Talk:Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville

Dundas intentionally obstructed the abolition of slavery

btw, the Times has even picked up on this issue Wikipedia war over Henry Dundas slavery role https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wikipedia-war-over-henry-dundas-slavery-role-fwbjvhjvz It is behind a paywall so I cannot read all of it.

Canada's National newspaper: Who was Henry Dundas and why do two cities no longer want to honour his memory? Dundas played an active role in delaying the abolition of slavery https://nationalpost.com/news/world/who-was-henry-dundas-and-why-do-two-cities-no-longer-want-to-honour-his-memory

EXCERPT: "He came to be known as “the great tyrant,” particularly for delaying the abolition of slavery in the British empire by 15 years. The slave trade in the empire ended in 1807, but if it were not for Dundas’ obstruction, it would have ended in 1792.

A year earlier, Dundas became the last person to be impeached in the United Kingdom for mishandling public funds. He was acquitted but never returned to public office.

He purposely obstructed the abolition of slavery" Peter K Burian (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Henry Dundas: The Scotsman who kept slavery going Slavery was vital for the sugar, tobacco and cotton industries that linked Britain, the USA and Caribbean and Dundas helped to make sure it was prolonged.

It is well past the time that light must be shed on the activities of Dundas. Some experts say that had it not been for him, slavery could have been abolished 15 years before the passing of the Slave Trade Act of 1807. That Act signalled the death knell of Britain’s incredibly lucrative involvement in slavery, but the practice of slavery was not finally abolished in the British Empire until 1833. [1] Peter K Burian (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I've inserted arguments from the other side of the debate, which point out just what you're saying above. I've referenced highly-respected historians on the subject of sugar and slavery, such as Diana Paton and David Geggus, which highlight the role Dundas played in upholding the institution of slavery and the slave trade. I'm surprised this wasn't there before. An encyclopaedia article is supposed to present both sides of the academic argument.Mikesiva (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Who is this Quadrilla1 who deliberately deleted all the historical references above, detailing Dundas and his historical ties to slavery? Kindly desist from vandalising the article. If you have anything to discuss, do it hear, in the Talk page.Mikesiva (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This has happened more than once. My entries are being deleted without any discussion on this Talk page. Will whoever is doing this kindly desist from this vandalism? I have used a lot of the links provided by Peter K Burian (talk) but this editor keeps deleting them. I see the same editor has now removed their name, but continues this vandalism.Mikesiva (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

A comment was made after the quote from Coleridge, which is just editorialising. Wikipedia is supposed to have entries based upon the encyclopaedic method. I will be removing the comment in brackets, and I will invite whoever put that comment in to refute Coleridge's comment by making a referenced entry that contradicts his statement. Saying that he must have missed the debate just isn't a refutation. Feel free to discuss the issue here.Mikesiva (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

One of the primary goals of the invasion of Saint-Domingue was to reinstate slavery in the French colony. The British were invited in by French planters to reverse the French abolition of slavery. I've reinserted that fact, which can be found throughout this book. There are also references to British promises to restore slavery in the article on the Haitian Revolution. Please discuss this issue here before resorting to editing these facts out of the article.

