Talk:William Wilberforce/Archive 5

John Newton
A picture of John Newton has been reinserted into the article. Responding to the edit summary, I am quite familiar with the career of John Newton, and his belated interest in the campaign to abolish the slave trade following a 34 year silence after his retirement as a slave trader. I know he's a big hero in the Christian literature on this subject, but actually Newton gets very little mention in scholarly books about Wilberforce (and thus this WP article). I don't think the visual (which is very ugly, to boot) adds anything but undue weight and additional clutter to the article. I support its removal.--Slp1 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * John Newton was a mentor to Wilberforce after his conversion and in the early days of his spiritual journey – but his role was not crucial to his work. Agreed about the picture and cluttered appearance, and that it should be removed. Incidentally, the caption to the picture was misleading: Newton was not an evangelist. Agendum (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed, and thanks.  And sorry for being a bit crabby about poor old John Newton: having spent months with these guys I get a bit cross if people appear to assume I know nothing about the subject. Yes, JN was a part of Wilberforce's journey.  Neither was the perfect hero depicted in the books I read in my youth, and I find life richer for the acknowledgment.--Slp1 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Heehee
It's always interesting to see our work reused by others, and acknowledged to boot. Take a look at this book who quotes this article (and especially the 2008 version) very, very closely. (Perhaps a bit too closely, one might say, from a plagiarism point of view!!!) Okay, so it's a self-published book, but I still get a kick out of it. --Slp1 (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Well, imitation is indeed flattery – and it's doubly nice to be credited. How on earth did you find it, Slp1? Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just google WW and Wikipedia. It's sometimes interesting to see what crops up! --Slp1 (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Evangelical
The term "evangelical" seems a bit anachronistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.143.41 (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you mind elaborating a bit? The term is used actually used over and over again in the sources we used to write the article.--Slp1 (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Kingston upon Hull
Many references are being made to the name "Hull", referring to the city but it is really the river that runs through the city, Kingston. Maybe all references referring to the city as being called Hull should be changed to "Kingston upon Hull". I'd do it myself but I thought I'd ask first in case I'm just letting my OCD get the better of me. Jake (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that leaving it as Hull is fine. I note that our article Kingston upon Hull mentions that the city is known "almost invariably" as Hull, and uses that the article itself uses the shorter version throughout. The books on WW use Hull too, and we do use the full name here in the article for the first mention. You are probably technically right, and thanks for bringing up the question, but I suggest we can stick with the diminutive form.--Slp1 (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've got a feeling that this came up in the early days of writing of the article. I think we all understand that Kingston-upon-Hull is the technically correct useage and we do use that first in the article, but (just as inhabitants of that fine city invariably shorten its name in general conversation) we use the abbreviated form after that. Thanks for bringing this up, Jake, but I agree with keeping it as it is. Cheers – Bruce Agendum (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the replies. Just wondering and since I'm fairly new to editting, I thought I'd just ask first :) Jake (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

RSPCA
Please forgive me if this question has been raised already in the past, but I cannot see any such discussion at the moment so I'm going to mention it. Should it not be mentioned or noted somewhere that William Wilberforce was a founding member of the RSPCA and a description of his early work therein? Founding and starting the RSPCA was by no means a small feat, it represents one of the longest running and largest charities in the UK and was a major part of William Wilberforce's life. Logiboy123 (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned both in the lead and under the heading "Political and social reform". David Underdown (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nationality
Please see WT:Manual of Style (biographies)/2007-2008 archive: British nationality and WP:UKNATIONALS, yes it's arugable, but the status quo has held sway a long time. He was a British politician insofar as he served the British parliament, and was concerned with British Empire. As has been pointed out to you elsewhere, he was a Yorkshireman, and as such is as likely to have called himself that as anythign else, given the folk from Yorkshire that I know! Turning up and simply going around to make virtually identical edits, without discussion, or looking at what has gone before is a very good way to put people's backs up. David Underdown (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

- Yes apologies for that. I'm very new to this and I'm not sure of the correct etiquette yet. I'll reply to this properly when I have more time. I would say though that Yorkshire is a county of England. England being the country of the county of Yorkshire. So suggesting that Yorkshire is a more appropriate description than English to use as a nationality is quite ludicrous, if you don't mind my saying so. Angelcynn (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You clearly don't know many Yorkshire folk then. They'll describe themselves as Yorkshire first and anything else a different second.  Nationality, and national feeling, is not a straightforward issue, and unless there's very good reason for preferring one label over another, it's best not to change from one form to another.  David Underdown (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

