refers in its designation to the entire monument including the plinth. The plinth, of course, is still located where it always has been.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The present tense in the first sentence is misleading. I'd suggest opening with the following:
 * A statue of Edward Colston stood in the city centre of Bristol, England, from 1895 until it was toppled in 2020. It commemorated Edward Colston (1636–1721) and was a work of the sculptor John Cassidy. The monument consisted of a bronze statue of Colston on a plinth of Portland stone adorned with bronze plaques and figures of dolphins.

Ham II (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The main problem with that wording is that it suggests ("...consisted of....") that the plinth is no longer there - it is.  Instead, you could have: "The bronze statue of Colston rested on a plinth of Portland stone adorned with bronze plaques and figures of dolphins..."   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In its original state the monument consisted of a bronze statue of Colston on a plinth of Portland stone adorned with bronze plaques and figures of dolphins? Ham II (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks OK, if we're sure that was its "original state". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the (fairly in-depth) Historic England listing to suggest otherwise. Ham II (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is there such a big emphasis on the plinth?Blindlynx (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking. It should say something along the lines of "...was a statue of Edward Colston, that was toppled in June 2020, leaving only the plinth". If you have a tree in your garden, cut it down so only the stump remains, do you still have a tree? No.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to the description of the plinth I've proposed above being in the body of the article instead of the lede. Ham II (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole monument, including the plinth, is a listed structure, and normally articles about a listed structure/building report on the whole of the structure, not just the effigy. This article is about the whole structure.  If it were just about the toppling of the statue it would be titled something like Toppling of Edward Colston statue.  But, it isn't.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * At the moment the lede is incorrect in a number of places due to the tense change. It states things like "(the statue) was a work of the sculptor John Cassidy." It still is a work of Cassidy, albeit a severely damaged one. The history section tense is done better. Starting with "in its original state" works well, but in the lede I think the tense should be present tense where possible.Wikiditm (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've commented further down this page about the changes unilaterally made earlier today. The other point - which I've corrected in the text - is that the whole structure is (still) listed, not just the effigy.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with saying that the effigy was toppled?Blindlynx (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Article inconsistent with Edward Colston article and all other EAC articles.

 * The Royal African Company, on whose board Colston sat, transported more than 100,000 slaves from West Africa to the Americas between 1672 and 1689;[1] more than 20,000 of them died during the crossings.[1] Colston used his wealth to provide financial support to hospitals and schools throughout England, particularly in his home city of Bristol. The fact that much of his fortune was made in the slave trade was largely ignored until the 1990s.[2]

The number is 75-85 thousand, not 100,000. Also the death toll is 18,000 - which is significantly lower than that of the crews of those ships at the time. A lot of the deaths were because the African tribes that captured and sold off people to the arabs and europeans would castrate them (as this is what the arab slave traders wanted, who made up 80% of all purchasers) without antibiotics or anesthetics which led to serious infections. Even if it were the exagerated 100k/20k that's a 20% mortality rate, the average EAC ship in the period had up to 38% mortality rate for crew, not including crew who just went missing, presumed dead, but those who died on trading ships at sea. I get that this articles purpose is more of a political statement than an encyclopedic factual statement, and that sometimes lying because 'it's a good message' is okay on here, but as a nautical history buff I cannot help but point out that these figures are erroneous, and not even consistent with the already 'tweaked' politicized article on Colston. Every white lie is just upping the figures, and ignoring the fact that even the largest number given is lower than crew deaths.

Also this statess that 'much of his fortune was made in the slave trade' and this is patently incorrect. Much of his fortune was made in regular merchantry. The only slaves his ships would have taken was when he worked with EAC which was only for 8 years towards the end of his life, but every company worked with EAC they were the Google of their day. We have no way to estimate what portion of his fortune was from the slave trade. All other articles previously honestly represented this fact. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "Much of" is from the Historic England listing in the citation for that statement: "Until the 1990s, Colston's involvement in the slave trade, the source of much of the money which he bestowed in Bristol, went largely unremarked." However, I wouldn't have a problem with The fact that his fortune was partly made in the slave trade was largely ignored until the 1990s. Ham II (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless you got citations we can't update the page with this info Blindlynx (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised Colston was so badly misunderstood. I'm grateful to our anonymous friend for enlightening me to the trivial nature of slave deaths. I mean, just eight years of selling kidnapped people - it's nothing really, is it? Shall we start fundraising for the replacement of the statue, now? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Colston was a member of the slave trading Royal African Company for 12 years: 1680-1692; he continued slave trading privately when he left the firm, which was 29 years before his death. He didn't retire from trade until 1708 which was 13 years before he died in 1721. I too am amazed at how people like him get misunderstood. Of course the 28 years Colston spent making money from unspeakable cruelty towards and murder of Africans shouldn't detract from his philanthropy towards those English people he considered worthy of his charity.


 * Historian William Pettigrew has stated that the Royal African Company which was set up to trade on the West Coast of Africa “shipped more enslaved African women, men and children to the Americas than any other single institution during the entire period of the transatlantic slave trade,” and that investors in the company were fully aware of its activities and intended to profit from this exploitation.


 * Between 1662 and 1731, the Company transported approximately 212,000 slaves, of whom 44,000 died en route. By that time, they also transported slaves to English colonies in North America.


