Talk:Edward Colston

David Hughson as a source

I see that the article has been fully protected for a week, meaning that edits can only be made by an administrator, and by consensus, per the Wikipedia:Protection policy. Since the issue with the lede is moot for now (it would appear that consensus supports the current version, but if it doesn't there is certainly no consensus for the earlier version), we should probably discuss more fully another issue I raised above, that has rather got lost in the kerfuffle: namely the use of David Hughson as a source for a paragraph in the 'Philanthropic works' section: "David Hughson, writing in 1808, described Colston as "the great benefactor of the city of Bristol, who, in his lifetime, expended more than 70,000L. [£] in charitable institutions",[17] equivalent to £5,581,350 in 2020.[18]". Now, this statement appears to be superficially true - Hughson (or someone writing under that name) certainly appears to have written the words quoted. But why is our article quoting Hughson? And then conveniently, via a calculation involving the UK Retail Price Index, giving an (inappropriately precise) equivalent in year 2020 Pounds Stirling for Hughson's '70,000L' figure?

As Wikipedia:Reliable sources makes clear, article content needs to be cited (or at least citable) to "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". And I'd have to suggest that beyond trivially being reliable as a statement for Hughson's opinion on Colston, the source cited fails to meet Wikipedia requirements for sourcing on almost every criteria specified. Don't take my word for it though - decide for yourself. The book is currently viewable online, via Google Books, but for convenience, I'll quote the relevant passage, in full, here:

"At Mortlake are the handsome house and gardens of Mr. Franks; and there is an antient house, let to Miss Aynscomb, which is said to have been the residence of Oliver Cromwell; but which was certainly the residence, in the last century, of that excellent man Edward Colston Esq. the great benefactor of the city of Bristol, who, in his lifetime, expended more than 70,000L. in charitable institutions. He died there in 1721 *".

The above passage is accompanied by a footnote:

"* The history of his being preserved on his voyage home from the Indies by means of a dolphin stopping a hole in the ship, was very providential; and the boys educated at Bristol wear a brass dolphin on their breasts, thus celebrating his miraculous preservation."

That would appear to be the sum total of what Hughson has to say about Colston. A passing mention in what amounts to being an anecdote-filled historical travel guide, written by someone about whom we know next to nothing, in a book published 87 years after Colston's death. Not, in my opinion, an even remotely reliable source for a statement about Colston's charitable 'expenditure'. And not, as far as I can see, of any great merit as a source for an opinion on Colston either, given when it was written. I could, via the usual wiki-jargon, lay out in detail the many ways Hughson fails WP:RS, but frankly, I'd have to suggest that there are almost none in which he doesn't. We have precisely zero evidence that he had any expertise on Colston whatsoever. Accordingly, I suggest that we arrive at the inevitable consensus sooner rather than later, and ask an admin to consign Hughson's anecdotal commentary to article history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

From what I understand of David Hughson writings, some of it was imperfect, and there is some odd language, however he was fairly well regarded as an author enough. His works consisted of second hand information mixed with his own primary works. The source provided works to established his residency, and that he donated his wealth to the city of Bristol, you should be able to work with the source instead of destroying it. Govvy (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That utterly fails to address the points I've laid out in great detail as to the merits of Hughson as a source for the specific material he is being cited for, so here's how it's going to go. Given your self-evident unwillingness to actually respond in any meaningful way to the points I'm making, if nobody else disagrees then as soon as this article comes out of full protection, I'm going to remove the paragraph sourced to Hughson, as clearly non-WP:RS. At that point you will have two choices - either take it to WP:RSN (or other form of dispute resolution), or accept that your stonewalling tactics haven't worked. You have been repeatedly told at ANI that you hare misunderstanding policies, and that you need to take note of what other people say. Do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• The source is not suitable due to its age, and should be removed. This also creates NPOV problems, as the subject's philanthropy needs to be put into proper context. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That makes no sense in removing a source because of the age of it. You need to make a better argument than that for removing a source. Govvy (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

To the contrary, it is up to you to provide a justification for including 'Hughson', based upon WP:RS policy, taking in mind WP:ONUS, and actually addressing the points already raised here. Stonewalling isn't going to work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? What I said was pretty straight forward. From a source that's five minutes old or a source that's 50 years old. An age of a source isn't a reason to delete a source... :/ Govvy (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Since we seem to be entering into WP:CIR territory here, I'm not going to bother trying to engage with you further. Take it to WP:RSN if you really want. Otherwise, drop it. Pseudonymous comments in passing in early-19th-century travel guides, written 87 years after the events described, aren't RS for anything of consequence, as should be self-evident to anyone actually capable of usefully contributing to an article of this nature. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

And again, you have the wrong end of the stick in everything I say,(Personal attack removed) stop trying to insult me with your stupid commentary. Govvy (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Your continued refusal to usefully engage in discussion is duly noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Really charming how you go to ANI, have it repeatedly explained to you that you're in the wrong, and come back with this. --JBL (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I've now removed the paragraph in question, per the reasoning above. I'd strongly recommend anyone wishing to restore it gains an actual consensus to do so first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Line about Colston making money from money lending would be better in section about his career - discuss

Hi @Slatersteven. You reverted my edit, which moved a line about Colston making money from money lending from the section on the modern reappraisal of Colston to the section about his career. To my mind, that's a better location for the information, as it's about his career, not about the reappraisal of him in modern times. I thought I'd mention it here so we could discuss it, if need be. Woofboy (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if my tag worked, so adding it here, @Slatersteven Woofboy (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

You did a lot more than just move a line. And there is no need to ping. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll move this line, then, and discussion about the other edits I make can continue in the section below. Woofboy (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Revision of information from History Extra Podcast - and from ODNB

Hi @Slatersteven. Also thought it worth opening a discussion here following your revision of my edits that included information from the ODNB and an episode of the History Extra Podcast. You said in your comment on the revision, "Are these podcats RS?" I believe they are:

• Podcasts aren't inherently bad sources
• This podcast is from a reputable history publisher (History Extra, which used to be called BBC History Extra, has been running for over 25 years)
• This episode of the podcast was hosted by historians Dr David Musgrove and Dr Richard G Stone - the latter of which is lecturer at the University of Bristol specialising in the history and legacies of the Atlantic slave economy, with a focus on Bristol.

I think the edits I made were sound and should be reinstated. -- Woofboy (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that the History Extra podcast is WP:RS. Unless there is anything particularly contentious in the content it is being cited for (which doesn't appear to be the case), citing it seems fine to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, AndyTheGrump. I've added the info back in as the references seem RS (a number of the sections removed were references with both the History Extra podcast and the ODNB, too). Woofboy (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)