- I know many, many Yorkshiremen thank you. I have family in Yorkshire and plenty of friends there too, so please do not preach to me and do not suggest that this is exactly what WW would have felt also. We both know he probably wouldn't have. I'm a Lancastrian myself and I can assure you that we are very much of the same mind set of those over the Yorkshire border. Regional pride is not the same as National or ethnic identity. I'll come back properly on this. Angelcynn (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this discussion may be missing the main point, which is that WP is not a place to seek to initiate and advocate for change in such things, however, "right" the cause may be. We are bound by guidelines and policies of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. If Angelcynn wishes to press for Wilberforce (or anyone else) to be described as English rather than British, s/he needs to provide evidence that this is what other reliable sources call him. We follow others, and do not seek to lead the way. I think it is obvious from google searches that most, including  higher quality bios, describe him as British.  etc.  --Slp1 (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this back on track. I apologise for my rather silly remark above.  I suppose I'm thinking of what someone would be likely to say if asked "where are you from?" (and incidentally, I was brought up in Lancashire too - well a bit of the original county anywya).  David Underdown (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with Slp1. Although he was born in England, Wilberforce thought of himself as British, was elected to the British Parliament and had very much a British world view – concerned as he was about the scandal of slavery throughout the British colonies in Africa and the West Indies. As has been mentioned above, the main sources describe him as British and I agree that there is no reason to deviate from this. – Agendum (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I shall endeavor to do my best when I have the time. I am however trying wholeheartedly not to laugh at the word "Evidence". He did actually come from the constituent nation of England, was born and lived there, in doing so he was English. That should be evidence enough to call him English, at the very least on a par with labelling him as British. He spoke English, he was ethnically English, he both lived under and affected English law, he worshipped at the Church of England. He would have referred to England and not Britain when speaking of home. Just because he served the united English and Scottish (British) economy we assume this as his nationality. It is not. I shall try to come back with possible references when I have time to look. Many thanks for your patience. Angelcynn (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your argument above is what we call WP:original research. You are collecting evidence and drawing your conclusion from them about what he should be called.  Other editors could and do draw different conclusions by emphasizing different parts of the evidence.  That's why we don't accept this approach by editors.  What is relevant is how other sources describe him, and it was this kind of evidence to which I was referring above. If you can find multiple high quality sources that describe him as an English abolitionist or similar, you may have a point and we can discuss it further to see if you can convince other editors per WP:CONSENSUS.   Otherwise what we have is your opinion about he should be called based on your analysis of various factors vs what the scholarly reliable sources call him.  WP will always prefer the latter. --Slp1 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * He was a British subject (i.e., citizen) as were all non-foreign nationals born in the constituent countries after the Act of Union in 1707. There has been no separate English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish nationalities since then. If you don't believe me, try getting a Passport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's really, really sad that the trend on Wikipedia is that England and English people do not exist, and that the English identity is invalid. Sadder still is the fact that a lot of people arguing against "Englishness" are themselves English! Well, all this self-deprecation will not win you the love and acceptance of your seperatist Celtic neighbours. I have observed a number of Scottish, Welsh and Irish editors on Wikipedia systematically going around and erasing all references to England and Englishness from articles, whilst fiercely defending the Scottishness, Welshness and Irishness of people with even the most tenuous links to those places. And not only do you guys let them get away with it, you give them a helping hand by insisting that iconic English people like William Wilberforce should only be referred to as "British"! Why on earth would we need evidence in order to state that Wilberforce was English, as though it might not be true? Do we insist on medical proof that Angelina Jolie is female before calling her "she"? Aren't there certain basic facts that one can state confidently without a citation? I'm a person of very mixed heritage and I embrace all my identities, including English, as I was born and raised in England and have some English ancestry. I think what's going on with British national identities on Wikipedia is a real mess - it should either be "everyone's British" or "everyone's their respective constituent nationality" - and at the moment it almost seems as though there's some sort of subversive conspiracy against England lol. At this rate, no one will even know what "English" means in ten years time. 81.178.255.114 (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be changed to English, the claim that calling him English is the same as describing him as a Yorkshireman is insulting and stupid. I am English and I am tired of the pretence that my nation and ethnic group is not real, or not real enough, or British is good enough, when on every page with a Welsh or Scotsman, Welsh or Scottish is recognised, why isn't British good enough for them?

Alexander Fleming is described as Scottish on Wikipedia, not British and not Ayrshire. James Watt is described as Scottish on Wikipedia, not British or Renfrewshire Admiral Thomas Cochrane of the Royal Navy is described as Scottish, whereas Nelson's nationality isn't even mentioned.

And before anyone says that it is Wikipedia policy to have MPs and statesmen of the UK listed as British, please then explain why Keir Hardie is listed as Scottish and not British.

I believe firmly in fairness and think some equality must be observed in these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.196.132 (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Despite what some people may think, or would wish, there has been no separate 'English', 'Scottish', 'Welsh', or 'Northern Irish' nationality for citizens of the British Isles (Other than those in Southern Ireland from 1922) since the Act of Union in 1707.


 * They are not nations, see, the nation state is the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. Hence they are all 'British', whether anyone likes it or not. That's why you cannot get a passport for any of them.


 * "on every page with a Welsh or Scotsman, Welsh or Scottish is recognised, why isn't British good enough for them?" - many of these articles get appropriated by petty nationalists, who want their fantasy to be reality. In other circumstances it's just a lack of knowledge in confusing ethnicities with nationalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.147 (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Did he support slavery?
Colonial Office papers for Sierra Leone, the free colony established by Wilberforce and his "Clapham Sect" of social reformers as an ideal society where races mixed and slaves were free, reveal that slavery – albeit renamed "apprenticeship" – continued long after the 1807 act abolishing slave trading, with Wilberforce's knowledge. (Cyberia3 (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC))


 * Thanks for pointing out this article, Cyberia3. It makes for interesting reading. I'm not yet sure that it is significant enough for inclusion. For one thing, it isn't a totally new story, and thus may be part a campaign by Tompkins to drum up some publicity for his new book. And in fact it appears that only the Guardian picked up the story. These letters to the paper are helpful too,, pointing out as they do that Wilberforce didn't support the abolition of slavery (at least overtly) until very much later. This important point is also already included in the article. All in all, I think we should wait and see how the book and its revelations get reviewed and assessed first. --Slp1 (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * See Apprenticeship.