 * Michael F 1967 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Fish
Reminder to add Category:Fish in art once fish are mentioned in the article's prose (Design or Description section?) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This is an in-joke? Marnanel (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , No. Are those not fish sculptures on the base? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The sculptures on the corners of the base are actually dolphins. Dolphins are linked with the Colston name and this stylised depiction (where it looks a lot like a fish) is spotted all over Bristol. There is a charity named The Dolphin Society (see ) which was founded in honour of Colston and has a similar looks-like-a-fish design as its logo.Wikiditm (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ah, my mistake! I've added Category:Dolphins in art. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Distance moved
Hi. How far was the statue dragged before it was thrown into the water? I'm not familar with the city of Bristol. Was the original location next to the harbour, or further away? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It was several hundred yards, though I haven't found a precise distance.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The statue was approx 50 meters from the water but about 100-150m from Pero's Bridge (named after a slave brought to Bristol) where it was thrown in.&mdash; Rod talk 07:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 50m or 150m are not correct.The water is about 300m away and the place it was thrown in is a distance of 500m as the crow flies. You can check on google maps (Apologies for poor formatting, not a usual editor so feel free to edit it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C224:A700:E535:EE82:62A5:A9E2 (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that is right. The distance from the plinth to Pero's bridge is about 0.3 miles, or - very roughly - 500 metres.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The statue was rolled along the open square, on the side closer the A38. It then went over the ramp at the waterfront and was rolled all the way down before being pushed into the harbour just south of Pero's Bridge on the west side. See the following google maps directions for a rough idea: Wikiditm (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Do we know whether the dumping at Pero's Bridge, rather than at a closer point in the Harbour, was deliberate because of the symbolism?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen it suggested that there was a symbolism behind it being there, but on the day I didn't hear anyone talk about this symbolism. Rather, Pero's bridge was just the most convenient place to dump it. Most places further up the harbour were either too shallow or blocked in some way. If a reliable source mentions any symbolism though I guess it could be included in the article.Wikiditm (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Introduction
Govvy it's an awkward transition between the first two paragraphs without qualifying why it was toppled in the first paragraph Blindlynx (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ? Why are you asking me this? Also that didn't ping me, you should use Govvy (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. you undid my edit, and i'm not about to go putting it back in without discussing it first. Blindlynx (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay.., I undid and changed a couple of things, but the article is getting changed all the time, I hardly think it matters too much in the short term. I really wouldn't worry. Govvy (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Although now it seems the lead paragraphs have thrown chronological order out of the window! The article is back down to a C- Govvy (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * True, i guess it's best to wait a bit and fully copyedit the whole thing later this week Blindlynx (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of demonstration
I've been trying to clarify a few words at George Floyd protests in the United Kingdom, but the timeline is confusing me. Am I right or wrong in thinking that, first, there was a rally in College Green, and then demonstrators moved to the Centre where they toppled the statue and dragged it to the Harbour. Have I got it right? I know the geography (I used to work there), but is that the right summary of the order of events? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are roughly correct, but there is confusion do the lack of press attendance. There was first a rally in College Green, which was overcrowded and so many people were photographed all the way up Park Street. This went on for about an hour, starting at 13:00. At roughly 14:00 the protest moved in a very circuitous route down the A38, up Quay St, all the way round the Horsefair, before ending up in Castle Park. Because of the large turnout, this effectively dragged the protest over a massive area covering most of Bristol centre. The statue of Colston was located just before the turning onto Quay St, and had been covered up by the council in anticipation of possible damage. It was pulled down at roughly 14:50, at which point I would estimate about 80% of the protesters were ahead of the statue, with maybe 50% having arrived at Castle Park. When word spread about the statue being felled, many of the protesters then walked back to the harbour, taking the shortcut of Wine St-Broad St to get there. What followed was roughly half an hour of people defacing the statue in various ways, before it was pushed into harbour at roughly 15:30.Wikiditm (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's very helpful, thanks. Obviously not a WP:RS, but it will help me and others make sure there are fewer glaring errors in the articles.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's alright. Yeah this timeline can't be presented as is but hopefully will help editors make sense of what different sources are saying.Wikiditm (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Today's changes
Just pointing out that there was no consensus for these changes made earlier today. Proposing changes is not a justification for making them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Put it to a vote. Also the previous version had a weird overemphasis on the plinth Blindlynx (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, sorry; further discussion is clearly needed. The current opening sentence, The statue of Edward Colston is a statue in The Centre in Bristol, England, is misleading as it still gives the statue's former location. Strictly speaking, the figure of Colston is the statue, and that is no longer standing. I can't find any definition of "statue" saying that the word means the combination of a sculpture and its support. However, it's normal for monuments like this to be referred to simply as statues, pars pro toto, hence Historic England's listing titled Statue of Edward Colston. That title doesn't mean that what's left of the monument in situ should still be referred to it as a statue – the statue part of it has gone. (Though the article title shouldn't change from Statue of Edward Colston, as its scope is broader than the monument in its current state.) Ham II (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I find it weird that this article reads as thought it's still there, when its removal has made headlines worldwide. William Avery (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already said it before lets say this again, the lead says the statue is in Bristol, and technically it still is in Bristol, it's just in the Bristol Harbour! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm amazed that anyone thought that an an opening sentence of "The statue... is a statue..." was a good introduction to the article. So, it is incontrovertible that the statue "stood" in The Centre, and that it (that is, the effigy part of the monument) is no longer there.  I've had another go at rewording the introduction.  We should not have an overemphasis on where the effigy is now (that is, in the harbour) - though, equally obviously, that is important.  There needs to be a balance struck in the text between a description and explanation of the monument as it existed from 1895 until last weekend, and what has happened to it currently - and, of course, the reasons why.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Still poor imho. The first few lines should be as clear and simple as possible. A narrative style is clearly the way to go - "On YYYY, a statue was erected in Bristol city centre, England, to commemorate contributions to the city of the British slave trader and politician Edward Colston (BBBB-DDDD). After years of controversy over whether it was still appropriate, on YYYY it was toppled by anti-racism protesters and dumped in Bristol Harbour. It is due to be salvaged and re-erected in a museum." The second paragraph can then move onto specifics. Krypto Wallace (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove stolen image
The photo of the toppling credited to "Ben Birchall/PA Wire" needs to be removed immediately. It is clear through the "Files for deletion" (8 June) discussion page that the claim to fair use is prima facie invalid, and no apparent effort is being made to argue otherwise. Keeping this open as a debate point is apparently just a stalling tactic by those who either don't know, or don't want to know, the law, and rather disturbingly, those who do, are being cast as racists trying to "whitewash" history, or are otherwise being accused of being up to no good. Remedial action over this form of copyright theft (newsworthy imagery) is time critical - in some jurisdictions, monetary damages are calculated not just on the length of time a violation is hosted, but on how many discrete views occcur, which, in this use case, is probably one for every single page impression. I would have removed it myself pending its inevitable deletion from Wikipedia's servers some five days from now, but apparently that is a decision that is outwith my privilege as a newcomer. Krypto Wallace (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

No matter, apparently overnight my status changed, so I have been able to protect the uploader (and Wikipedia) from potential damages that might be due to the photographer/agency based on an imprint count, by my own hand. Please, don't all rush to thank me! Krypto Wallace (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyright issues?
Those bullet-points in the history section read like a direct copy from the source, isn't this a copyright issue? Govvy (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They are an attributed quote, not a copyright violation: it seems appropriate to cite the exact reasons for the listing as given. Pam  D  19:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead section
Twice now, DeFacto has singularly stymied two different editor's efforts to improve the introduction of this article, which is currently terribly clunky and almost desperate in its desire to be seen as woke.

If I had been given the chance to finish my edits, this is how I would prefer the introduction to read......

''The statue of Edward Colston was created by sculptor John Cassidy in 1895 to commemorate Edward Colston (1636–1721). The monument was erected in Bristol city centre, England, and designated a Grade II listed structure in 1977. Latterly controversial due to Colston's involvement in the slave trade, on 7 June 2020, the bronze effigy was toppled from its stone plinth, defaced, and pushed into Bristol Harbour by anti-racism protestors. The statue was recovered from the harbour and put into safe storage by Bristol City Council on 11 June, who intend to clean it of mud, but not the graffiti or ropes arising from the protest.''

I fail to see the problem, it is brief and to the point, putting it into historical perspective, while also explaining why it is in the news right now. That it was erected in the area called "The Centre" etc, are exceedingly trivial local details, and there is no need to go so far as to describe the entire career of the man or the specific names and triggering events of the protestors in the very first paragraph, they are better covered later on, once people have been given this basic information of what, where, when and why.