References

Mikesiva (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Quadrilla1:, who was mentioned above, but improperly linked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The Toronto City Council report into the renaming of Dundas Street has a very thorough review of published peer-reviewed research on Dundas - may be worth taking a look whether there's anything worth including in the history section. Link here Turini2 (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The reference to Sir Tom Devine's previous statement is now irrelevant. He has resiled from it. This is not a page about Sir Tom. It is about Henry Dundas. If Sir Tom believes he made a mistake in his earlier commentary, it is inappropriate to continue to refer to that commentary as if it has continuing relevance. If you have reason to believe Sir Tom's original position was the correct one, then cite a neutral source for that, rather than re-visiting a now-abandoned position. E.M.Morrison (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The matter is not whether Devine's position in 2015 or 2020 is 'correct'. Both positions are verifiable an attributable to a prominent historian with relevance to the field. A change in opinion is notable because it historiography of subjects change. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Au contraire. Both positions do not legitimately represent the view of Sir Tom. If a historian has specifically said he made a mistake in an earlier statement,it is perverse and unethical to keep siting the statement as relevant to the present-day analysis of a historical figure. He can no longer be cited for believing that point of view, as he has personally distanced himself from it by saying it was a mistake. Encyclopedia's do not cite mistakes as relevant information. Your insistence on the use of this quote has activist overtones. Are you trying to discredit Sir Tom? Embarass him perhaps? Or are you grasping at any statement by an academic you can find, even one resiled from, to support your preferred analysis? If you believe the statement was *not* a mistake, and is a correct statement, then you must find a neutral authoritative as an authoritative source for that view source, and cite it. Otherwise, I will keep removing it. E.M.Morrison (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Interpretations change over time, the fact that they change is significant – whether that is on the scale of an entire field or an individual. Of course, the intention is not to discredit or embarrass Devine, but to show that interpretations change. To say that a subject or person was previously understood through a particular lens but that has now changed due to new information is entirely appropriate, and reflective of the process of research. Presenting Devine's most recent viewpoint without the context of earlier and quite germane statements on the subject is including only part of the story.

Your declared undertaking to edit war on this matter is not particularly helpful. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Controversy over legacy

I have tightened this section considerably. Perhaps too much. However, I definitely think the minutiae of internal processes at the Toronto City Council was excessive. Meticulo (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you did - substantial referenced paragraphs cut down to mere sentences. I've written something succinct, but more detailed than current. Turini2 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The section (and a sentence in the intro) has been removed twice by an IP user in the last 2 days - keep an eye on it, probably should request semi protection if this continues. Turini2 (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The City of Toronto report on Dundas's legacy was prepared by staff in support of their recommendation, and is not sufficiently authoritative to be cited as proof of a fact. The paragraph, which relies almost entirely on the report, is not based on acceptable authority for an encyclopedic reference. (Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:RELIABILITY. ) The author of the staff report is anonymous, and the report was self-admittedly not based in a review of evidence, as stated in the removed paragraph. Staff said they restricted their review review to academic materials. They declined to consider unpublished research or primary sources. They also declined to consider media reports and op-ed publications in which respected and eminent historians stated views that conflicted with the narrative preferred by staff. Also, despite their statement that they restricted themselves to academic publications, staff nonetheless went on to pose novel theories. For example, they stated that Dundas contributed to the subjugation of Indigenous peoples. This theory lacked supporting evidence or academic authority. They based their theory solely on the fact that the Lieutenant-Governor, J.G. Simcoe, developed a trail that had been cleared by local Indigenous nations, and used it as the military road that later became Dundas Street. Staff failed to cite any evidence of any harm at all from development of the trail. How this became the "subjugation" referred to by staff is a mystery. The new road may possibly even have been a benefit to Indigenous Nations, whose lands were being targeted by American aggressors. The staff hypothesis about the road cannot be considered credible.E.M.Morrison (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I've had another attempt to tighten this section. Again, the details of internal processes of city councils, even if properly referenced, is just not necessary in my opinion for those wanting an overview of the reaction and outcome. I'd also point to WP:RECENTISM in this regard. Meticulo (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

British Advocate

The article starts off by calling Dundas a "British Advocate." Both epithets are true: he was a British Subject and an Advocate. He was more specifically, a member of the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh, rather than a Fellow of the Society of Doctors' Commons in London, so he is better described as a "Scottish Advocate" or, more vaguely, a "British Lawyer." NRPanikker (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Secret service

@Quadrilla1: I can't see any mention of "the Secret Service" on the source you have cited, page 276 of The Trial. There's mention of "a secret service" on page 278, and "for secret service" on page 241, but both of these seem to be rhetorical flourishes about hypothetical speeches that might be given by, respectively, a coin and the late William Pitt the Younger, not an actual payment to an intelligence agency. Meticulo (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

My previous post is redundant after a helpful edit since then by another editor. Meticulo (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)