 * Apprenticeship was quite normal and all it meant was that in return for training in a trade the apprentice agreed to work for the employer for an agreed period. Then he/she could leave, taking his/her learned 'trade' with him or her, having acquired a skill that could be used to earn money and feed him or her for life. The 'trade' is what Trade unions were formed for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.147 (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

US abolition
The US Congress prohibited the slave trade in 1808. In 1865 Congress, in the final days of the Civil War, voted on an amendment abolish slavery across the whole of the US. Pamour (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead of article
Over the years, and now recently a few times, IP editors have removed or tagged information about Wilberforce's support of, shall we say, less progressive attitudes. The information is well-referenced in several paragraphs in the text, and per WP:LEAD the lead paragraph is supposed to summmarize the full article, which would includes those paragraphs of course. It would in fact be POV not to include that information Part of the problem is that we have not included references in the lead, and I personally would rather not go there, though if necessary I suppose we will have to. I have added a hidden message about WP:LEAD and the references in the body of the article; hopefully that will assist people. --Slp1 (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

New picture of Wilberforce by George Hayter
EHayter|Talk – Thanks for uploading File:William Wilberforce by George Hayter.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from. My main concern is that this is a previously unknown picture of William Wilberforce and bears little resemblance to other images depicting him, and while he may indeed be the subject of the painting, I would be interested to know about its provenance in order to be able to determine its authenticity. Cheers – Agendum (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am slightly concerned about the painting of Wilberforce by George Hayter, as it bears little resemblance to any other likeness and is not mentioned in any other list (eg, in the the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography), so I wonder if it may be a recent discovery. Clearly, if it is of W.W. it depicts him late in life, which may account for his appearance.
 * Does anybody know anything about the provenance of this picture, which apparently resides at the Ferens Art Gallery in Hull? — Agendum (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Bruce. Sorry for the delay in responding.  I admit it is a bit of a puzzle.  It is weird that it is not used in any of the bios etc that have been published, and this representation does look  different.  George Hayter wasn't born till 1792, and was in Italy from 1816-1818, and from 1826 to 1831, so there are limited opportunities for the portrait to be painted when Hayter was old enough, in the country and Wilberforce alive.  On the other hand, his Wikipedia article suggests Hayter did a rash of portraits connected to the 1933 reform parliament.  I wouldn't really trust the bbc website since it is user submitted, but [this book] mentions the work; though I guess there are multiple William Wilberforces so who knows.  Maybe we could email the Ferens gallery and ask them for a bit more information.  What do you think? --Slp1 (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it dissimilar from the unfinished Lawrence portrait. He's lost some teeth, since his youth. William Avery (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Slp1 – I have to admit that I hadn't done the maths. The portrait seems to show Wilberforce as an old man, so it may be soon before his death, at about the age of 70 to 73. The Lawrence portrait is dated 1828, so I think he would have to be a few years older if the Hayter painting is authentic – it's a shame that we have no date for it. Hayter could certainly have painted him while he was at the relatively young age of 40 (or so) – I don't know enough about his career as a painter. Alternatively, he could have worked from a sketch, or even another likeness. I think I will do as you suggest and contact the Ferens to get their view on it – they will almost certainly have a date for the work. Thanks for your input, William – my doubt remains. Cheers – Bruce Agendum (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bruce! I hope you will get some feedback at some point. --Slp1 (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard from the Curator of Art at the Ferens, who forwarded the enquiry on to another person who is Assistant Curator at the Wilberforce House Museum in Hull, and apparently has considerable expertise on the man himself. I have now heard from her also. In short, although the authenticity of the painting has not been challenged before, there is some sympathy for my view about the depiction. In fact, the person concerned has an interesting theory as to the actual identity of the sitter. The consensus of both experts is that the image should be removed from Wikipedia for the time being, while further investigations take place at the gallery (which may take some time). Cheers – Agendum (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What a very interesting turn of events! Wikipedia editor Agendum as art detective extraordinaire. I'll be fascinated to see what the result is.  To me the main this is the pointy eyebrows which are so very different from any other portrait, even the 1828 one which would  have been painted just a few years before this one.  Anyway, I think we should take the painting out for now.  If the curators have doubts and so do editors here, then being cautious is the best bet.  --Slp1 (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What did W. study?
In what subjects did W. earn the M. A. and B.S.?--88.153.187.85 (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Foreign and Commonwealth Office roundel
I propose deleting this recent addition on the grounds that, as a memorial, it is far from being notable (apart from – possibly – the fact that it may be on the site of Ignatius Sancho's grocery shop, although this cannot be proven as far as I can ascertain). There are many memorials to Wilberforce up and down the UK and in other countries, and this is far from being the best, or the most obvious. Additionally, it was not carved by Gilbert Scott. He was the architect of the building. Any objections or further information? Bruce – Agendum (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Info
William Wilberforce was born in 1759 Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.98.227.43 (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Baptism
I'm very happy to accept the new information about William Wilberforce's baptism, as the source seems reliable. However, I will check other sources to be doubly sure, although I would be quite willing to accept the word of the PCC of Holy Trinity! As far as I can see, this information was added on 21st February, 2010, and it may be worth checking other details (about Wilberforce's mother) which was added at the same time. We cannot be too careful (and perhaps we weren't)! Agendum (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going to take it out for now. The location of the baptism is not mentioned in any of the bios that I consulted; it is currently without any source, and while I am sure the PCC of Holy Trinity is sure of the facts, we need reliable sources, and also some indication that this information is significant when no biographer has thought to mention it. The Elizabeth Bird part is correct, however, though I have to check the dates still. --Slp1 (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Image of Wilberforce Monument
Thanks for your recent edit, DocWatson42. However, I feel that the reduction of size of this image is too much, although I agree that it may have been somewhat too large previously. I propose to revert your edit reducing the image to thumbnail size, and then try to achieve a compromise by reducing the size a little. I hope you agree with this course of action. Incidentally, we had tried several different sizes at the time this page was first edited and developed a few years ago. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Spiritual journey
Para 2 of “Conversion’ begins with the sentence: ‘Wilberforce's spiritual journey is thought to have begun at this time.’ There is something not quite right about this sentence.