That is my understanding of the purpose of an introducing paragraph on Wikipedia, certainly for an article on a statue. But I frankly don't care enough to keep fighting DeFacto, losing half my edits before they can even be saved, if he is this determined to have his way Krypto Wallace (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * please read WP:CONCENSUS and then WP:LEAD, and perhaps WP:CIVIL. The statue was not notable because of who created it, so that shouldn't be the first thing in the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Aarghhh!!!  It's consensus.  Nothing to do with censuses, but everything to do with consent...    Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * DeFacto, the heart of civility is not ignoring people. Other than the obviously false notion that my version attributes notability solely due to who the sculptor was, you have totally ignored me, even though you asked me to come here to talk to you! Rudeness personified. You can change the name of the section I started here all you want, I don't recall calling it "Lead section", the issue is clearly your apparent belief you can achieve your goals through obstruction, not negotiation. Even if I were daft enough to believe your recorded objection here was genuine, it seems obvious that a counter offer to simply strike the words "by sculptor John Cassidy" would not advance the discussion one bit. Stop wasting my time. The article is how you want it, you've no need to embarrass yourself by calling me rude or resort to other forms of patronisation, I'm not going to make a big issue out of the means you achieved this outcome. It is enough for me to record it here. Krypto Wallace (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I feel the lead is bias to WP:Recentism, it's taken out the primary facts about the statue and relegated them into the article. Govvy (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Presumably this is meant as support for my version? Primary facts is what I was aiming for, either trimming or relegating mere details. The five Ws. Krypto Wallace (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * - As a newish editor, you may not be aware that many, many editors have contributed to this article over the past week. Your argument is not with one or two people - it is with all those editors who have contributed to making the article what it is.   As  (almost) said, articles are built through consensus, and it's unlikely that any single editor is wholly satisfied with any specific - and temporary -wording.  That is simply not how Wikipedia works.  This article is about the sculpture and monument - its history, its background, the controversy around it over several decades, and recent events.  The lead needs to present a balanced summary of the entire article, and not give undue weight either to recent events or its longer history. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that it is only in the state it is now, because Defacto made two edits to my one (and who ever it was who had previously ordered it the way he apparently doesn't like), and hasn't made any attempt to justify it here, other than this laughable claim that my version makes it appear that who the sculptor was, is what makes it notable. My version clearly satisfies your concerns and better adheres to Wikipedia guidance on how to write an introductory paragraph than the one he has by necessity had to use force, not negotiation, to achieve, and I suspect his temporary victory achieved by force is meant to be a permanent change for as long as we stand around and keep pretending he is interested in negotiating and has a desire not to be rude, when he clearly isn't and doesn't. Krypto Wallace (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This edit was not "a victory achieved by force", it was achieved by tapping a few keys. Perspective, and WP:AGF, please.  In the overall scheme of things, the difference between your wording and DeFacto's wording is fairly marginal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Nobody with a background in professional writing would defend the current version, which is a bizarre mix of tedious trivia and a tortuous attempt at virtue signalling as a replacement for the basics of the five w's. I can assume good faith unless or until I meet someone whose actions are obviously not done in good faith. Has he attempted any further negotiations, or even shown an indication he is willing to restore my edit if the three supposedly offending words he identified are removed, for example? Or is he ignoring me and carrying on with other edits, safe in the knowledge that if I do not meet force with force to redress the unfairness of him making two edits to my one, then he is the de facto victor of an encounter which, if we were allowed only one edit each, would have seen my version be the published one, pending any larger scale comment or indeed involvement for or against. I know what happened, don't take me for a fool and try to convince me I have not seen what I just saw, in both his use of two edits against my one to impose his will, and his rude and disinterested response to my compliance with his demand that I must come here and speak my case first, to defend my one edit. If you have a detailed case to make to defend De Facto's version over mine, one that acknowledges they would be quite different to an expert's eye, it appears he is content to put you in that position. I have seen no such case thus far. Do not worry though, since I do not believe in using force, I will not put you in a position of having to team up with him to defeat it, it is enough for me to see there are still no persuasive objections to it being lodged here, and perhaps at least one argument lodged in support of its intent. Krypto Wallace (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Which parts are "tedious trivia"? Why should one editor "negotiate" with another?  Why do you think DeFacto is a "victor"?  What "demands" did they make?  How do you know they are male?  Lots of questions.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you being intentionally obtuse? You can see examples the trivia it contains from my attempted edits to remove it. DeFacto is a victor because I choose, as an educated black person, not to descend to his level of using force to achieve ones ends. I will allow his two attempts to impose his will on me, to stand, despite it clearly not being the way Wikipedia is supposed to work (and I thank him for the link to CONSENSUS for teaching me the precise term for what he did - "edit war"). And while he may not be a man, these are not typically the acts of a woman, who tend to not only speak of the need for civility and negotiation rather than arrogance and violence, but practice it too. De Facto demanded that I should use the talk page, during his second, illegitimate imposition of his preference, in an apparent offer to talk through our differences, politely. So where is he? All he has done is offer an implausible objection that largely ignores my entire post. The only question I have then, is why I am speaking to you, why it is you defending his actions and his proposed wording, and not him, especially if you see no appreciable difference. You may well not see an appreciable difference in my version and his, but it is clear he sees enough differences to rudely and arrogantly impose them on me, through action, not words. Now, are you going to carry on defending him, or are you going to give me (or anyone else) a specific reason why you think his version better satisfies LEAD than mine? Why is it of utmost importance for example, to say "The Centre", rather than the standard English phrase, "Bristol city centre"? I have told you I am an educated black person only in case you might have presumed that you are defending his version because you think it better serves the needs of the Black Lives Matter movement. My people are not so uneducated as to see why De Facto prefers his version over mine, if, as seems statistically likely, he is a white male currently experiencing white guilt over the traditional silence of organisations like Wikipedia against racism, which even now, refused to black out for even a day to show solidarity, but still doesn't let black people like me edit. We can handle an article about a statue having an introductory paragraph that waits at least a couple of sentences before trying so desperately to convince us that Wikipedia is on our side. It is indeed important to us, for our own dignity, that an encyclopedia doesn't engage in recentism and descend into unprofessional writing just as a sop to our feelings, and yet to my eye, it is his version that does that, mine puts the recent events in proper context, in full compliance with LEAD. You can either defend his version from that standpoint, or you can't. He clearly doesn't want to. Krypto Wallace (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but perhaps it comes effortlessly to me. One point I would make is that The Centre is the name of a specific roadway, once called the Tramway Centre, within the much wider Bristol city centre.  And I'm not defending DeFacto (with whom I regularly disagree, for what it's worth) - I'm just pointing out that Wikipedia is put together collectively in a way that seems to differ from your idea of how it should be put together.  Changing another editor's suggested text is not "rude", "illegitimate" or "arrogant", it's just how Wikipedia routinely works and develops, millions of times every day.    Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you not understanding about the basic sequence of events here? I have said what I have said about the rudeness and hostility of his actions, in full cognisance of what Wikipedia considers legitimate editing practice (thanks to the helpful links explaining CONSENSUS and CIVIL, as well as the way my mother raised me). Are you denying that him making two edits to my one, is an "edit ear" on his part? Are you denying that he told me to come here to explain my edit? Are you denying that he failed to adequately address my concerns when I did so? Basically ignoring it in its entirery, save for an implausible statement about the mention of the sculptor. Do not be so quick to excuse what is perhaps routine, with what is allowed or considered polite. I suspect De Facto knows it is routine to win on Wikipedia in this fashion, I suspect that is why he called himself De Facto, why he apparently self identifies as an ostrich, and with no apparent sense of the irony, has a link to STONEWALLING just above it. He has stonewalled me. Krypto Wallace (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to comment about the conduct of one or more editors, please take it to WP:ANI rather than here - this page is for discussing the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I will assume from this that you do finally appreciate the exact sequence of events. I am perfectly happy to only discuss the article here, and almost as if by some magical coincidence that I'm sure had nothing to with me raising a stink about his conduct here, it appears De Facto does now want to do just that. Funny how things work out sometimes. Krypto Wallace (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I like the introduction as it is at this precise moment. Deb (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But if you can't explain why with reference to LEAD, that is hardly helpful. Krypto Wallace (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * thanks for bringing the discussion here, rather than warring it out in the article. You are correct that the introduction (or "lead" as it's commonly called by Wiki regulars) should be brief and to the point. The point being to summarise the whole article, with due or proportionate weight being given to each of the main facets of the article. Another thing to bear in mind though, is that it's a good idea to mention at the very beginning of the lead why the subject of the article is particularly notable, as mentioned in the lead of WP:LEAD. Another thing to try to avoid is adding content into the lead which is not already covered in the article - that is not what the lead is for. Ideally, nothing in the lead needs referencing, as it will already be fully described and fully and reliably sourced elsewhere in the article. I didn't realise you had only started editing a day or two ago, and I'm sorry if I came over as a bit intolerant. These articles have taken a good beating over the last few days, with a lot of conflicting personal POV and agendas having to be balanced and accommodated. Attempting to gain consensus is the best way forward though, and one sure way to make that as difficult as possible is probably to attack other editors, rather than to present a rationale backed up with common sense and researched Wikipedia policy and guideline arguments. You do still need a thick skin though, and a lot of patience to make any difference in Wikipedia. I wish you well in you new Wiki career, and no hard feelings, eh? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there actually even a professional writer here? The question that immediately arises when reading a first line that begins "The statue of Edward Colston, originally erected in The Centre in Bristol, England", is both, why on Earth can't this person use standard English (Bristol city centre), and when was it erected? Why are you even bothering to tell people where and what, if you can't be bothered to say when, in a sentence whose use of "originally" practically screams to the readers GET READY, you're about to hear about something that relates to the passage of time. But no, it immediately then lurches into a sentence about the debate over whether philantropy can still be seen as philanthropy if it was funded through the sale of slaves, the desperation to make this article appear ever so woke from the very first lines, clear and obvious. Why would anyone prefer that, to my wording, whose simplicity lays bare the reason why it was toppled, as well as properly contextualising the hundred years that any reader will realise was missing, only once they read a bit further on, because of that crucial lack of care for the noting of when, at the same time as you note where and what. But why am I even bothering offering such valuable critiques? The implication that I should come here to talk about my proposed wording on the instruction of De Facto, was clearly part of a (not so) elaborate trick. It is clear the only way to edit Wikipedia, is directly, and rudely, with minimal (and likely disingenuous) effort to explain oneself, as he does. I mean, I could be wrong, I guess it could very well be the case that my version does make it sound like the sculptor is the only reason the sculpture is noteworthy. But I'm not, obviously. Noting the who is perfectly normal practice in articles about public art (ESPECIALLY FOR BANKSY, AMIRIGHT?). Even if I was wrong, which I'm not, I have of course offered to remove those three little words in the spirit of negotiation. An offer greeted with a very rude wall of silence. I wonder why. Not. Krypto Wallace (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Point one: The Centre, Bristol, is not the same as Bristol city centre.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Already being covered below. Krypto Wallace (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Point two: Wikipedia is not (generally) written by professional writers; it's written by thousands upon thousands of volunteers from a huge range of backgrounds.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps don't edit war with the few professionals who do try to edit then? Krypto Wallace (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While writing skills are important, so is willingness to comply with WP policies and guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What policy or guideline are you alleging I have not complied with? Krypto Wallace (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Point three: The opening sentence is a little unconventional but gets round the issue of whether the statue "is" or "was" in the Centre, by saying that is where it "originally" was.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My wording is even more conventional (sculptors and dates of creation are always in the opening sentence of statue articles) and neatly avoids the is/was issue entirely, with no perceivable disadvantage to the reader that I can see (trusting as we must that they do at least make it to the end of the first paragraph with their wits intact, which is not a given in the roller coaster version that exists now). Krypto Wallace (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sculptors and dates are not always in the opening sentence, particularly not in the case of public memorials where location and context is often more important.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Such as? Krypto Wallace (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Point four: The issue of whether someone involved in the slave trade can ever be neutrally described as a "philanthropist" is contested. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Relevance? My wording avoids the controversy entirely, by not even wasting time/space to give a mini-biography of the man here in the very first paragraph, before even saying when the statue was erected. It is enough to say it is a statue of Colston, and why it subsequently became controversial. Krypto Wallace (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Point five: The year the statue was erected, and the name of the sculptor, are details that should probably be covered in the opening paragraph but not necessarily in the opening sentence.  That's simply a matter of style (on which there is guidance), and opinion.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And I have given my opinion. As a professional writer. It isn't rocket science. Who, what, when, where, why. Krypto Wallace (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Point six: No-one "instructed" you to discuss your opinion on this page, but that is the way disagreements on content are normally resolved - so, it was advice only. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Distinction without a difference in this scenario. Advice is an instruction if the only alternative is to walk away and forget about it, thereby defying the instruction. Was the purpose of the advice to make me walk away? That it came from an edit warrior suggests so. Krypto Wallace (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Point seven: No-one is under any obligation to respond to another editor's comments on this page.   That's all I will say on the topic.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * CIVIL says otherwise, especially in cases like mine. Krypto Wallace (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Points 4 and 5 - we disagree. That's normal.  With the greatest respect, some of your comments do stretch the boundaries of what is considered civil (for example, simply describing another editor as an "edit warrior" does not assume good faith) - and I'm not sure what "especially in cases like mine" means - are you envisaging special treatment?    Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Factual statements are not rude. He edit warred, thus, he is an edit warrior. We have already covered good faith. "My case" refers only to the fact that is is especially rude to ignore someone who you have asked to engage with you in discussion (accepting they didn't ignore me entirely, they just made one small point that largely ignored the entirety of my post, that they have now apologised for, but I suspect only because I made such a stink about it). Krypto Wallace (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

