Talk:William Wilberforce/Archive 4

Recent edits
Hi Bruce, and thanks for all your great edits today and yesterday. I hope you won't mind me expressing some comments about a couple of them: I love the change to "alarmed" in the mother's and grandpa's reaction, by the way!! --Slp1 (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Inwardly, he was undergoing an agonising struggle and had become relentlessly self-critical, harshly judging his spirituality, use of time, vanity, self-control, and relationships with others. I find it a wee bit over-dramatic perhaps, but more importantly I think it seems to fix the feelings to the time of the conversion, when my point was to try to give a very general picture of his spiritual life over the rest of his life. I wonder if we can figure out some way forward here... not sure what your goal was.
 * At the time, religious enthusiasm was regarded as extreme, and even dangerous, in polite society. This may to true, but it doesn't seem to be Brown's view on the pages cited, which talks more about the lack of social cachet, and that it was a social transgression, bad manners etc, rather than extremism. It also doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the next sentence. I agree that we can do better than the original "looked down upon" (maybe "religious enthusiasm was considered a social trangression and bad manners in"...  but if not, we do need to find a source for the "extreme/dangerous" version, and we will probably need to explain why it was considered 'dangerous' too.  I can just imagine the questions! Personally I wonder if the radicalism aspect isn't covered adequately by the bit about radicals alarming the Tories, and bit later in the section.
 * Hi Slp – I’ve only just seen your message. Don't worry about hurting my feelings – I want this to be right above all. All of these changes were made in good faith, are factual and can be sourced, if necessary. However, after adding them I had a sneaky suspicion that you may query whether some of them may be appropriate (which I don’t mind at all). I admit that the two you mention don’t really read well in the context of their paragraphs and, although factually correct, are in need of rephrasing.
 * Regarding Wilberforce's spiritual struggle, how about I change 'was undergoing' to 'underwent'? This refers not to his conversion, but during the subsequent months and years. I have the reference, but it's not to hand at the moment.
 * As regards religious enthusiasm, I was trying to decribe that it went much further than looking down upon' – it certainly was thought to be dangerous by some, but in 'polite society', how can we best describe it? We could leave it as 'extreme' and drop 'dangerous'.
 * I'll make these changes, but if you can think of anything better (on either of these), please change them. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bruce. Re the spiritual struggle, I think what you did is great and we can leave it at that.  I'm still not comfortable with the dangerous thing, in part because Brown's actual point, which I find interesting, has been lost in the shuffle.  Though I don't doubt your version is sourceable, we haven't got a reference for it at present, and in fact are currently misrepresenting the source we dooo have.   If you want to expand on this issue, then great, I'm not against it at all, but let's find a source first.  To my mind, the point might actually flow better later in the paragraph when it says: "As a result, he was ....regarded with suspicion by many Tories who saw Evangelicals as radicals, bent on the overthrow of church and state."  For the moment I am going to return that part of the sentence to be closer to Brown's point, but we can always change it later as new info emerges.  This article will never be finished!!!  I was thinking of making the FAC nomination tonight.  What do you think?  If yes, then prepare yourself for lots of changes to come!  Slp1 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I still have reservations about both of these sentences (including the one I changed and which you're happy with – I'm not!) I'm still deliberating about the best way to express both of them without losing the meaning of the context para, and I haven't yet succeeded in finding the Chris Brown reference – do you know the page no? I'm tired and not thinking clearly, and am about to hit the sack, but will look up the Pollock reference in the morning, and give some time to all of this.


 * But, as you say, it will never be finished. So, in answer to your question – give me one more day, Slp1, and then we can go for it! There'll be lots of changes? – I hope not! ;-) Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean about the Brown ref: I'm talking about p.380-1 as referenced in the text. Anyway, I hope you slept well, because, yes, there will be lots of changes, no matter how nearly-perfect we believe it to be at present. Sad but true, I'm afraid! --Slp1 (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How are we doing?
It's looking good, in my opinion. Your edit of my rather clumsy attempt to describe the "Baltic trade" is much better, I think. Responding to Awadewit's suggestion regarding dates, I'm going to go through and unlink them all (apart from dates of birth and death of course), as well as ensure that the style is the same. I'm not sure about how easy is will be to amalgamate "References" and "Further reading" (as I indicated in my note on the FA page) because of the difference in style. What do you think? Cheers. Bruce – Agendum (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, we are doing okay, though in my mind the most difficult tasks remain to be done, and of course there will be other reviewers! If you are willing to go through the dates and unlink them then by all means: I can't imagine that this would be a deal-breaker, though, and since we already had another reviewer telling us to add them, it might be worth asking for other opinions before going to all that trouble.  But like I said, if you have the time and the energy, by all means do go ahead. I will deal with the References and Further Reading issue and rationalize the citation style.--Slp1 (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a comment on the dates - I think that these should remain in order for people to see them in their own desired preference, I think the change to the MOS was a retrograde step and that dates should be linked until such time as there is a software solution. Keith D (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, on reflection, I'm now feeling the same, especially in the case of important dates like 26 July 1833. Any other views? Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we have to be totally consistent, so we either use them 100%, or we don't 100%. I would be inclined to leave them as they are, at least for the time being, since that is a perfectly acceptable decision based on the MOS. --Slp1 (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We'll leave them as they are for the time being. Agendum (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor Comments