•	Clearly something did begin around this time (not just ‘thought to have begun’). It was happening during the events described in the previous paragraph. (as in Hague chapter 4) But what has begun was not the ‘spiritual journey’.

•	The ‘spiritual journey’ began way back in childhood when Wilberforce came under the influence of his aunt and the Methodists. This is described in ‘Early Life and education’ paras 2 & 3. The journey faded when his mother brought him back home, concerned to protect him from extremists, and gradually the evangelical influence wore off.

•	It might be simpler to avoid the ‘journey’ symbolism. My suggestion for an alternative sentence is: “During this time Wilberforce explored afresh the spiritual principles he had first encountered in childhood through his aunt and the Methodists”. Petrosbizar (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Change now made. Petrosbizar (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Petrosbizar – I take issue with your reverting of the words “spiritual journey” without first discussing with editors. The words are used to describe the sometimes slow and thoughtful process leading towards an individual coming to faith in Jesus Christ – what is sometimes called “conversion”. It is clear from reading Hague, Pollock, Metaxas and others that something happened to William Wilberforce in his mid-twenties that profoundly affected him and led to a major change in his life and priorities, radically changing his future direction. This began with his conversations with Milner and his reading of Doddridge, and continued later with his mentor Newton. I accept that he could have been influenced by his childhood experiences listening to the Methodists, but I think it’s fair to say that his journey to faith (and the radical change that some call “conversion”) began with these conversations. I will revert the sentence for now, but am happy to discuss this further, should you wish. Cheers, Agendum 08:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Agendum. Thanks for the comments. I did of course invite editors to comment, though perhaps a couple of days was a short time to wait. However, yours is the first response in 9 months, so maybe not too controversial. I don't think my amendment in any way conflicts with your observations about Christian conversion.

I have already explained my unease with the use of the word 'journey' in this context, so won't repeat it. I agree with you that the adult phase of Wilberforce's journey began with Milner, leading to a clear evangelical conversion. If I were to attempt to describe more fully his journey, it might be as an early experience of the mainstream Church of England life of his day followed by an exposure to Evangelical and Methodist spirituality. His parents recognised the influence of the new spirituality upon him and took action to counteract it. For a while he tried to hold onto that spirituality but gradually its influence waned and he adopted 'worldly ways'.

What happened next is not best described by an editor 'as thought to have begun'. Such a comment provokes questions as to whether something did or did not begin, and who it is that had such thoughts. We are agreed that something did begin at that time and that the beginning is not a questioned assertion. Clearly, people have different views (now as then) about how spiritual journeys develop. Our task is to be as objective as possible while being faithful to Wilberforce's experience and his beliefs about God's impact on his life.

I would be happy with an addition to my amendment which reads something like: “During this time, Wilberforce's spiritual journey began afresh as he explored the spiritual principles he had first encountered in childhood through his aunt and the Methodists”. Petrosbizar (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Petrosbizar — I must have missed your request for comments from interested editors, as I’ve been away from Wikipedia for some time. Some of the others involved when this article was first improved and taken to Featured Article status have sadly since left altogether. Regarding the paragraph we are discussing, I don’t want it to be blown up out of all proportion – as it’s not an important part of the article.
 * However, I’m aware that many who come from an evangelical christian background refer to the process of coming to faith as a “journey” – I'm not sure that childhood interest in religion is necessarily regarded as a part of this; which is why I found it acceptable when this paragraph was written (not by me, as far as I remember). If I’m honest, I find your version rather more awkward than that we had originally. Please do not take this the wrong way – I’m always keen to try to work together with other editors in a friendly and civil way, and hopefully arrive at a consensus that’s acceptable to all concerned.
 * May I suggest a far simpler and shorter version that (I hope) may address your concern – something like “After his earlier interest in evangelical religion when he was young, Wilberforce’s journey to faith seems to have begun afresh at this time…”
 * Please let me know what you think!
 * Best wishes, Agendum (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm happy with your suggestion. In any case, since you are one of the architects of this Featured Article, I would want to respect your creation.
 * The 'Journey' symbolism is well rooted in Evangelical Christianity. Bunyan's Pilgrims Progress is an outstanding example, beginning with the journey that takes him to the Cross, then the ongoing journey through the world until journey's end at the heavenly city. Wilberforce himself regards this symbolism as a given and uses it himself at one page in his "A Practical View ..." (p.198, Kindle Edition). His mentor, John Newton, had a very long journey towards an evangelical faith, followed by a significant journey within it.Petrosbizar (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I've made the revision as we discussed. Thanks for your input on this, Petrosbizar.
 * Best wishes, Agendum (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Slp1 – Thanks for your changes to our friend William Wilberforce yesterday, restoring earlier and better wording and correcting false information. It’s good to see you back! I too have been away for a year or three, but have been trying to keep an eye on the W.W. article (as I know you have, too), but had missed the latest changes.

So I am now more-or-less back on the track of W.W. and the other abolitionists, principally the Clapham Sect and Beilby Porteus (as you would expect from me), although I haven’t really made a start on him yet! I now have the right books, but I just need to do a bit more reading of these – and other information I’ve gleaned over several years.

It’s helpful that I am now in regular contact with the world’s leading expert on Porteus, who has published biographical material relating especially to his support for the abolition of slavery.