With regards the wording of "The Centre" I don't think this is niche local knowledge. It's where the statue is. The grammatically correct wording here is the one currently in the article: "in The Centre in Bristol," not "in The Centre of Bristol" or "in Bristol city centre." Saying Bristol city centre is weirdly vague when we could just say where it is. Saying "in The Centre of Bristol" makes no sense, like saying "in Knowle of Bristol."Wikiditm (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be clearer if we said "in central Bristol" or "in Bristol city centre" in the lead: it's not immediately obvious to the reader who doesn't know Bristol that "The Centre" is a street area, and the exact location isn't important for the lead, just the fact that it was in the city centre. Pam  D  17:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I also suggest that the word bronze should appear in the lead. Pam  D  18:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - No problem with mentioning bronze. How we refer to the location is somewhat problematic, and conventionally we would include the name of the street in the lead.  We could say it was located in Bristol city centre, but that covers a large area.  The obvious next question would be "Where in the centre?" - to which the answer is "The Centre".   And we don't want to say "...in The Centre, in Bristol city centre...".  Not an easy one.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You might give the street in the very first line if it is a famous thoroughfare, like Whitehall. But if not, LEAD surely supports the view that the opening sentence is not the place for giving the reader an intimate Bristolian geography lesson, except perhaps in the introduction of the article for "The Centre, Bristol", if it is that poorly (cleverly?) named. If "The Centre" isn't actually in Bristol city centre, then why would you not just say Bristol? If "The Centre" is close enough to the middle of the grey blob on a map marked Bristol that nobody but a Bristolian would know or care differently, then say Bristol city centre. Krypto Wallace (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For background, "The Centre" was originally part of the harbour that was then filled in and known as the Tramway Centre - since there are now no trams, it is known simply as The Centre.  It is part of Bristol city centre, but "Bristol city centre" covers a much larger area.  I continue to favour use of The Centre, as now - anyone wanting to know precisely where in Bristol it is can click on the link, click on the coordinates, or look at the map in the article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Such minutiae of Bristolian geography is clearly going to be of no interest to the vast majority of readers, for whom "Bristol city centre" suffices as the "where", for the introduction. Krypto Wallace (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The wordings of "central Bristol" or "Bristol city centre" seem needlessly vague and possibly inaccurate to me. I can easily imagine someone taking either of these terms to mean Broadmead as this is what is being referred to with those terms almost all of the time. The lead should surely just say where it is. It's in The Centre in Bristol. If people find the name confusing then that's a wider problem which wikipedia can't (and shouldn't try to) solve. See also The The.Wikiditm (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a problem that shouldn't arise in the first place. Broadmead means nothing to me, and neither does "The Centre" if it is not meant to mean city centre (which to most, it surely does). Like most readers of Wikipedia, we wouldn't know one end of Bristol from another, and aren't much interested in being educated on the finer points of that topic in any place except an article about Bristol. The statue was either erected in Bristol city centre, or some other part of Bristol. That is all you have to make clear in the opening line. Krypto Wallace (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Colston source
Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

With this edit, you marked the source I had added as unreliable. That source clearly specifies which official records were used to estimate the figures, and I can't see anything to suggest they are unreliable. The figures previously listed were much higher, without a good source. Would you prefer to go back to those? Deb (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * it looks like it's self-published to me, and hosted on the webpage of a history reformation campaign group, both of which are cautioned against in WP:RS. Perhaps it needs to be taken to WP:RSN for discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am hoping we are not using any sources from brh.org.uk, I wouldn't trust anything from that website myself. Sources you can trust like Bristol Record Society will be more helpful. Govvy (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So long as they are balanced by equivalent sources presenting a different perspective, like this, there should be no problem. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly, Guy, I don't have any more time to dedicate to meeting DeFacto's exacting standards. If anyone else wants to work on it, that's fine, otherwise we may as well go back to the version prior to my edits :-) Deb (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * they are not my "exacting standards", they are Wikipedia's. Do you not concur with them? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Forget it. Let's just go back to the bigger, less accurate numbers. Deb (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I found another one. Deb (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Moved here from my talkpage too. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * that may be a reliable source, but it doesn't support the fact it is being used for. What it does support is that that information was proposed by someone for a plaque. I've tagged it as 'failed verification'. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

i found a good source (https://www.slavevoyages.org/voyage/database#results) and changed the numbers to relfect it only problem is it's raw data, i don't think a little data clean up and addition falls under wp:or but i can share my work if need beBlindlynx (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * that looks a better source to me. If you just totalled up some numbers I don't see a problem. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image size
Someone keeps changing the infobox size to "upright=0.75". Why not just use the standard infobox image size? I'd rather be able to see the artwork a bit better by default. What do other editors think? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you've made the image smaller. Why? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * the default size is more appropriate for images that are landscape style (wider than they are high). With this tall narrow image, the default size makes the infobox way too big. MOS:LAYIM says that if an image overwhelms a 1024x768 window, use WP:IMGSIZE to resize, and that says for upright images 0.75 is the default scale. Simple as that! ;-) -- DeFacto (talk). 18:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for replying. Well, I'd prefer the image be larger, but I'll let other editors weigh in. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose you can always click on it if you'd like it bigger, but for those who find it too big, a click won't make it smaller. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead section (2)
It beggars belief that anyone could find this introduction remotely satisfactory. If my proposed wording isn't going to be used as a good starting point for debate, perhaps a thorough demolition of the current version will achieve the same results?

