Talk:William Wilberforce

References and External links

In July 2021 changes were made to the end matter which, in addition to the list of sources, included ‘Further reading’.

I missed this at the time, and am now uncertain as to whether this really adds anything useful to the article. We already have an extensive list of sources, comprising nearly sixty works cited (including newspapers and online references).

Does a further list of reading material add much to this article? The very importance and fame of the subject of this article means that he will be the subject of countless works and research papers.

Should we be providing this list of further reading when it is now easy for readers to research and find links to a huge, varied and ever-growing number of published works online? Is this the convention adopted for other articles on Wikipedia? Incidentally, the list as it currently is includes two references to works about Henry Dundas, rather the article’s subject.

What do other editors think? Agendum (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi again Bruce/Agendum. Thanks for bringing this up. I agree that we should consider this issue. My feeling is that either the books/articles should be used as references in the article or we should not include them.

Looking those in the list, I would say that we should delete: "Coupland, Reginald. Wilberforce: A Narrative", Stephens, Mark. "Teaching history for a moral purpose: Wilberforce as evangelical hero." and Urbaniak, Jakub, and Mooketsi Motsisi. "The impact of the 'fear of God' on the British abolitionist movement." and Ritchie, Daniel. "‘Justice Must Prevail.

I wouldn't mind moving the other three to the talk page and trying to get our hands on them to see if there is anything interesting new info that should be included. Including any new perspective on how we deal with Dundas here.

• Hurwitz, Edith F. Politics and the Public Conscience: Slave Emancipation and the Abolitionist Movement in Britain (Routledge, 2021).[ISBN missing]
• McCarthy, Angela. "Bad History: The Controversy over Henry Dundas and the Historiography of the Abolition of the Slave Trade." Scottish Affairs (2022): 1–26.
• Mullen, Stephen. "Henry Dundas: a ‘great delayer’ of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade." Scottish Historical Review 100.2 (2021): 218–248.

--Slp1 (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

wikipedia gets very heavy use from millions of students--especially advanced secondary and beginning higher education. Wilberforce is a good paper topic. They can go to Google and get over 3 MILLION links. Or the teacher might suggest GoogleScholar with 43,000 links. That's not helpful. Much better is to give a variety of subtopics that the student can work on and that's where Further Reading is useful. We want students to take various perspectives--religion is one, abolition is another, or Whigs, or grass roots support, etc. etc There is no need to drop suggested topics, that only narrows the students' opportunities. Rjensen (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I also think we don't need a further reading section and will remove it. I have no objection to some of those tomes being re-added if someone disagrees. Desertarun (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

FA sweeps

The article has issues with sourcing and NPOV. For example, there's heavy use of the 2007 biography by politician William Hague. More critical and scholarly sources (eg [1][2][3][4][5]) don't get enough attention and the legacy section needs expansion for Wilberforce's use in anti-abortion and other modern-day conservative/evangelical causes. (t · c) buidhe 20:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent referencing style, need to clean it before revising content

The referencing style is inconsistent. There is no path forward for me to improve content at FAR/FARC unless it is made consistent. I will happily do this in the same style as Black Monday (1987) or Logic. I already have a major start at User:Lingzhi.Renascence/sandbox. Completely finishing it might take 2 more hours, but having 2 hours free time might take 2 days. [It might still look rough, but I know how to fix everything]... After that, I would copy everything over from my sandbox to here. Let me know if anyone has any objections. § Lingzhi (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, may be best to complete this before other changes are made to make things go smoothly. Keith D (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Keith D:DONE. There are still tons of problems. If anyone is interested, please participate in Wikipedia:Featured article review/William Wilberforce/archive1. § Lingzhi (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I have reported the false positive on ref 23, someone will come along and fix problem. Keith D (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally I dislike having to look into two places to see what a source is, but whatever. Can you check the internet archive link to the Tomkins book? It goes to Pollock. --Slp1 (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lingzhi.Renascence: You said to ping you if needed. Since you worked on the references....I don't understand why a newspaper/website article shouldn't be cited in full under citations rather than have to look in two places, but assuming that is the way it has to be, can you please check citations such as 23, 33, 237, 244 etc which don't look right at all. Thanks--Slp1 (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