Best wishes. Cheers – Bruce Agendum (Talk) Agendum 19:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Bruce! I didn't see this till today. Sorry about that.  It sounds great what you are up to!!  I am always so impressed with your dedication and ingenuity in this subject area.  Slp1 (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Independent
I have reverted, yet again, an attempt to change/add that William Wilberforce was a Tory. This time, a source was provided, a book published in 1845 which has a T by his name. Wikipedia articles privileges recent, reliable, independent, secondary published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as per WP:SOURCESWP:PSTS. These sorts of sources state  that Wilberforce sat as an Independent (for example, ) and these are the sources we have to follow. Please do not restore this information again without getting consensus to do so here on the talkpage. It is particularly important that our policies are followed as this precise subject is currently in the news --Slp1 (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My edit showed that he was elected as a Tory. Indeed the book in question was published in 1845 just 12 years after Wilberforce's death and long before people were arguing about whether he was a Tory or not. The sources you have shown mention William Wilberforce when he was the MP for Yorkshire, whereas mine is about when he was the MP for Kingston, where he served for 4 years before becoming the Yorkshire MP from 1780-1784. An 1845 editor is not going to say Wilberforce was a Tory when he wasn't and also he wasn't as widely known then or as famous as he is now. Hollahopping (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, Wikipedia policies requires that we use reliable secondary sources to write articles. To my knowledge, the secondary (and tertiary) sources about William Wilberforce say that he is an Independent. I know this because I read them when researching and writing this article. The reason that editors have to avoid primary sources such as the one you have listed is that they need expert knowledge to interpret them. See WP:PSTS
 * Is it possible that any error was made (it is a bit odd that there is a Tory standing against another Tory, no?)
 * Or did the author of the book want to claim the very famous Wilberforce of one of his own (as James Claverly has just done)?
 * Or maybe party names and affiliations meant something quite different at the time: see | this explanation, exactly on point, by Anne Stott, the author of an OUP biography of Wilberforce...she states that he thought of himself as a Whig, that party designations were fluid, and that people later claimed, incorrectly, he was a Tory.
 * Or is it in fact that he stood as a Tory correct?
 * With primary sources like this -as well as the questions that they raise and knowledge required to answer them) we rely on scholars to interpret the information for us- and to my knowledge none have made the claim that you have made. And in fact they all contradict it, in relation to the Hull period as well as the York period. See .   However, maybe I have missed something.  Can you supply some secondary sources to support your claim? I will not revert your edit for a short while to give you the time to search. But the onus  is on you to verify this claim with solid secondary sources.Slp1 (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see another attempt is being made to change him from Independent to Tory, again using a primary source (Hansard). William Avery (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To answer your questions:
 * No error was made it seems, as Kingston upon Hull (UK Parliament constituency) elected two members of parliament, so two Tories were elected that year.
 * At the time William Wilberforce was not that famous, yes he was known in upper echelons of society since he associated himself with people like William Pitt the Younger, but his fame was not what it is today.
 * Party names during that era were not 'quite different' as there were two main parties: The Tories and the Whigs. Further more the source you used cannot be accessed and so I cannot see what was put.
 * Since you asked for a second source, I found one in Hansard, which was from a meeting in the House of Commons, whereby the Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull speaks about her predecessor, William Wilberforce, being a tory.
 * The sources that you have shown do not talk about his 4 years as the MP for Kingston, but only speak about his time as the MP for Yorkshire where he served from 1784 onwards.
 * I have therefore found a solid secondary source, by a Labour MP from the House of Commons. FollyAllAgain (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A reliable independent scholarly source was requested, and a hansard transcript - which is a primary source and one that does not mention that he was a Tory, only that he "supported the Tories" (which is not the same thing at all) does not fit the bill. In addition, you are almost certainly the sockpuppet of a blocked editor. So I will be reverting!! Slp1 (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I only watch this page becuase it is something of a vandalism magnet. This little episode is something new. William Avery (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping an eye! I suspect ongoing vigilance will be needed! Slp1 (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

RSPCA
Hi Slp1 – I understand your reasons for deleting the word "Royal", but I feel I should point out that in the UK the organisation concerned is universally known as the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (and is much loved as such). I think it might be better to reinstate it – the name (as it is) would sound wrong to all British readers. After all, it became the RSPCA only a few years after after Wilberforce's death. Would you reconsider? Cheers – Bruce Agendum (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an argument that more British readers might click on the link and learn about the RSPCA's history than if it was the familiar RSPCA. This is in addition to avoiding an anachronism. Ttwaring (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Henry Dundas
It seems that this article and that of Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville is being caught up in an off-wiki discussion about the culpability (or not) of this man in prolonging slavery. Some of his descendants appear to be in favour of acknowledging this  while others wish to dispute it. Some are wanting to change the name of streets in Toronto and others, it seems are opposed. Here on WP we only care what the established historical opinion is, and as noted, currently the opinion seems to be strongly that he was instrumental in prolonging slavery through his actions at this point. See Pollock in the article but also. This is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.--Slp1 (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see an edit summary alleged the article had been "manipulated to suit the black lIves matter Narrative". In fact the relevant text was in the version of the article that was promoted to FA status in 2008, years before #BlackLivesMatter was heard of. William Avery (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The citation given (Pollock) does not verify the wording of the text in the article - that the compromise was a ploy intended to delay abolition indefinitely - from what I can see - p.115 has that "gradual" compromise was suggested as a measure against major upheaval in the colonies, and p.116 says that afterwards the idea of gradualness might be used as a diversion that could postpone abolition indefinitely, but it does not state that this was the reason for Dundas to have proposed it as suggested by the wording in the article. I've changed the article to show this as being a consequence of, rather than the intention of, the compromise. EdwardUK (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, you are interpreting Pollock in an incredibly positive light. Pollock says, "[The House] followed [Dundas'] way out";  "[Dundas] was probably swayed by desire to postpone upheavals in the colonies for which he  would had assumed responsibility",;"Wilberforce bitterly reproached himself for not calling Dundas' bluff"; "Whenever he should revive the question, Dundas or others might divert it to Gradualness, a coward's answer that could postpone Abolition indefinitely.  Wilberforce never  harboured grudges but it is debatable whether the disillusionment with Dundas's  character in 1792 lingered in his mind to influence subconciously- certainly not consciously- his judgement in 1805 which brought Dundas to ruin." These passages (and  the other sources I cited above) make clear what historians (and Wilberforce) consider to be Dundas's tactics here.  I don't have time to fix this tonight but will do so tomorrow.Slp1 (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been clearer in my previous comment - it is the combining of "intention" and "indefinitely" that I had the problem with - The sources leave no doubt that Dundas suggested the compromise with the intention of delaying, and also what his political motivations were for opposing any immediate abolition. Although Pollock notes "gradual" being used to postpone indefinitely, the source does not specifically state the "indefinitely" as part of its original intention and also gives Dundas proposing dates for when abolition could have taken effect. As the focus should really be on Wilberforce, Tomkins (Clapham Sect) looks to be the best source to add more detail here as it gives Wilberforce's views and notes the Gisborne pamphlet which doesn't seem to be mentioned elsewhere in the article. EdwardUK (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia edits should be based on facts and not on the personal opinions of book authors or historians. Imagine if court rulings were based on the personal opinion of judges and jurors. The edits in Wikipedia in regards to Dundas are unjustly biased and paint him in a negative light. The media (Blacklivesmatter) will take edits such as these and utilise them to suit their narrative. They will also ignore previous facts, such as Dundas having represented a slave

