Talk:List of public statues of individuals linked to the Atlantic slave trade

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scope of article[edit]

While the article title doesn't mention it, this article only deals with the UK at the moment. Should editors add examples from elsewhere, or should the article be renamed to make explicit that it only applies to the UK, possibly with additional articles for other areas of the world? Vahurzpu (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the initiative from the Mayor of London to start the discussion on removing named statues, there is no reason why this article should not be expanded outside the UK if other such initiatives exist and can be referenced here.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As currently written the selection criteria are unclear (at what point is a "link to" the slave trade considered too weak to mention?), but this could definitely be shaped into a list of statues and street names formally singled out by any committees that emerge.
Although this may end up repeating the scope of List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests (whatever form that ends up in if the general process of removal outlives the time of the protests). --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article to narrow the scope from the #toppletheracists movement in the UK. I think the 'link' here is managers and investors. No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it would be best this article be renamed to drop the "Atlantic" and add "in the UK", as a list from the UK alone would become extensive, and have similar such articles for other countries, eg. US, Belgium, Netherlands, linked in the "See Also" section. Melias C (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I narrowed the scope to the rough time frame of the Atlantic slave trade as I fear it would become too broad otherwise. I've added Columbus, to wide the geographical scope, we can spin off articles if necessary in the future. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to keep this country specific to UK only. 09:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I've completely rebuilt the article to keep to a scope, for starters, no Monarchs, this list should be of statues directly connected to the slave trade and avoid any statues with indirect links. Govvy (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can cope with this revamp but I have a few things to note:
  • Firstly, why remove Columbus? It's quite well known he was involved with slavery.
  • Secondly, since the article has not been moved a new column needs adding including country where the statue is located.
  • Thirdly, it does not seem like the current layout could practically support examples where there are multiple statues of individuals, for this reason I think the previous layout, or an alternative layout that supports this would be better.
Melias C (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brand new article, there are going to be hiccups along the way, and I wanted to keep the scope of the article down to statues in the UK, those Christopher Columbus ones where in the US. I also feel we need to stay away from the Monarchs here. But if people don't like where I am going, this can always be discussed. There are thousands statues of Monarchs btw, Queen Victoria alone had statues, busts and paintings of her globally around the world. The scope of that!! Govvy (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically didn't mention the monarchs as I do recognise your point on this. I mentioned the exclusion of Columbus as the article name had not been altered and the scope implied from that still suggested it should include non-UK statues. Melias C (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The scope is currently not defined. "With links to" is extremely vague and can include everybody from people directly transporting slaves to those who organized the trade and to those who used slaves. In the latter case, George Washington must be included.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The scope is currently very poorly defined, and IMO the title is highly inappropriate. "Involved in" might be better than "linked to". The statue in the picture I am posting is of a man who was very closely indeed "linked to" to the North Atlantic slave trade, but I very much doubt that anyone is going to suggest its removal - even on a weekend during which British protestors defended a statue of Winston Churchill against defacement by a group of people who weren't there, by fighting police and giving Nazi salutes. See Slave Trade Act 1807. Narky Blert (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another statue, this one in St Paul's Cathedral, of a man linked to the slave trade. I doubt that anyone's going to suggest its removal either - one of his best-known works is The Slave Ship. Narky Blert (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about it and I do think "Involved with" might work better in the title, currently the scope (of "linked to") could draw in statues that would detract from the article. Melias C (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Involved with" would be more definite for this article, perhaps even some greater emphasis on the role of overseas trading. As mentioned above, simply owning slaves could creep in regardless of their viewpoint of the situation. Don't those wiki articles already exist, do we need another duplicate? Not all slave traders were slave owners. Progressingamerica (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This this needs renaming.[edit]

This is one hell of a mouthful list title, WP:CONCISE. Govvy (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh I struggled with the title before creating it! 'Public artworks commemorating individuals...' is just as bad. 'Linked' retains the necessary ambiguity between investors/management. I chose Atlantic slave trade to narrow scope from #toppletheracists map which seems quite broad in scope. No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to remove the statues of royalty because although they were linked to funding and approving the slave trade, nobody has complained about their statues, then this is no longer a list of “individuals linked”. It is a list where removal of statues has been considered or enacted.--Egghead06 (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the list exclude monarchs?[edit]