 * Despite his lifestyle and lack of interest in studying, he managed to pass his examinations,[17] and was awarded B.A. in 1781 and M.A. in 1788.[7] Is there any reason why this sentence does not use the indefinite article "a" before B.A. and M.A.? Shouldn't it read "...was awarded a B.A. degree in 1781 and an M.A. degree in 1788"? J Readings (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no idea. I have always thought it might be some Oxonian peculiarity, but I guess not! --Slp1 (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, have looking at and fixed the sentence, I think it is highly possible that I actually wrote the darn thing, which makes the above super-illogical! --Slp1 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it goes right back to the old article, or maybe my reworking of it a couple of years ago. Reads a lot better now! Bruce – Agendum (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Church of England
I noticed a bit of a debate on the FAC page regarding Anglican vs. Evangelical Anglican...so my two pence worth. 'Anglican' is an anachronism. Although there are early recorded useage of the term before the 19th C, it wasn't until the latter half of the 19th C that 'Anglican' began to be widely used to differentiate the 'Church of England' as an administrative structure from the faith practiced by the church. It wasn't until the last quarter of the 19th C that independent Anglican churches (from the Church of England) - but in communion with the C of E - began to be common. If you stood before the man, and asked Wilberforce what he was, he'd say 'Church of England'. Thus, I say, replace Evangelical Anglican and Anglican with 'Church of England' and leave it at that. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate your point and I am quite sure that technically you are correct. We do have C of E in a few places, and could probably increase it a bit. The main problem I find is that "Anglican" is such a useful adjective and noun, while C of E is incredibly awkward to use in a sentence such as in "bringing like-minded British Quakers and Anglicans together". I do agree with Awadewit that the Evangelical descriptor is important: while he was in the C of E, he was part of a clear grouping within it (with lots of refs making comment about it, and even just calling them the "Evangelicals".) If it is any consolation, most of the books etc use the term Anglican over and over again interchangeably--Slp1 (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with you. My suggestion was really a way out of a problem...but it is a nuanced problem. It is the problem of projecting the 18th C world to the 21st C when similar words and ideas are not precisely synonymous across the centuries. Tangentially, when I registered at university twenty years ago, my mom checked off the box "Church of England in Canada" rather than the "Anglican Church of Canada" above it eventhough Anglican Church of Canada had been official for about forty years. 'Anglican' has only become widely used surprisingly recently. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation style for newspapers
I'm sorry to disagree with two colleague contributors, but the correct style for newspapers is different from that for other works. I have therefore changed it, but have tried to do so while preserving your general reference format. Consequently, the date – which should come immediately after the title – is unfortunately at the end. In this case (where there is no author of the piece) the actual order should be as follows: article title, date, newspaper name, page and volume number, etc. See.

If someone knows how to move the date as above, within the format we are using, I would be grateful. I think it would be best if the date appears in the usual style (ie, date, month, year) as this is what we've used throughout – and there is some flexibility allowed in this. Sorry to be pedantic! Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on the comments at FAC, and more details here WP:CITE, it appears we can't mix the plain "citation" templates with the cite news, cite journals etc that you are talking about because they are of different styles. Because we had all the Harvard ones that are in the "citation" style, I changed all the others to this format, and this is the way the template makes it come out.  Luckily, the page you referred to is a how-to guide, not policy or even a MOS guideline, so I would think we are pretty safe. But anyway, I think I have figured out a way around the problem.--Slp1 (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * O.K. – Just seen this message. I had somehow missed the comment by Ealdgyth on the FAC page. Sorry if I've upset the apple-cart by mixing things up a bit. Please change again as per MOS if you need to.