In 1776 however he acted as counsel to Joseph Knight, who has been purchased as a slave in Jamaica yet was now claiming his freedom, in Knight v. Wedderburn,

It is of my personal opinion, Mr Dundas was against Slavery, he added the word “gradual” to help the bill pass. As it seems the house was going to vote heavily against again as they did the previous year.

But that is my opinion and shouldn’t matter on Wikipedia, so should the edits of the opinions of Pollock and historians be removed. Stephpilot (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Deeply Conservative?
The article says 'Wilberforce was deeply conservative when it came to challenges to the existing political and social order. ' But two paragraphs later we are given a substantial list of more progressive things he supported. It seems to me therefore that the phrase 'was deeply conservative' without any modifier or caveat is rather inaccurate. It would be better to say something like 'he was often conservative'. Furthermore the phrase 'to the existing political and social order' is rather vague. If you support improved conditions for textile workers are you challenging the 'existing political and social order', or did one have to be a full blown Jacobin? LastDodo (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay I have made the following change. 'Wilberforce was deeply conservative when it came to challenges to the existing political and social order.' to 'Wilberforce was highly conservative on many political and social issues.' He was clearly conservative on some issues, and not on others, but it is not clear at all that the line between them is drawn by 'challenges to the existing political and social order'. His lack of support for reform in textile mills is cited as an example, yet later in the same section it says he did support reform there. Does that mean he supported 'challenges to the existing political and social order'? I think my replacement is clearer. LastDodo (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sugar connection
Hi Slp1 - don't understand why my contribution of 16.03, 1 January 2021 regarding his grandfather's partnership in the Hull sugarhouse has now been removed. Whilst the citation refers to my website, the original info (which apparently I can't add to Wiki) is from Lambeth Archives - The Thornton Papers Ref IV/104. Thank you. Bryan Hamster622 (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Bryan, thanks for getting in touch. There are a few problems, but the main one is that WP requires reliable sources for articles. See WP:RS, also WP:V. Unfortunately, your website doesn’t qualify as a reliable source. The other is although I am sure that your research is 100% correct, we are not allowed to do original research here. See WP:NOR. We have to privilege secondary sources. There is also the question of whether this information is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia article. After all, this is the bio about William, not his grandfather, and if none of his many biographers thought this was important enough info to include in their full length bios, then why should it be included here? Maybe they didn’t know the info, but that takes us back to our rules about sourcing and not allowing original research.
 * I realize that on this article it seems like these rules are a bit strict and restricting, but you would be surprised. A few years ago, an editor wanted to include info he found on a website about how WW had an affair with Anne Bronte!! And in the encyclopedia in total there are also all sorts of people who want to inform the world about their new physics theorem, new cure for COVID etc. That’s why these rules were developed.
 * I am sorry about this, but I hope it does not put you off from contributing to WP.Slp1 (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Slp1 -