Why? MassiveEartha (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For quite a few issues, don't want to saturate the list, really do you know how many statues there are for the UK Monarchs? There are quite a lot. Also, because of the word individuals in the title kinda set the class for the list, you simply don't refer to a Monarch as an individual, this is kind of old English really. Another reason is the hierarchy approach to that industry, Monarch's although setting law and order and being directly liked to the slave trade, it's clear to me that a separate list approach would need to be followed. There should be enough to be able to create a decent list article without the need to shove in every statue of a Monarch on here. Govvy (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The monarchs that were in the list financed and approved the companies which facilitated the slave trade. Without them there would have been no slave trade. They should be in the list and, after all, we are not talking about all monarchs.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
bollocks, you're edit-warring now, there were slave trade before monarchy. Govvy (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add another 16 entries, however I lost all my work, thanks. Govvy (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this and try not to be rude and sweary. It never helps.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The queens and kings did stuff related to the slave trade. Statues of them do exist. It does not follow that statues of them belong in this list. That would be original research by synthesis. The apparent purpose of this article is to list controversial statues. Surtsicna (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename suggestion[edit]

I was thinking should we not go with List of statues removed in the UK linked to the Atlantic slave trade ?? Govvy (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's changing the scope to omit unremoved statues (the article currently lists five, this would reduce it to just two), and those outside of the UK (are there any?). If it's just Colston and Milligan the existing Actions against memorials in the United Kingdom during the George Floyd protests article would cover it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this article really does have issues deeper than I can see. Govvy (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't "List of statues in the UK of individuals involved with the Atlantic Slave Trade" be a better alternative? Melias C (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose first?[edit]

@Lord Belbury: Isn't it better to have that prose before the list? Govvy (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It doesn't work well as an introduction to the list, as the prose is about plans for London while the list covers sites across England. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James II[edit]

King James II was the principal Governor of the Royal African Company, which transported more slaves than any other single institution during the entirety of the Atlantic slave trade. Without his inclusion in the list, that undermines the entire article. Progressingamerica (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it looks like there is only one statue [1] for the Governor of the Royal African Company. Progressingamerica (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are 47 recorded statues and there maybe more! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where that number comes from, but Wikipedia at least only has one page about one statue that I can find. Regardless, due to the fact that he had such a prominent role in the slave-trading Royal African Company, can you list any other reason why he should be de-listed besides "too many statues"? Francis Drake also has more than one statue, as well. Should we remove Drake? Progressingamerica (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All questionable, I actually think this list is stupid and should be deleted. It's completely WP:OR in my view. Govvy (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to recommend this article for deletion, but as for WP:OR I didn't originate that James II was so deeply involved with the Royal African Company. Well established historians have been doing that for many years. The same goes for most of the other statues listed, or so it seems. In any case if other users reading this agree that The Duke of York, despite his role in leadership of the RAC and his large stock holdings, should be removed anyways in deference to he eventually became King James II, then remove it. But as the head of the RAC and for so long as head of the RAC (somewhere around 2 decades) James II is arguably unique among any of the English monarchs I can think of. Progressingamerica (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except your inclusion here is completely indirect to the title of the article. There isn't a direct link of the actual statue here to the slave trade. There are no references of that, and the one you provided doesn't support that. This statue is simply a representation of King James II in Roman gar. Yes, he was part head of RAC at the time, however when he is King, he has to be bipartisan and unable to hold that position. I dare say this turns into WP:OR on your account. Govvy (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How it can be "indirect" to the title is not clear. As head of the Royal African Company, James II would have been Edward Colston's company boss. Neither Colston's nor Thomas Guy's statues are "linked" to slave trading, they are dressed up as legislators of Parliament. Besides, just because he ascends to the throne, it does not mean he has to be bipartisan and leave his position as governor. [2] "In 1688, the company’s governor and patron King James II abandons the English throne." Again, "it was useless to complain to Whitehall, because James II, after he came to the throne in 1685, continued as the chief stockholder and president of the Royal African Company." [3] James II was King and RAC Governor overlapping a 3 year period, and as the primary stockholder he is on par with Thomas Guy with respect to Guy's shareholding for the South Sea Company. Progressingamerica (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_public_statues_of_individuals_linked_to_the_Atlantic_slave_trade&oldid=1206002751"