 * I'm sorry about the Wilberforce Memorial change earlier today, too. Glad that someone's on the ball! ;-) Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think newspaper names are supposed to be italicised - they generally seem to be at any rate, perhaps we should revisit all the newspape citations in the article (I don't think there are that many)? David Underdown (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right! I tried to get that citation field to accept italics, but couldn't get it to work – and I tried every which way! Good luck if you have a go. I think it's the only newspaper cited, but it won't do any harm to check. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually there are two others, neither of which are italicized. I think we should just stick with the citation template style (which is what we seem to have chosen) which is non-italicized for newspapers. Slp1 (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually if you use the the parameter |newspaper= it does italicise, as in this revision . David Underdown (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So it does! Thanks.  Fixed!Slp1 (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dates
Would it be in order to link dates of Wilberforce's birth and death in the first line of the lead para, as seems to be the style in many other biographies? Bruce – Agendum (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tony has unlinked them as part of his FAC review, which slightly too bad, as we had indicated a consensus not to delink here. I suggest you take it up with him if you want to change it.  I believe date delinking is a big thing for him, and personally, this issue just isn't that important to me.Slp1 (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm staying out of that one. Slp1, you asked about copyeditors; you might try  or . Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to be consistent; linking only the dates in the lead is not consistent. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I boldly went and linked the dates in the first para of the lead, having checked weith other featured biographies this appears to be the covention right across the board, as far as I can see. That was before I saw your comment above, SandyGeorgia – sorry! Cheerrs, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to boldly link them all or unlink them all; consistency. What's done on older/other bios isn't relevant, since t–he guideline changed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooo-er! I'll be guided by you – I'll see what others think, and then we'll be consistent – one way or the other. Thanks for your guidance. Bruce – Agendum (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I have indicated, I am not that thrilled that we have ended up having to make this decision again, but personally now that they are unlined, I am not willing to invest the time re-linking, in part I don't think the pay off for readers is that great. So I would vote for consistently unlinking. --Slp1 (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

More: reflist|3 doesn't work on all browsers, higher than 2 isn't recommended. Also, your Selected works section is actually External links. See WP:EL and WP:LAYOUT, external links belong only in EL or in citations. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * SG's suggestions have been done by Agendum and moi. Thanks for the suggestions re copyeditors etc.  I will look into it.Slp1 (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Re move of selected works: Why wouldn't a courtesy link to the actual book be allowed? It doesn't make sense to me at all.Slp1 (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the logic is related to not sending our readers outside of Wiki; you know, keep 'em captive. And, we should write articles about anything notable in our articles, and include the links there, so it's also to encourage article creation.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Pall bearers
I thinnk it may be better to make some mention of the name, with the way the linking is at the moment, if someone clicks on a link that reads just Lord Chancellor, or Speaker of the House of Commons, they may be slightly mystified to be taken to an article on an individual, rather than an article on that office. David Underdown (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll try and sort this out later, when I get home. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree too, in a way. My thought is that the actual names of the office holders here is a bit of overkill: the fact that such prominent officeholders did the pallbearing rather than their names per se.  But it is just a thought.--Slp1 (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I take your point too. It did seem rather long and cumbersome when I first added the names and titles together – very "bottom-heavy" at the foot of the article. Hmmm... How about this – including the names and titles together but delinking the latter, as they're not essential? Bruce – Agendum (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

See also section
I was under the impression that FA are not supposed to have See also sections, as all the links are supposed to be in the article. Is this not true? &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no idea, myself, and noone else has mentioned it. I have had a look about the MOS and at other FAs and can't see anything that suggests this, and indeed all the pages at MOS have "see also" sections! If you find anything specific, do let us know.--Slp1 (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find it either so it must not be important. In any case, congratulations! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks!!! --Slp1 (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We perhps ought to trim the links that are actually mentioned in the text. David Underdown (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, See also sections are definitely allowed. Gary King ( talk ) 08:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming that, Gary. And thank you, Mattisse, for your contributions. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this should have come up at FAC, and should have been addressed. It is specifically addressed at WP:LAYOUT; attention to MoS issues has been focused on dates, while other issues have been ignored. A well written FA will incorporate most relevant information, negating the need for See also, although there are exceptions. Mattisse was mostly correct and Gary King was correct (they are allowed, but not usually good form or needed). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. Not sure why neither of use could find it. Anyway, only one of the links was not already used in the article, so the section doesn't seem needed and I have deleted it.Slp1 (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Gagging Bills
The article claims Wilberforce voted "for Pitt's 1817 "Gagging Bills"." Pitt died in 1806, so what does this sentence mean?--Johnbull (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Bills passed in 1795 and 1817 were both called Gagging Bills.  The sources talk about the earlier ones and not the later.  Not sure how that crept in but changing immediately.  Thanks! --Slp1 (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"narrowly defeated by eight votes"