''The statue of Edward Colston, originally erected in The Centre in Bristol, England, is of Bristol-born merchant Edward Colston (1636–1721) whose earlier reputation as a philanthropist has come under increasing scrutiny because of his involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. The bronze statue, created in 1895 by sculptor John Cassidy, on a Portland stone plinth, was designated a Grade II listed structure in 1977.''

''On 7 June 2020, the statue of Colston was toppled, defaced, and pushed into Bristol Harbour by Black Lives Matter protesters during the George Floyd protests. The plinth was also covered in graffiti, but remains in place. The statue was recovered from the harbour and put into safe storage by Bristol City Council on 11 June.''

Perhaps if I itemise the problems I have with it, some actual progress can be made? Perhaps only indicate which items you can't accept, and maybe we can at least improve the bits you do see sense in.

1. Why on Earth is the date it was erected, being deliberately separated from the place it was erected? Basic and obvious example of needlessly confusing readers, surely. It could be placed in the first line quite easily, just two little words ("in 1895").

2. Why do people continue to believe giving the erected location as "The Centre, Bristol" helps anyone, least of all those who don't know it is apparently not the same as Bristol city centre (and has anyone here even bothered to determine if that is true or not?)?

3. Why is the fact Colston's "earlier reputation as a philanthropist has come under increasing scrutiny because of his involvement in the Atlantic slave trade" said so early, and more importantly, before you have even explained to the reader why it is relevant? Do not force people to read backwards to understand the whole passage, is a golden rule of good writing.

4. Just how confused and bemused do you want readers to be, by offering them a sentence as convoluted and filled with disparate facts as "The bronze statue, created in 1895 by sculptor John Cassidy, on a Portland stone plinth, was designated a Grade II listed structure in 1977."?

5. Why are you forcing readers to read a whole sentence like "The plinth was also covered in graffiti, but remains in place", when far tighter wording could be used? "Toppled from its plinth" is just four words, if you can handle making the reader wait to learn the terrible news that the precious stone plinth was graffitied too, until after the introduction.

6. Why say "Black Lives Matter protesters during the George Floyd protests" as if readers have any clue what those words mean? Surely "anti-racism protestors" is both easier to read and a more efficient way to explain to all readers, the reason why the statue was dumped in the harbour? It is not disrespectful to the memory of Floyd nor does it downplay the message of BLM, and I say that as a black person. You do not write introductions for people who already know the topic to this level of detail, that's just writing 101.

7. Why is it not considered important (certainly when cast against what this introduction implies is important) to note that the Council intends to keep and possibly even display the statue in it's as mutilated state, as a teaching aid?

Krypto Wallace (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * With points 2 and 6, I don't really see any problem with referencing things readers might not know about. If a reader thinks "I don't know what that area of Bristol is" or "I don't know what the George Floyd protests were" then they can click those links and find out more about the topic. Such is the joy of being on wikipedia. With regards point 2, yes it's definitely true that the statue is in The Centre. It is debatable whether it's in Bristol city centre - officially the answer is "yes it is", but a term like "city centre" is open to interpretation and someone with a more restrictive interpretation would say "no it isn't." Agreed on point 3 - this sentence hints at later information and should really come after the fact that the effigy has been toppled. Point 4, yes if you can word this in a less clunky fashion that would be great. Somewhat agree on point 5. It would help to trim down the lead if the plinth info was further down in the article. Point 7 is debatable and I lean towards disagree - pledges from the current council may well not happen (and frequently don't happen). It wouldn't be appropriate to have article leads contain things the council says they're going to do. On the other hand, this particular pledge does seem more likely than others, but it's not up to us to make that call. Appropriate place for council pledges is further down the article in my opinion.Wikiditm (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Two basic points here: (A) Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - it relies on clickable links to give more detailed information as part of the reading experience, and the way its prose is constructed reflects that.  (B)  Much of the wording of the introduction is an attempt to get round the question of whether the statue "is", or alternatively "was", in the Centre - and, in turn, that depends on whether the "statue" is defined as simply the toppled effigy, or the entire monument (as defined by English Heritage).    Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the interests of a negotiated settlement, can you do what Wikiditm was nice enough to do, and enumerate your comments with respect to the original post. We'll get there eventually people. Stay strong. Krypto Wallace (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really - I'm sure you're aware of my views from earlier exchanges, and I don't want to waste any more time in bilateral discussions with someone who uses belligerent language on what are relatively minor issues. The current wording was put together by many editors, as can be seen from the article history - have you contacted any of them directly and sought their opinions?  I don't have any major issues with the current wording.   I'll wait to see how other editors respond before adding anything else. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * my thoughts:
 * No. 1, I agree with putting the erection date there.
 * No. 2, I don't see any need for change.
 * No. 3, I think the reappraisal should be mentioned later, leaving just the fact that the statue was to commemorate him as a philanthropist, per the Historic England explanation.
 * No. 4, I'd separate the creator from the fact of the listing. The fact of the listing can stay there as it's a reason for it being notable, the creator details can moved down.
 * No. 5, I'd keep the damage detail as is, it is all relevant.
 * No. 6, I'd keep the protest details, the link can inform those interested.
 * No. 7, I agree that the intention to display it needs adding.
 * Giving:
 * The statue of Edward Colston, originally erected in 1895 in The Centre in Bristol, England, is of Edward Colston (1636–1721), Bristol-born merchant, philanthropist, slave trader and member of parliament. The bronze statue on a Portland stone plinth was designated a Grade II listed structure in 1977. The statue is the work of sculptor John Cassidy.
 * Colston's reputation has come under increasing scrutiny because of his involvement in the Atlantic slave trade and on 7 June 2020, the statue of was toppled, defaced, and pushed into Bristol Harbour by Black Lives Matter protesters during the George Floyd protests. The plinth was also covered in graffiti, but remains in place. The statue was recovered from the harbour and put into safe storage by Bristol City Council on 11 June. The council plan to exhibit the cleaned statue in a museum.
 * What do you think? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Good, but I have a few points:
 * I would insert "a" before "Bristol-born merchant.."
 * I would maintain a chronological order: "...merchant, slave trader, member of parliament, and...."
 * "... benefactor", rather than "philanthropist". (This term is under discussion at Talk:Edward Colston, so we should be consistent here with what is agreed there.)
 * I would split the long opening sentence of the second para into two: "...Atlantic slave trade. On 7 June 2020, the statue..."  (remove typo "of")
 * "..the cleaned statue" is ambiguous - it could mean that they intend to remove the graffiti as well as the mud, which is incorrect. I'm unsure whether "cleaned but defaced" would be better.
 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of your tweaks, and had the same thought about the cleaning of the damage (I put a "still" in there, but it may need further refining) - and I can live with your reordering of his roles, so now we have:
 * The statue of Edward Colston, originally erected in 1895 in The Centre in Bristol, England, is of Edward Colston (1636–1721), a Bristol-born merchant, slave trader, member of parliament and [philanthropist or benefactor]. The bronze statue on a Portland stone plinth was designated a Grade II listed structure in 1977. The statue is the work of sculptor John Cassidy.
 * Colston's reputation has come under increasing scrutiny because of his involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. On 7 June 2020, the statue was toppled, defaced, and pushed into Bristol Harbour by Black Lives Matter protesters during the George Floyd protests. The plinth was also covered in graffiti, but remains in place. The statue was recovered from the harbour and put into safe storage by Bristol City Council on 11 June. The council plan to exhibit the cleaned, but still defaced, statue in a museum.
 * Any other comments, anyone? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't stress enough how choppy and unnatural these versions read, to a professional writer (and thus reader). It's got to be due to this overwhelming desire to cram trivial detail into a place which really should be all about giving an overview and setting the scene. The first line alone, features six commas. Six! It should flow, it should be a joy go on this path of discovery, not a tortuous experience.