It's the revision of 17:49, 17 January 2021, and thank you for your explanation. If it requires verifying from published works, then the citation can be "Sugarbakers ... from sweat to sweetness" by Bryan Mawer AGFHS Publications 2011. ISBN 978-09547632-7-5. but the source at Lambeth Archives is still the same. I have noted the point on my website about his biographers not adding this info. If they had scoured Hull Archives they'd have found a copy there. Perhaps they thought it might have been a negative comment toward WW, but the alternative view is that WW would have visited that sugarhouse with his grandfather during his early years and learning the source of the sugar may have affected his thinking re the Caribbean. We shall never know ... but I just thought it worth adding to the discussion, and after all is said, all I was doing was adding to the line about how his grandfather made the family fortune! Bryan. Hamster622 (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again Bryan. I myself think it is a fascinating factoid about the source of the family wealth and possible family discussions, and I have a feeling that future biographers will take the cue from your website and book, and make exactly those points about it.  But we need to wait till then, unfortunately.Slp1 (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, Bryan – I have to say I agree with Slp1’s assessment of the edits, as the article is about William Wilberforce rather than his grandfather – although I also have to say that I personally found the article you referenced rather interesting. I read it and noted the mention of the Old Sugar House in Lime Street – and especially the fact that it was at one time under the management of the Thornton family (amongst others). I suspect there may be a connection with John and/or Henry Thornton, who were both associates of Wilberforce – see John_Thornton_(philanthropist). Just a thought – I will look into it. Good luck with your researches, Bruce/Agendum (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Bruce. The summary of the original documents is at   where you will see the start-up partners included Robert, Godfrey and William Thornton. John Thornton became a partner just before WW senior's death, with John's son(s) a few years later. (I read these Thornton papers in Hull Archives 2006). Overnight I had considered trying a different edit to attach after 'Baltic countries,' - eg: "and the sugar trade as a partner with the Thornton family in Hull's huge cane sugar refinery in Lime Street from 1733. ["Sugarbakers ... from sweat to sweetness" by Bryan Mawer, AGFHS Publications 2008 & 2011]". My thoughts are that it continues the line about the family fortune as well as linking well with both the sugar trade and the Thorntons mentioned later on the page and both central to WW's life. Would that be acceptable? Bryan Hamster622 (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we could justifiably add a few words to mention the sugar trade (it's interesting, as all the biographies I have seen only ever mention the Baltic trade – whatever that means), but it is not something that merits any more than that in an article about Wilberforce. I'll give it some thought. But I'm afraid that Wikipedia won't allow you to use your own publication as a reference, as that constitutes original research – see WP:NOR. Can I suggest that we move this conversation to your own talk page – or to mine, rather than this page? Bruce Agendum (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Bruce and Bryan!! I actually think we should move the discussion to the William Wilberforce talkpage. There's something else I would like to suggest too.  It is the middle of the workday here in Canada, so if it is okay with everybody, I will do this in the evening my time.Slp1 (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello to everybody but especially Bruce and Bryan. As you can see I have copied this discussion from my talk page to this talkpage, so that we can include as many people as possible. I have two comments to make on the above:
 * One of the problems with Bryan’s suggestion above is that the Thorntons have not been mentioned in the article to date, so readers will be confused when they are introduced to this without explanation. The other problem is that, with no disrespect intended to Bryan and his amazing research work, WP insists on secondary sources for inclusion. This is a WP:Featured Article that several of us (including Agendum/Bruce and I) worked very hard to achieve this. And we want to keep up the standards up! I wonder if we could somehow add something to the footnote (currently about the Baltic Trade) rather than directly in the article. But the sourcing is an issue. It is true that Bryan’s book is probably not enough. More suggestions about this from me later, perhaps.
 * It drives me crazy that the grandfather’s death date is so disputed. This seems to me to be something we should be able to settle one or the other. Surely there are death/burial/newspaper or gravestone records that could sort this out? This would be a great case for where primary sources can help support secondary sources (which are currently in dispute). Can either of you help with this? Slp1 (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

William senior ... Both FamilySearch and FindaGrave give the burial as ... November 1774 (age 83-84) at St Mary's Churchyard, Beverley, East Riding of Yorkshire. (Birth 1690, Marriage 1711). FindMyPast have the original burial register showing burial 23 November 1774. I have emailed Bruce images of both register and transcription for confirmation (I only have his email address). Bryan. Hamster622 (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thornton name ... gets four mentions in the page to date, one in 'early life', three in 'early parliamentary action'. Bryan Hamster622 (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

William senior ... here's the secondary source ... (newspaper) Leeds Intelligencer 29 November 1774 William Wilberforce died 16 Nov 1774 at Ferriby, near Hull aged 84. Screen-grap sent to Bruce Bryan Hamster622 (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments Slp1, and to Bryan for sending the useful images of documents confirming Wilberforce senior’s date of death.
 * I tend to agree with Slp1 regarding mention of the Thornton family here as, although interesting, it’s not really relevant to WW’s life and work. I would prefer to add just a few words – something to alert readers to the family’s business including the sugar trade – after all, this is quite ironic and (as far as I know) a previously unacknowledged insight into their business affairs. I really think you may have alerted us to something important here, Bryan.
 * What I propose doing is to add a new paragraph to the John Thornton article, where this information would be in its correct context. I think the connection will be interesting to some readers (or even scholars), especially as both John and Henry Thornton (son of John) were supporters and major donors to the abolition campaign.
 * Regarding the date of death of William Wilberforce the grandfather, I had completely forgotten the discrepancy in the article. I had a quick look this morning and established fairly quickly that the date of death was November 1774. Both Find-a-grave and Ancestry confirm that this was the case. Thanks for finding the obituary in the ‘Leeds Intelligencer’, Bryan.
 * By the way, it seems that Pollock has a lot more detail about the family background, and has done a great deal of research, and gets the date correct. William Hague (former UK Leader of the Opposition) probably employed excellent researchers, but still got the date wrong. He provides no references to support it being 1776.
 * Cheers, Bruce /Agendum (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the importance of this information ... I found it in 2006 at Hull Archives (somewhere I would have thought any self-respecting biographer would have spent some time), added it to the Hull page on my website, used it in both editions of my book 2008, 2011, mentioned it recently on FutureLearn - Slavery, and a couple of weeks ago on a Descendants page again on my website. I can look at it both ways, either WW thought it wrong that slave sugar was being refined in his local sugarhouse (he could probably see the huge building from his back garden next to the river), or it's a bit two-faced to inherit the proceeds of slave sugar whilst fighting for abolition - though he would not have been the only one if he had. The Hull sugarhouse ran from 1733 to 1841, the most profitable time for sugar refining. It was demolished soon after it's partial collapse in 1868 and the site used for a few houses and light industry. The site was cleared 10 yrs ago for a car park but no archaeoligical investigation was carried out. Bryan. Hamster622 (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I've found a published source for this Thornton/Wilberforce/Sugarhouse information ... Hull in the Eighteenth Century: A Study in Economic and Social History by Gordon Jackson, Hull Academic Press, 1972. I think this is the same source Hague used for the 'maritime trade with Baltic countries' reference. Checking right back through my research notes, it would appear I found the info first in Jackson in Hull Library and later the transcript of the original Lambeth Archives documents in Hull Archives. Copy of pp196-7 sent to Bruce. Bryan Hamster622 (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Great news Bryan!! That is  exactly what we need. Well done for all your looking!  Are there a couple of key sentences that would serve as a good reference.  If so, would it be possible for one of you to type them out here?  I can see a tiny bit on googlebooks, but not the right parts.Slp1 (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Further info ... William Wilberforce senior purchased the dwelling house we now know as Wilberforce House in Hull in 1732 from Godfrey Thornton, who had inherited it from his father John Thornton a year earlier. It was passed down to his son Robert Wilberforce in 1755, and William Wilberforce (1759-1833) inherited when he reached the age of 21 years. He sold it in 1830. (Historic England)