 * Duh.
 * Saying "narrowly" and then the number of votes is redundant.
 * Not to mention, "narrowly" is bordering on weasel wording.
 * Otherwise, fixing grammatical awkwardness and linking dates.
 *     Vengeance is mine,   saith   the Prime   [[Image:Emblem-very-evil.svg|15px]]  21:22, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your some of your edits. I have reverted others: in particularly this article is not datelinked as mentioned in the note at the top of the article. I don't agree with your comment about narrowly BTW: it kind of depends how many total votes are involved, doesn't it? --Slp1 (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is true. Perhaps a "defeated by eight votes of ### cast"?
 * "narrowly defeated" sounds weasel word-y.
 * Like what Ron Paul might say about the Republican primary...
 * "I was narrowly defeated."
 * Missed the no-datelink; my apologies for that.
 *     Vengeance is mine,   saith   the Prime   [[Image:Emblem-very-evil.svg|15px]]  02:10, 5 Aug 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it weasely? Weasel words are to be avoided because they push a point of view.  Exactly what POV is being pushed here?   "Narrowly" seems absolutely accurate to me as eight votes between the yeas and nays is a close vote. If Ron Paul got defeated by 8 votes then he could say the same thing without it being weasely.  But he wasn't. Slp1 (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe "weasel-y" isn't the best way to put it. Consider, though, neutrality...
 * "defeated (fact) by eight votes (fact) of ### cast (fact)"
 * versus
 * "narrowly (opinion) defeated (fact) by eight votes (fact)"
 * Not a big deal either way. Just food for thought.
 *     Vengeance is mine,   saith   the Prime   [[Image:Emblem-very-evil.svg|15px]]  03:05, 5 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Stoke Newington
Thanks for your correction about Wilberforce's desire to be buried close to James Stephen. Do you have a source that could be cited for this? Most other references seem to mention his wife and daughter. Cheers – Agendum (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I have reverted it to the information cited in Hague.  If you have a reference for the James Stephen connection then we can look at it again.--Slp1 (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And Hague follows the Oxford DNB on this. – Agendum (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * His will is available from The National Archives http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?Edoc_Id=275216&queryType=1&resultcount=2 (at least I think this is the right one) I happen to be able to download free of charge, rather than paying the normal £3.50 charge, and I did try to look at it yesterday since the edit summary said the burial wishes were laid out there. However, the will is the copy entered into probate records, and I was having trouble getting my head around the clerk's copperplate handwriting, and couldn't make out where the info was (the will is several pages long, with a number of codicils).  David Underdown (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks for looking, David. Let us know if you manage to turn up anything further. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Conservatism
I'm not trying to be difficult, and this is my first attempt at doing anything like this, but I am concerned that the use of "conservative" to describe Wilberforce might be a modern reading pushed back on a pre-modern period. For example: "His views were often deeply conservative, opposed to radical changes in a God-given political and social order,and focused on issues such as the observance of the Sabbath and the eradication of immorality through education and reform."

There was nothing "conservative" about using education and reforms to eradicate immorality in the 18th and early 19th centuries. Indeed, that was the very soul of Whig Liberalism.

Not advocating the complete overthrow of the British monarchy, ala The French Revolution and being "conservative" in the 18th century are two totally different things.

W4rg (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the statement can be found in the references used for th earticle, for example, in discussing his reputation the ODNB article states "his concentration on overseas slavery, his spiritual and moral preoccupations, and his underlying social conservatism caused him to disregard the deprivation and injustice suffered by his own countrymen" David Underdown (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help, W4rg. But I tend to agree that we are pretty safe here with a small 'c' conservative vocabulary choice. Many of the scholalry ources use it to describe WW's views, and in fact Hochschild has a whole section of his index  on WW's conservatism. And of course, WW did more than just not advocate the overthrow of the government: he was supportive of repressive freedom of speech and assembly legislation.  The Lead is supposed to summarize the article, and people  can always read on to get more information.--Slp1 (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

wilberforce road
wilberforce road, in Cambridge, England is probably named after him, since he has a Cambridge connection.. is that worthy of being included in 'memorials'? 82.6.96.66 (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think "probably" is good enough for us to make the connection. David Underdown (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and how notable is it anyway? There must be hundreds of roads called Wilberforce.  I don't think we need to mention all of them.--Slp1 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. There are innumerable roads, streets, schools, colleges, universities, etc, named after Wilberforce around the world, and it would be impossible to include every one. If we put this one in, we'd be creating a precedent. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC) (written last night but not posted until internet connection resumed)