The best I can come up with, if I try my very hardest to suppress my instinct to remove trivia or distraction, is this....

''The statue of Edward Colston was erected in 1895 in The Centre, Bristol, England, to commemorate Bristol born merchant and Member of Parliament Edward Colston (1636–1721). The bronze effigy was sculpted John Cassidy, and mounted on a Portland stone plinth. It was designated a Grade II listed structure in 1977.''

''In the 1990s, renewed focus on Colston's involvement in the Atlantic slave trade led to controversy over his continuing commemoration as a major local benefactor, including protests and proposals concerning the statue. On 7 June 2020, during a Black Lives Matter protest march triggered by the death of George Floyd, the statue was defaced, toppled and pushed into Bristol harbour. The plinth was also covered in graffiti, but remains in place. Bristol City Council recovered the statue four days later, and plan to exhibit the cleaned but still defaced statue in a museum.''

I've actually added more detail on the last 30 years, without making it overlong, since it hardly seems right to ignore that while mentioning overly specific details and trivial ephemera about only the last month's events. Krypto Wallace (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) That looks fine to me, though I wonder whether "remained" rather than "remains" would be better in penultimate sentence.
 * DF's version seems fine, in the Wikipedia style of, yes, cramming as much relevant info as possible into the lead sentence because this is what people scanning lists of google hits, or hovering a mouse over the article title, will see. Concision wins out over elegance. The elegant prose can come later in the article: the lead is strictly functional. Pam  D  20:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree "remained" is better and think some of 's latest proposal is an improvement, though I would keep the full detail and the dame order of content - something like this perhaps:
 * The statue of Edward Colston was erected in 1895 in The Centre in Bristol, England, to commemorate Bristol-born merchant, slave trader, member of parliament and [philanthropist or benefactor] Edward Colston (1636–1721). The bronze statue mounted on a Portland stone plinth was designated a Grade II listed structure in 1977. It was sculpted by John Cassidy.
 * Renewed focus on Colston's involvement in the Atlantic slave trade led to controversy over his continuing commemoration as a major local benefactor, including protests and proposals concerning the statue. On 7 June 2020, during a Black Lives Matter protest triggered by the death of George Floyd, the statue was defaced, toppled and pushed into Bristol Harbour. The plinth was also covered in graffiti, but remained in place. Bristol City Council recovered the statue four days later, and plan to exhibit the cleaned, but still defaced, statue in a museum.
 * That looks good to me, apart, perhaps, for the very short last sentence in the first paragraph. Can we improve that without upsetting the order of content? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "The bronze statue by John Cassidy, mounted on ..."? Not sure how many/where commas! Pam  D  06:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And perhaps "announced plans" rather than "plan", in final sentence? Pam  D  07:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to swop the order of the listing detail and the sculptor because I think the former is more important (as far as notability in concerned) than the latter. But it does make the flow better, and I agree with you about the planning, so here goes:
 * The statue of Edward Colston was erected in 1895 in The Centre in Bristol, England, to commemorate Bristol-born merchant, slave trader, member of parliament and [philanthropist or benefactor] Edward Colston (1636–1721). The bronze statue by John Cassidy is mounted on a Portland stone plinth and was designated a Grade II listed structure in 1977.
 * Renewed focus on Colston's involvement in the Atlantic slave trade led to controversy over his continuing commemoration as a major local benefactor, including protests and proposals concerning the statue. On 7 June 2020, during a Black Lives Matter protest triggered by the death of George Floyd, the statue was defaced, toppled and pushed into Bristol Harbour. The plinth was also covered in graffiti, but remained in place. Bristol City Council recovered the statue four days later, and announced plans to exhibit the cleaned, but still defaced, statue in a museum.
 * -- DeFacto (talk). 07:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The current updated lead is terrible, to say has come under increasing scrutiny in the first sentence, is talking about the man and not the statue. That really should be avoided on the lead paragraph. The lead paragraph should be all about the statue. Who is the statue of, who commissioned it, why is it there. That is the basis for an opening paragraph. Govvy (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * what do you think of the proposed new lead being discussed in this section directly above your post? The wording you highlight has been eliminated. Feel free to join the discussion above if you have further suggestions for changes to the latest proposal. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I feel the lead should be somewhat written like this, Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * do you have a rationale for the differences? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am providing a preference not a rationale! :/ Govvy (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 's suggested wording is far superior in my view.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers!! and Renewed focus?? It sounds like it's been a big issue with the city since the 1990s. Govvy (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Increasing focus..." would be better. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I can support DeFacto's version of 07:25, as a definite improvement over the current version that readers have been seeing for a while now. It still has issues, one minor one being how many times it says statue. Another minor one being the poorly worded sculptor/material/listing sentence, which can surely do with at least being split into two sentences. Worse than those, but still not a deal breaker, is this entirely redundant need to call him a slave trader and benefactor in the first line, since it becomes obvious this was what he was, once you start reading the second paragraph. I don't know if that affects whether or not he gets called a slaver trader in Google search results or not, but frankly, I don't think it matters. But if it does, like I said, no deal breakers here. Sorry Govvy, if you can't explain what you're thinking with your proposal, damned if I can either! Krypto Wallace (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We could get rid of a couple of the "statue" references. We also need to change an "is" to "was", I think. For instance:

The statue of Edward Colston was erected in 1895 in The Centre in Bristol, England, to commemorate Bristol-born merchant, slave trader, member of parliament and [philanthropist or benefactor] Edward Colston (1636–1721). The bronze effigy [or bronze sculpture] by John Cassidy was mounted on a Portland stone plinth and was designated a Grade II listed structure in 1977. Renewed focus on Colston's involvement in the Atlantic slave trade led to controversy over his continuing commemoration as a major local benefactor, including protests and proposals concerning the monument. On 7 June 2020, during a Black Lives Matter protest triggered by the death of George Floyd, the statue was defaced, toppled and pushed into Bristol Harbour. The plinth was also covered in graffiti, but remained in place. Bristol City Council recovered the statue four days later, and announced plans to exhibit the cleaned, but still defaced, statue in a museum. [My emphases]
 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why did you write effigy in bold there? An exact likeness is not an effigy, it's a cast bronze sculpture. Govvy (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy to change that to bronze sculpture if it's preferred. We don't want to over-use the word "statue".   Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't ignore the word cast either. I do agree that statue is used far too much and sometimes seems incorrect to me when sculpture should have been used instead. I don't think it's so important to note it was a listed structure in the lead. Govvy (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * to have an article, the subject matter has to be notable, and WP:LEAD says for the lead that "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences". Given that the main reason this monument is notable is that it is listed (per WP:GEOFEAT), then it makes sense to mention that early in the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The subject was already somewhat notable due to the environment that rose after the abolishment of slavery and secondly after WW2, then again in the 1970s there was some issues reported, which in turn led to the statue being given status in 1977. I hardly think being a granted Grade 2 listed structure is notable for lead. That information truly doesn't have any bearing between the history of Colston, Bristol and its people. The listing can be revoked. And WP:GEOFEAT is weak. I work for a property company that owns thousands of properties, quite a few are listed. I've only seen two articles on wikipedia for two of our properties. the lead should be the key facts, being given listing status is not a true key fact of the statue. Govvy (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with that the listing should be mentioned in the introduction.  One reason is simply consistency with other articles on listed structures - although this one clearly has other factors regarding its notability, it still needs to be treated to some extent in the same way as other listed structures.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree on the mention. This statue was notable regardless. The fact that we only created the article after the protests doesn't dismiss that fact - it could've been created before the toppling and survived an AfD. It's inherently notable as a statue, and its status of being listed should be mentioned as proof of that fact. Of course, its relevance to sociopolitical issues should also receive a mention. One thing does not dismiss the other. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Where are we on this? Is this what we are going with then:
 * The statue of Edward Colston was erected in 1895 in The Centre in Bristol, England, to commemorate Bristol-born merchant, slave trader, member of parliament and [philanthropist or benefactor] Edward Colston (1636–1721). The cast bronze sculpture by John Cassidy was mounted on a Portland stone plinth and was designated a Grade II listed structure in 1977.
 * Renewed focus on Colston's involvement in the Atlantic slave trade led to controversy over his continuing commemoration as a major local benefactor, including protests and proposals concerning the monument. On 7 June 2020, during a Black Lives Matter protest triggered by the death of George Floyd, the statue was defaced, toppled and pushed into Bristol Harbour. The plinth was also covered in graffiti, but remained in place. Bristol City Council recovered the statue four days later, and announced plans to exhibit the cleaned, but still defaced, statue in a museum.
 * Shall we wait until the RfC on the use of philanthropist at Talk:Edward Colston closes before updating the article? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an improvement on the current wording, so I would just go ahead. "Philanthropist" should stand, until or unless there is a consensus to change it.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've now updated to article. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On re-reading it, I realised that it implied that only the sculpture was listed, which is incorrect, so I've tweaked the wording to make clear it is the whole monument. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think one person's approval is consensus. People probably don't want to join the discussion, or rejoin it, because this has extended to two very long talk sections. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * this version was arrived at over several days discussion with many participants, and sat dormant at this wording for three or four days. If you think we went with it too quickly, feel free to revert my change and come back and restart the discussion saying what you disagree with. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not saying you went with it too quickly. I'm saying there was so much variety in the discussion, and the sheer length of the first section caused this second section to be created because no new participants (heck, even existing ones) would've bothered reading the first. Now the second is at a similar length.
 * I don't believe in reverting the change. But I don't see further progress being made here. I just wouldn't call it a consensus on all parts, and would agree to people hashing the minor details out on live. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * start another talkpage section then, and propose your wording idea, and let it be discussed as this one was. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is absolutely unreasonable to revert every single change which adds a sentence to the lead, regardless of content, which is what your position is currently, on the principle that any sentences added to the lead must be discussed on talk beforehand. You're removing content not even related to this discussion. The current lead fails multiple guidelines for leads. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * there appeared to us to be a consensus here on the new wording, so I implemented it. If you are challenging that view, then revert back to what was there before and continue the discussion here, or in a new section, but please don't put your favoured wording into the article until consensus is reached. Also, you risk being accused disruption or edit warring if you make unilateral changes whilst the discussion is ongoing. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I haven't even undone your revert or made changes since I saw said revert, so I think we're pretty far from edit warring. With all due respect, your behaviour borders on WP:OWN, if you're trying to prevent any additions of content to the lead.
 * Since your reply asking for confirmation of the wording you've gotten one response in support, and two responses criticising the wording. Other editors of the page, understandably, decided not to read this long wall of text and haven't given input. I would hardly call one support and two disagreements a consensus for your change, never mind a consensus to block editing of the lead.
 * I'll take your offer and revert the lead to what it was before your change and leave it for further discussion, hopefully in a more structured manner with more brevity so other editors are more likely to participate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why you want slave trader to be so dominate in lead next to merchant? It's like every forgets the other goods. He exported huge quantities of textiles from England which was the family business his father had setup. Gem stones, slaves to England and the New World. Sugar from the New World back to England! :/ Govvy (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Me? I don't think I ever argued to keep that, it was there before. Equally though, I did't see anyone disagreeing to the last draft because of it. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Too many titles. It wasn't listed to commemorate his MP status. It was listed to commemorate his philanthropy. Slavery should be mentioned in the next paragraph, as it logically arises from the controversy, and it is shown to be brought to public attention in 1990.
 * The lead should be chronologically structured here, and should give information on each of the sections. The latter requirement is near done, but the former is not met, and the proposed structure is still messy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the lead should be chronological, I think the reasons for the notability of the statue (and of Colston within that) should come first. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with on that point.    Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Wording of the lead
After the mess of the previous two discussions, I'd like to gather a clearer consensus.

Please mention all issues you have with the current wording of the lead, along with the change you'd like to make to address that issue. Ideally we can gauge consensus for each change. Please word your proposal concisely, or at least in a more structured manner, compared to the two long discussions above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Pinging recent non-trivial editors of page:, , , , , , ,
 * As an apparently trivial contributor to previous discussion I can't chip in right now as I'm on phone and about to join a meeting. Will be back. My  silence implied assent to DeFacto's version. Pam D  14:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I was literally just about to add you to the pings (saw you've wrote 4.5% of page content). I knew I'd forget someone :/ ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * FFS. I am absolutely opposed to including this sentence in the lead: "On Anti-Slavery Day 2018 an unofficial art installation was created in front of the statue, depicting a number of supine figures arranged as if they were cargo on a slave ship."  It is of marginal relevance either to the monument or to its toppling, and so far as I know has never previously been considered or discussed as appropriate for the lead.  I will remove it.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your comments. I'll elaborate on my request for inclusion below. Overall, I think this encyclopedia would benefit from editors not thinking in terms of WP:RECENTISM and considering the weight of sources over time and notability of the subject. The toppling is a major part, and deserves a paragraph, but it is not the only part. We are an encyclopedia, not a news source covering the toppling. I will elaborate further on the request below. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I suggest taking the wording from the end of the previous section discussing this as a starting point. That was honed for over a week, or more, and many people participated in the discussion resulting in it, including at least one major contributor who you have not pinged here. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , feel free to add any pings of course (I might've missed people - not my intention). I thought the format of having each individual change as separate is better, encourages better structure and may encourage participation. It's a poor idea imo to try to construct a specific version of the lead in talk, and then block any future edits to the lead (from us, or from future editors) as being against consensus. I think the format of discussing disputed changes, or disputed additions, works better.
 * I see that there's a dispute on what roles to mention for Colston (merchant, slave trader, etc). A proposal section on that would probably be appropriate. Though, this isn't my discussion, any more than it is yours, so of course you can add proposals yourself as you see fit, or scrap the format I've proposed altogether if you think it's a bad way of discussing changes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for tagging me in this. It would be great if we could start to form a consensus and build a nice lead that everyone is happy with. I am fine with the lead as it currently stands, but obviously there are always wording and grammatical improvements to be had. The main points I want to ensure in the lead are 1) The wording "in The Centre in Bristol" should be maintained. This has been changed previously as it can be awkward to say, but it is the only accurate and grammatically correct way of giving the location. 2) The past tense shouldn't imply larger changes than have happened. For example "the statue was a work by John Cassidy" implies that it no longer exists - it still is a work by John Cassidy. 3) The damage to the statue from protesters should be present. There is a risk here of breaking WP:RECENT but it seems very unlikely that, even if the effigy is restored in full, in 100 years time this toppling is not seen as the first major event involving the statue since its erection.Wikiditm (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Controversy paragraph
Inclusion of On Anti-Slavery Day 2018 an unofficial art installation was created in front of the statue, depicting a number of supine figures arranged as if they were cargo on a slave ship. Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-18/Dispatches is a reasonably good guide for the lead, amongst other guides, and states sections the lead should summarise the entire article, and include content from all of its sections. The statue has seen 3 major phases in its history, as elaborated in 3 major sections covering each: its description, background and creation, the controversy, and the toppling. This proposal considers the second: the controversy. As mentioned, we should write about the response from the art world. This is the only demonstration which did not solely involve people in crowds. It was also the only artistic event, other than the building of the statue.