1768. From the will of his father Robert Wilberforce, merchant of Hull (1728-1768) he inherited - Wilberforce House, High St, Hull; a farm at Etherwick and Aldbrough; all his residual estate. (Will, East Riding Archives)

1775. From the will of his grandfather William Wilberforce, merchant of Hull (1690-1774) he inherited - £10,000. (Will, East Riding Archives)

By the age of 21, William Wilberforce was a very wealthy man, with a certain proportion of his inherited wealth derived from the refining of slave sugar. Bryan. Hamster622 (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Added a few words about William Wilberforce (senior)'s partnership in the local sugar refining business, as we've discussed, along with ref to the source that Bryan has kindly provided.
 * I think we can forget any real connection our William may have had with sugar, as he would have been 15 when he inherited from his grandfather his estate (in 1774). From all that I've read about him, especially after his Christian conversion in 1785, he gave away so much of his money that I don't think there's any question about him having held onto any shares in the sugar trade. Bruce Agendum (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Wilberforce's grandfather
I've corrected the date of death of his grandfather, William Wilberforce senior, which is now confirmed as 1774. Two references were given for the 1776 date; of these, Hague is considered doubtful (see above), and Stott has evidently been mis-read – it actually supports the 1774 date. – Agendum (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have reverted a whole lot of recent edits, and ask the editor concerned to come here to discuss why these changes are needed. The information in this article are clearly cited from reliable sources, so adding citation needed tags (as here, is very problematic, and frankly disruptive.

The rest of the edits seem to be expressing a disagreement with the content of the article (as sourced from high quality bios, and other books/scholarly sources).

Per WP:BRD, Taksen, please come to this discussion and explain clearly what changes you would like to make, and why your sources are of a higher quality than those already cited. --Slp1 (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I put my details there which are more precise, have a ref and speak for themselves.

"The British became involved in the slave trade in 1554–1555, when John Hawkins formed a slave trading syndicate of wealthy merchants. The English involvement in the Atlantic slave trade only resumed in the 1640s. According the Peace of Munster the slave trade was opened for the traditional enemies of Spain, losing a large share of the trade to the Dutch, French and English. In 1698 English merchants began to become dominant. The British maintained their position during the 18th century, becoming the biggest shippers of slaves across the Atlantic. Meanwhile, it became a business for privately owned enterprises, reducing international complications. By 1783 triangular route represented about 80 percent of Great Britain's foreign income. British ships dominated the slave trade, supplying mainly the British West Indies, North and Spanish America, and in peak years carried forty thousand enslaved men, women and children across the Atlantic in the horrific conditions of the middle passage. Of the estimated 11 million Africans transported into slavery, about 1.4 million died during the voyage. Destinations and flags of carriers show that around 23 percent were carried by the British."

I can't see why a ref to the national archives for example must be reverted. Emotions are more important than the facts? It looks stupid to me. Good luck.Taksen (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for coming here to discuss. Please note that it is inappropriate to ascribe motivations to other editors as you just have, (see WP:UNCIVIL) but anyway....
 * It seems that you are wanting to add more details, more precision, to the article, rather than disputing and content per se. I don’t believe these details are required in a bio of William Wilberforce. The reason for the paragraph that you have heavily edited is to set the context for WW’s decision to get involved in the anti slave trade campaign. In this article we don’t need to know the specifics about about John Hawkins, the Peace of Munster, etc etc. We just need a quick overview of the historical situation to set the stage for WW’s life. This material is more relevant for other articles about the slave trade. In my opinion it does not improve this particular encyclopedia article. The last sentence is also unsourced except via a link to an unsourced WP article.
 * I would be interested in hearing the comments of other editors. Slp1 (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You have provided an informative introduction to the early years of the slave trade, and how it came about, but in my opinion this belongs in one of the several articles about the history of slavery and the slave trade, rather than here.


 * This article is a biography of William Wilberforce which includes a summary of the situation which faced Wilberforce when he took up the challenge to lead the campaign against the trade in Parliament in 1783 and the years following. As such, no more than a five- or six-line summary was required here, rather than an account of how the trade had originated 140 years previously.


 * I really don’t feel that the recent edits helped to describe the situation facing the abolitionists (about which Wilberforce and Clarkson were to set about informing Parliament and the nation). I agree with the decision to revert these edits. Agendum (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * feel?Taksen (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)