Main Page questions
I have a couple of questions relating to edits made on main page day (which the article survived well, thanks to so many eyes etc!)
 * Is the town in Australia notable enough for the article? If others think it is, then we probably should include it as part of a longer sentence about other towns/villages (in Sierra Leone and Canada and probably other places), that were named after him.
 * I am still not happy with the lead sentence about India. It currently says "the extension of missionary work in India", but I think that the point was the the British East India Co. didn't allow British missionaries in India, and he wanted them to.  So it isn't really "extension", I don't think. --Slp1 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we were all trying to compromise as best we could that day, and not delete everything that was suggested in good faith.
 * Personally, I don't think the Australian town is notable, and we don't want to get into the many places named after Wilberforce. I also agree that "the extension of missionary work", etc is awkward, and would prefer a return to something along the lines of "the introduction of Christianity to India". Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As the anon pointed, introduction is rally just wrong. The Mar Thoma church dates back (traditionally) to the apostle Thomas, and the Portugese had ceratinly introduced Roman Catholicism befor ethe arrival of the British.  This had all had limited impact of course, but it does mean we ahv eot be careful with the wording (I should have spotted the problem before).  David Underdown (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with David that "introduction" isn't accurate, given that there were Christians in India long before. It is a question of figuring out how to phrase things succinctly.--Slp1 (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I'd forgotten about Thomas the Apostle :-o – I'm changing it to "British missionary work" for now. I think that reads better and accurately conveys what William was concerned about. Comments? Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions about notability and verifiability
In the last little while, two sentences have been added to the article.... I am not convinced that they are appropriate additions to the article and would be grateful for the opinions of other editors.
 * One addition lists an Australian town named "Wilberforce", using this . I don't believe that aussieheritage.com would be considered a reliable source, and since this is a Featured Article I think we need to continue to insist on the highest quality of sources.  More importantly, I do not really believe that this is a notable fact: there were many towns etc named after him and I don't think their inclusion is warranted. I note that Agendum seems to concur with this above.
 * The other addition adds "Wilberforce was instrumental in recruiting Richard Johnson and Samuel Marsden as chaplains to the convicts and soldiers of the penal settlement of New South Wales in Australia, from this foundation the evangelical, low church Anglican Diocese of Sydney developed". It is also not clear to me that the source given  would be considered a reliable source either: I can't find any evidence that "Lesley Hicks BA DipEd" is a historian with any other publications. In addition,  Hicks only states that Wilberforce recruited Johnson (not Marsden) and she doesn't make the claim that these two laid the foundation of the evangelical nature of the Sydney diocese.  However, there are several clearly reliable sources that state that Wilberforce was involved in sending Johnson (though not recruiting, it seems, more facilitating his sending)  e.g. this   and this  actually suggests Johnson was John Newton's idea. My question is once again is how notable this is.  Wilberforce engaged in thousands of projects of this sort.  Neither Johnson nor Marsden is mentioned in any of the bios I have on hand (Hague, Tomkins, Belmonte) nor in the the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry on WW.  Do we need to include it if none of them thought it high priority enough to mention? Even if we do include it, I don't think we need the Anglican Diocese of Sydney which is unsourced in any case, as noted above. Comments please.  --Slp1 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There have no comments, so I have gone with my feelings that neither addition was reliably sourced nor notable enough for inclusion and have deleted them. --Slp1 (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding. I totally agree with you on both matters. I did try to look up Marsden and Johnson but could find no direct connection with Wilberforce (I have come across similar unsourced comments about another church figure I am researching – who, it is claimed, was instrumental in setting up the Anglican church in New South Wales. This ends up being no more than speculation that has been repeated via various later sources).
 * Towns, villages, streets and educational establishments named after Wilberforce are legion in many parts of the world, so I agree that this one is no more notable than the others. So I endorse your decision to delete both edits. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wilberforce's cottage in Millhill
A new picture has kindly been added showing the picture of a house that is said to be Wilberforce's cottage in MillHill. I am concerned that this is a urban legend, as it seemed Wilberforce lived at Hendon Park, in Highwood Hill near Mill Hill. See ;. His house would have to have been a large one in any case, since he lived there with his son and his son's family. I think we need some evidence that this is actually Wilberforce's house and that he lived in it before we include it. I will remove it until we get some more definitive information about it.--Slp1 (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Update. This history of the area  suggests that the house Wilberforce lived in was demolished in the 1950s-1960s and was replaced by 3 houses. I think there is a blue plaque commemorating WW in the area, but I don't think it can be on the house he lived in, given this information. --Slp1 (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I believe his house at Mill Hill (despite being described as a "modest property") was substantially larger than the cottage depicted. – Agendum (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)