It is covered well by various art critic blogs, some of which I've linked in the ideas section above, and I plan to expand further on the discussion in the section. It's a powerful portrayal and event, and explains the controversy far better than some protests, and should be summarised in the lead. Additionally, the extensive protests and renaming discussions should be mentioned in the lead. Currently, effectively the entire controversy section is not mentioned in the lead.

I would appreciate it if editors stopped thinking solely in terms of recent events, or thinking that we are a news source on the toppling. The lead should summarise the whole article. It does not need to be 5 sentences long, like some editors here think is required. It should be 3, well written paragraphs. You are halting the progress of this article by refusing to add any more than 5 sentences to the lead, which itself goes against all the principles of a good lead on Wikipedia - leads do not need to be arbitrarily short. We're effectively covering nothing from the article in the lead. It's a mess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please comment on edits, not on editors ("I would appreciate it if editors stopped thinking.... " etc.). This article, and its lead, has been under very active discussion since it was created.  While new opinions are always welcome, it is tiresome to have to rehash discussions that have already taken place.  Your specific point could be covered by including one or two extra words, viz.: "The statue has been subject to increasing controversy and protests since the 1990s...", rather than including an unnecessarily weighty mention of one specific protest.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , you haven't even bothered address any of the points or links to lead guidelines I've made. Your response can be summed up with "we've discussed this before" (we haven't), and "I only support the summing up of the 'controversy' sections by using the word "protests", to describe every event of protest, artistic demonstration, discuss on renaming, and everything else that occurred. This is not the purpose of leads. It's useless, and it makes the lead useless. The reader has to read the whole article to find out what forms of protests occurred. The lead does not, and should not, need to be a maximum of 5 sentences long. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "The reader has to read the whole article to find out what forms of protests occurred." That's absolutely right, and as it should be.  The lead is a summary.   Giving prominence to one specific protest is unjustified.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Bristol History Podcast
Episode 30 of the Bristol History Podcast contains some good information and discussion on this statue from last year. See. It is hosted by Tom Brothwell, a journalist from The Bristol Cable and the discussion is with Dr Jessica Moody, a lecturer in public history at University of Bristol. I think this qualifies as a reliable source, and would be worth incorporating a decent amount into the article. What do others think?Wikiditm (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Podcasts are not usually considered to be reliable sources. If the participants have published material, it could perhaps be added - or, if directly relevant, I think the podcast could be added as an external link.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a shame. I suspected it may be the case. The podcast will not, after all, have the degree of editorial oversight you'd get from written publications. It is a pity as the individuals are authoritative and the content is factual.Wikiditm (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Podcasts can be reliable sources, per a discussion at WT:RS. In this case, I'd consider this source under the WP:SELFPUBLISH criteria, and I would consider Dr Moody as a subject-matter expert. I would think it can be used as a source, albeit carefully depending on the statements made. I would be wary of using it for anything too controversial. It can be cited with Template:Cite podcast. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Jen Reid statue -wrong link
The link to the BBC item, currently ref 66, is wrong. Can't fix it myself - on phone with no WiFi. Pam D  08:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Good article?
Anyone interested in nominating this entry for Good article status? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it's anywhere near good enough, the lead is dominated by the current event and no where near good enough, article structure is not good enough for GA in my opinion, a good lead for an article of this kind should be a bit more like Nelson's Column. Govvy (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , too much WP:RECENTISM going on. I think it's not that far off, but there's way too much disagreement, reverting and changing of article structure to make this stable for GA (yet). Also could do with some more content. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * agreed, we should in a week or two though Blindlynx (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't look at putting up for GA until several weeks have passed with not much editing - which may be some time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , just went through a wave of refactoring on the article. Thoughts on the article in its current form? I'm not too experienced with content creation so I'd like some thoughts on how far off GA we are, criteria-wise, acknowledging Ritchie333's comments on the need for stability and that it may be a while before the actual nomination can be made. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I still think GA nom is a good idea. Any issues raised during the review can simply be address appropriately. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm happy to nom at this stage. Only concern is if a reviewer thinks the page isn't stable, since it's still edited, though that's mostly just to add new information. I think we're pretty much stable on the existing content. Thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Great! Thanks and good luck! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Going to add it to GOCE for copyediting, for safe measure. Some of the prose makes me feel icky, and my skill isn't really content creation (although I try ;p) so I'm not too sure how to improve. Would be nice to get some skilled outside eyes on that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * well, 3mo later, the result. I'll address the comments, but I don't feel like nominating it again; mildly frustrated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Bummer, but thanks for your effort. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the frustrating part for me is that imo there is no copyvio. What was being flagged by CVDetector was the two quotes of the plaques we have. The FA Barack Obama flags as 67% on CVD as well, at least until one looks at the meat of what's highlighted in red. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

GOCE copyedit request

 * Created in 1895 by sculptor John Cassidy on a Portland stone plinth [...] Just making sure, Cassidy didn't create the plinth as well, right? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure, sources I've read aren't specific on that detail. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  06:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Colston was a Bristol-born merchant who made much of his fortune from the slave trade, particularly between 1680 and 1692. Did he make the majority of his money from the trade? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Slightly complicated. He came from a wealthy family as it was. But as far as his own activities for wealth go I'd say yes–there are multiple RS that say "the bulk" of his wealth was attributed to the trade (eg ), so yes, I would say it's accurate to say it was the majority of his money. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Edward Colston article says The proportion of Colston's wealth that came from his involvement in the slave trade and slave-produced sugar is unknown, and can only be the subject of conjecture. He also made money from trading in other commodities and interest from money lending. So I don't think we have RS support to imply what proportion, or anything more than is already said. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've changed much to most per the source given. If the source changes to one that talks about how the amount made is undetermined, I'm fine with it changing to something like an undisclosed sum. Looks like the source and the relevant information has been changed. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  06:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * He represented Bristol as its Member of Parliament from 1710–13. Links kept in. He became the representative of the constituency that has the same name as his birth city? As a little aside, which one came first: city or constituency? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to first Q, the city for second. Constituencies represent specific population areas in Parliament, so often they are named after a city/town (eg Bath (UK Parliament constituency), Berwick-upon-Tweed (UK Parliament constituency)). Sometimes a single city is divided up into multiple constituencies, usually depending on population, which is what happened with Bristol. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Changed text to explain the difference. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  15:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * A second version, co-written by an associate professor of history at the University of Bristol [...] Is this associate professor Madge Dresser? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, believe it was Madge Dresser, based both on the source that editor used (I didn't write that part), and based on a few other sources I've found. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Moved wikilink to earlier in the paragraph. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  15:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * At 5 am on 11 June 2020, the statue was retrieved from Bristol harbour by Bristol City Council [...] Is Bristol Harbour a proper noun or is it unnamed? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Proper noun. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  06:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The statue was unveiled by the mayor and the bishop of Bristol on 13 November 1895, a date which had been referred to as "Colston Day" in the city. I read the source and saw they're not present, but are the names of the mayor and bishop at the time known? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * A statement from the mayor's office called it "unacceptable", claimed that Rees had not been consulted, and promised to continue work on a second plaque. Was a second plaque already being made when this statement was given? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking forward to your responses! — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing this :) -- I'll get back to you on the remaining two questions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the point Tenryuu was getting at was why not use "donated" rather than "left". Looking at ODNB, they also use 'donated'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think "donate" is what living people do: he left or bequeathed it, or "gave/donated it in his will". Tenryuu's wording of "Much of his wealth was donated to charities after his death." reads as if it was donated by the beneficiaries (as if to rid themselves of dirty money). Pam  D  21:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that "left" is more common in this context of after death, and that "donated" would be used for contributions by a living person. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I made a few more edits to the article, but I think that's everything on my end. Let me know if there's anything else you want to tweak. I'll consider the request complete. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Correctly pinging this time. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Is this part of the GA nom? Govvy (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Guild of Copy Editor requests are independent of GA reviews. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)