(←) @Slp1: I tried to fix all I could. I cannot fix #23, "ACAD & WLBR776W". Yes that cite is profoundly cryptic. But I tried earlier to make the display of "A Cambridge Alumni Database" less cryptic, and someone complained, and another editor came by and "fixed" it. So there it is. While we are here, I removed two cites in the text because I cannot access them (and the second has no page number): "C.L.R. James, Black Jacobins (London: Penguin, 1938), p. 109." and "David Geggus, Slavery, War and Revolution: The British Occupation of Saint Domingue, 1793–1798 (New York: Clarendon Press, 1982)." They support the text, "...a move that drew criticism from abolitionists Wilberforce and Clarkson"...and also by the way, I added a wl to Haitian Revolution. Perhaps that event needs a bit more elucidation/discussion in the context of Wilberforce? Not sure. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Very busy tonight but will get back and try to solve the problems tomorrow or the next day. BTW I had meant to say that I would convert those new references to your format as soon as I had a minute, but thanks very much for saving me the job!!Slp1 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I am hesitant to suggest this because I known that Lingzhi2 spent a lot of time making changes, but I would like to change it back fully to the non Harvard system. I think this method makes it hard for readers, as they have to check references in two places. This is particularly key in in an article like this with many sources. It is also very confusing to editors . I for one find it very unintuitive and have made multiple mistakes. It also makes extra work as if I delete or add a reference I have to do it in two places. Also new edits are usually made with citation templates meaning that a perpetual clean up crew will be needed.

So, if we absolutely have to have it in one style, I would prefer the template one. I will do the work to convert it. Let me know what you think Slp1 (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

As a reader I find the Harvard system fairly easy to follow as I use the reference tooltips so that hovering over the reference gives the info without having to search for it. As an editor It also makes it easier for me to add citations as I just need to check whether or not that particular source is listed without searching to see if there is already a "ref name=" for the specific page numbers cited. EdwardUK (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It is great that you have figured out the hovering trick, but a casual/new reader won't necessarily! Also if you hover over the number using the other citation format you get the full citation immediately! Or at least I do!! I do understand your point about checking re source/page numbers, but on this article in the last 15 years or so, it has never happened that anyone added something from one of the already used format/pages. Every reference added has been in the other format. Maybe it is the difference between a developing and fairly well developed article?Slp1 (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello all.. it seems from the FA review page that the switch in referencing was not actually required. In order to facilitate future editing I will return it to the previous system. If anyone objects please let me know asap.Slp1 (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Wilberforce within abortion debates

• Google
• Google books
• ... and my favorite, Google scholar § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks:

• I have had a good look on googlescholar (also some other academic databases) and I could not find anything beyond the one I already mentioned [6].
• There is nothing useful in googlebooks.
• Google news (also in regular google but surrounded by dross) there are a few possible sources [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. A few are clearly reliable sources but others more dubious e.g. Christianity Today and Vox. I will have to check at RSN to see how those are rated. Overall there's probably enough for a few sentences, but that will have to be left for another day. Slp1 (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Vox seems fine per RSN, Christianity Today less so. It does have editorial oversight. Slp1 (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure why this is being discussed here. Is this really relevant to the article? I see no good reason to include any of these references, as there is clearly no connection with William Wilberforce. I can’t find anywhere above where the issue of abortion was raised or discussed, or mentioned elsewhere.

The mention of his name in the TGC article was an inexcusable attempt by the author Gracy Olmstead to appeal to the great name of Wilberforce in presenting her views upon the abortion debate, with no reason for this given – and no admission that there is no connection. There is no excuse for this. There is no evidence that Wilberforce had any opinion on the abortion issue, one way the other. It simply was not a matter felt worthy of discussion in the eighteenth/early nineteenth century.

I’m sorry to say that nearly all of the references cited in Google scholar above do not refer to William Wilberforce, but to the late Lord Wilberforce (1907–2003), High Court judge, one of his descendants.

Most of the other few mention William Wilberforce’s support for ‘abolition’ – in all these cases he was, of course, referring to the campaign to end slavery. One or two others (such as Ronald Reagan, Emily Crockett in ‘Vox’, etc) rely on pure supposition and seem to want to imagine some sort of a connection between the two campaigns. Any argument based upon a superficial similarity between the two is misplaced.

Agendum (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bruce, I hope you are well. Thanks for commenting. I agree that Wilberforce himself said nothing on the matter, and that many of the sources in those google searches are about the wrong Wilberforce and/or are not reliable sources(eg the TGC article). However, there have been a few reliable sources commenting on how Wilberforce's name/approach has been (mis)used by anti-abortion activists and others. I think it is worth a couple of sentences in the article, which I added to the Legacy section a few weeks ago. Can you take a look and see what you think? Comments welcome! And if you have a few minutes to weigh in on the referencing situation in the section above that would be lovely too. Slp1 (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Slp1 – good to see you here again. I’ve had to be away for the last few months (I’ve been completing a year-long course), and so wasn’t able to get involved in the recent edits, etc.

Thanks too, for all you have done to improve the article over the last few weeks. You’ve done some sterling work – it certainly needed it and I had been tempted to make changes myself, but lacked the time. I particularly like the inclusion of the passage about Eric Williams – his writings have (rightly or wrongly) been very influential, and should be included.

My apologies, I thought I had checked all of your recent edits, but somehow missed those around 30 May. I now see the relevance of the posts re the anti-abortion campaign and Wilberforce. It’s clearly much more of an issue in Canada and the US – I can’t remember seeing anything along these lines here in UK – it’s not as much of a cause célèbre.

My view re this is that we risk giving undue prominence to something that isn’t at all part of the story of Wilberforce – or his legacy. The fact that any group uses his name to give weight to their campaign by association, is irrelevant. I may suggest deletion, but I’ll give it a little more thought.

Cheers, Bruce/Agendum (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi again Bruce. Well done doing a course!! I hope it is all going well. For what it is worth, the Williams stuff has been there since the article got FA status. But I confess I had forgotten about some parts of the article too!! re the abortion thing, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion, but I do think it needs a sentence or two since it has been mentioned in scholarly books/mainstream media etc. I agree that it seems to be mostly a North American issue, though this reference suggests that attempts are being made to important the same tactics to the UK and Europe unfortunately. [14]. Still we do have to have a worldwide perspective on William Wilberforce and his legacy, and at the moment at least, this seems to be one of them. Anyway, think on it and get back in touch when you are done.

I think I am pretty much done with the cleanup and will go back to the FAR page to report in. Still have a question about the referencing system, but nearly done. Have a good weekend! Slp1 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Sugar refining

Just a note to say that I have removed the reference to the grandfather possibly owning a sugar refinery. There is/was one reliable source (Jackson) which says only "probably". It is very old (1972), and none of the many subsequent biographies etc have mentioned it. From the archives here and my own original research, the main source is a document from 1733 [15] in which his grandfather was listed as a partner at the startup. But for how long was he involved? His name does not seem to be mentioned again in other documents related to the sugar refinery, and unlike other partners, the shares are not left to anyone in his will [16] or that of his son, who was the residual legatee of his estate.[17] I am sorry about this, in a way, as it is an interesting snippet, but it really seems to be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to include it. Slp1 (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for your research on this. This originally came from a historian/author who writes about the history of Hull and picked up this fact and got in touch. I think it’s probably true (he gave me a reference that seemed to fit), but as you say, it probably comes under Undue Weight. It’s interesting, and I’m sure there’s some research to be done here, but not by me!

Bruce/Agendum (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

My information is accurate, and easily found in the Hull archives. It's published in my books and so qualifies for entry on Wiki. I've done the research on Hull within my many years of research into British sugar refining. It would appear that you've both confirmed my research, yet you still consider it unworthy of entry. I get the impression that it's the lazy research of WW's biographers that's holding sway here.

It's a simple question really ... How can the fact that William benefitted financially from the will of his sugar-refining grandfather be irrelevant in a discussion regarding the abolition of slavery on sugar plantations? Hamster622 (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

For the simple reason that including it would go against a variety of policies, including No original research, Verifiability and Undue weight. This is an encyclopedia, and we summarize the highest quality secondary sources written about a subject. Sourcing from the Hull archives is obvious original research (which we cannot do here), and with all due respect to you, The Anglo German History Society does not have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that is required per WP:RS. Unless you have advanced qualifications in history, your website/books cannot be used per WP:RSSELF.

None of the multiple recent biographies have mentioned this information: and it could be, as you suggest, that they were lazy in their research. On the other hand, maybe they investigated the claim and decided it was wrong. We as Wikipedians don't know who/what or why about any of this. We don’t have the knowledge or qualifications to decide what is right or wrong in this situation. That is why Wikipedia has created these rules requiring editors to summarize the highest quality, most reliable, fact checked sources and that is what we are doing here.

What follows is mostly irrelevant, because we are not allowed to do original research. But for the record it is not correct that I confirmed your research. I agree that the grandfather was a partner in the founding of the sugar house, but after that I could find nothing connecting the Wilberforces to the sugar house. As mentioned above there is no mention of it in the wills. Maybe grandpa resigned from the company before it made a profit. Maybe as a result WW did not benefit at all from the sugar house. Who knows?! However, maybe you have other evidence and can really connect the dots to prove that WW actually did benefit financially? If so, you should write it up, submit it to a scholarly journal, get it accepted and then there will be absolutely no problem including the information in the article. Slp1 (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

BTW, are you using two accounts on Wikipedia or have you asked somebody to add this information for you? You asked on my talkpage "understand why my accepted, and informative, contributions have once again been removed" [18] when they were in fact added by an editor called User:E.M.Morrison [19]. The same editor readded this material just recently [20]. If so, you need to read WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:MEAT, as this is not allowed here. Slp1 (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I do not have multiple identities on Wikipedia. I have no idea who the other two contributors (E.M.Morrison and EdwardUK) are who have reinstated my contributions, although they have both edited the page at other times, in other places. The fact they have referenced my book means it is not classed as self-published. It would appear that you are placing a value judgement on my work and that of the AGFHS.

Both of the pieces of information that this discussion has been about are 100% correct and have solid primary sources to back them up ... if my book is not a good enough source for you, then it is Wikipedia's loss, and in turn the loss of the reading public. I think you should be allowing the readers to decide whether or not the fact that a grandfather's business investments involving refining slave sugar are relevant to the life story of a grandson who worked tirelessly to abolish the slave trade. Hamster622 (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

First, thanks for clearing up your relationship to the other editors.

As far as your other comments are concerned, yes, Wikipedia does place a value judgement on sources (see WP:SOURCES) And yes, Wikipedia excludes information that some might think is pertinent or informative. (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTNEWS). Wikipedia has been around for more than 20 years, and while at the start it was pretty much a free for all, experience has shown that policies such as these are required. Many other people have sought to add information they personally think is important on Cold Fusion, Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Climate Change etc etc. On this very article, someone showed up more than 10 years ago wanting to include, amongst other things, that WW had an affair with one of the Brontes. They provided a citation.[21] They made the same arguments as you have, including the people's right to know. But it did not go in, because of WP's rules. It is an extreme case in some ways, but maybe it helps you to understand why the strict rules are there. You might not to agree with these, but that's what 1000s of editors have decided is best for the encyclopedia and its readers.

As I said, while WP is an attractive place to publicize your discovery, it is not the only or the best place. If you don't want to write it up and submit an article to a journal, maybe put all your research on your website so that everyone can easily connect the financial dots from the grandfather to WW, and you might find historians etc will include it in their books/articles.Slp1 (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2024

On William Wilberforce's Personal life

In 1788, at the recommendation of his doctor to likely treat ulcerative colitis, Wilberforce began using opium, which led to a struggle of opium usage for 45 years[1]. As writer Timothy McMahan King notes in his article for the Wall Street Journal, Wilberforce's diaries reveal that if he missed his evening dose, he would wake up sick and be “forced to lie in bed, great sneezing and other signs of spasm.[2]

References 1. McMullen, Michael D. "William Wilberforce: An Agent of Usefulness." Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, April 4, 2021, https://www.mbts.edu/2021/04/william-wilberforce-an-agent-of-usefulness/: https://www.mbts.edu/2021/04/william-wilberforce-an-agent-of-usefulness/. Accessed February 5, 2024.

2. McMahan King, Timothy. "Even Heroes Can Struggle With Addiction." Wall Street Journal, 12 July 2019, https://www.wsj.com/articles/even-heroes-can-struggle-with-addiction-11562969041. Accessed 5 February 2024. EAOOB (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, but his long-standing use of opium is already in the article, with better sources.Slp1 (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Täck så mycket EAOOB (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have reverted, once again, edits that seek to emphasize his conversion specifically to Christianity. Not sure why this is needed given all the surrounding information and links. Not sure why becoming an evangelical Anglican isn’t clear enough. In any case, per WP:BRD please make your case here and get WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. Slp1 (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

NPOV, EPSTYLE, and NOR violation in lede

The lede currently says:

His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation, and resulted in criticism that he was ignoring injustices at home while campaigning for the enslaved abroad.

This sentence contains violations of WP:NPOV, WP:EPSTYLE, and WP:NOR, the last one because it is uncited. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The lede does not need to be cited, per WP:LEDE. It summarizes the rest of the article which is where you will find the several paragraphs with citations to support this sentence. Slp1 (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)