Wikipedia

Talk:Elihu Yale/Archive 1

< Talk:Elihu Yale
Latest comment: 2 years ago by PacificDepths in topic Move genealogy to new article
Archive 1Archive 2
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elihu Yale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

American?

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

While Yale may have been born in Boston, MA, his family moved to Wales when he was two and he spent the rest of his entire childhood and youth growing up in Wales. He spent most of his working life in India and then spent his retirement back in Wales. He never once went to America. I do not know what he claimed to be but most people would not call him an "American". 99.4.120.135 (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I propose editing the initial paragraph to "...was an English merchant..." And expanding the section about his early life: "Yale was born in Boston, MA, but his parents moved to England when he was two years old." To say he was an American would mean changing many other contemporary entries in Wikipedia - they were born in America (and some lived there for over 20 years) before living in England. They are called English. There was also no "American" country or concept of "American" citizenship at that time; but also - because of the important contribution they made to English society and English history; because they spent their adult lives in England; because they came from English families. He was certainly "a native of America". (99.4.120.135 (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC))

Reasonable time has passed and no one has commented either way so I'll make the change. (99.4.120.135 (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC))

  • Yeah, there was no warrant for that other IP editor to change it back. I added--as you may have seen--"American-born" since his birth is pretty important to his life and esp. his legacy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I've further changed it to "British" since although he was educated in London and spent part of his time there in retirement, both the family seat and his personal home are in Wales, not England. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
      • "American-born" he may have been, but that's not the convention on Wikipedia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wentworth_Miller - he was born in Britain (in England to be more specific) but is clearly considered an American. There are many other examples. How is "American-born" important to his birth - beyond (like all of us) simply being born?

Also - Britain didn't exist until way after his death so "British" is not applicable (we don't call Roman Emperors "Italian"). The "where he was born" and "his family background" can/should clearly be mentioned in the "Early Life / Life" section. Neither of the recent edits is warranted but the discussion is still open... 99.4.120.135 (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Not encyc.

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Alexandra Robbins alleges that Yale's headstone was stolen years ago from its proper setting in Wrexham. She further alleges that the tombstone is now displayed in a glass case in a room with purple walls.

Is this clairvoyancy? It needs a supporting statement. Valetude (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Elihu Yale’s fondness for slaves may be found in two oil paintings that used to hang at the Yale University: in each of them, a floridly accoutred Yale is flaunting his good fortune with a small dark-skinned boy, a Tamil it would seem, by their side. What makes the image even more distasteful is that the boy wears a collar like a domesticated wild animal, around his neck. (see https://scroll.in/magazine/829298/the-indian-history-of-the-racist-slave-trading-yale-university-founder)It is irresponsible to be whitewashing the history of this slave trader. 2601:584:301:5130:9CE1:952:22D1:F2C6 (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 05:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

edit request concerning "Tenure as President of Madras" section

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It currently has the phrase "very much against their will" as a qualification to the children being kidnapped. This is redundant since kidnapping is by definition against one's will.2600:1700:7D0:97A0:EC72:CA58:675:C41F (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is no mention of Eli being a SLAVE TRADER!! 2601:152:4501:BFF0:BD0C:F077:C376:226B (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Darren-M talk 22:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is an indictment of Wikipedia and the types of editor that love the empowerment of the rules but not the content!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On 09:17, 9 June 2020‎ I made these edits by just moving the sections around. I never changed the wording, just the order to make it read better.

I was interested in this article because the man had estates near where I live and it was a piss poor article as it stood because the sections were just facts in no discernible chronological order.

Anyway after just reordering the content and not really changing anything my edits were almost immediately reverted by MaterialScientist (probably one of the most egregious editors on this site). Remember I never changed anything except reorder the sections and the already written paragraphs. But apparently that was not acceptable to this individual. They would rather have a crap article that they protect than a well written one.

Now I see the page has been blocked to people with common sense and fresh perspective and the usual (I will ask somebody else to do the work for me) tags have also been added. It's quite pathetic really. In fact it's more than pathetic, when you take what is written and make it better but then it's reverted by people who have no vested in the content only control. The article is a chronological mess that jumps forward and back in time through just a random list of facts.

And you can thank MaterialScientist for that. Until more people complain about this person, the more crap article like this will continue. 81.159.166.232 (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Slave Trader Disruptive Editing

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The fact that Elihu Yale is a slave trader is sourced in the article and as well as in numerous additional source mentioned here. It is a notable aspect of the man and should not be removed. Additionally, text that people have argued he was an abolitionist have no supporting citations, save one article that describes Elihu Yale as a slave trader but references past versions of the Wikipedia article. This would be a particularly obvious example of citogenesis; the claim that some consider him an abolitionist should not be in the article unless an actual source illustrating this can be found. Editors should not engage in disruptive editing without citing sources. Ummonk (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The source in the article says that "[a]lthough he probably did not own any of these people – the majority were held as the property of the East India Company – he certainly profited both directly and indirectly from their sale." That's not what the vast majority of people mean by "slave trader." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycbusiness86 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The source being used for this claim - and others - was written by Joseph Yannielli described on the source's own website as "“Digital History at Yale” was originally established by Joseph Yannielli in 2009, in his capacity as Instructional Innovation Intern for the Department of History." There is no reason to doubt the factual accuracy of Yannielli's claims - but an intern is hardly the ultimate authority on Yale. Only if the balance of sources use the term, should it be used - otherwise attributed and give due WEIGHT.
I agree that 'slave trader' is being used because it sounds bad rather than because it is the most accurate, widely used or informative term. "Arms dealer" sounds worse than "investor/manager of a company supplying equipment to government(s)", but they often amount to the same thing morally, except one sounds sleazy and morally culpable, the other doesn't. Elihu Yale, profited from the slave trade, the uncomfortable truth is that so did almost everyone, except the slaves themselves, including the people of Europe who got cheap sugar etc as a result, and the white people of America who established a profitable functioning economy, and democratic society, built substantially on the labour of people wholly excluded from the economic benefits or democratic institutions.
I think the role of Yale, and the source of his wealth deserve coverage, but present text is skewed towards giving undue emphasis to 'slavery' in the light of recent events - that isn't our job IMO regardless of modern sensibilities about the injustice of slavery. Pincrete (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Ownership and Execution of Slave "Cross"

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The primary texts unambiguously document not only Elihu Yale's involvement in trading, punishing, and executing slaves, but also a specific incident with his slave named Cross (who Yale hanged for riding a horse without permission).

"...some of them have been so fond of that privilege that Mr. Yale hanged his groom (Cross) for riding two or three days' journey off to take the air..."

This incident was also mentioned in the most comprehensive, 20th Century history of Fort Saint George.

The hanging incident was mentioned in Indian press (in perhaps the most prestigious paper in India, _The Hindu_) upon former President Levin's visit in 2005:

The primary texts such as the Records of Fort Saint George do not make a distinction between terms like groom and manservant, and these social positions were synonymous with the word "slave" (which they used in property, trade, and criminal records). The curators note for one of the three portraits of Elihu Yale with a male slave refers exactly to this:

"Nothing is known about the boy on the right, who has just finished pouring Madeira (a sweet, fortified wine) into the glasses on the table. His fine red and grey livery (or uniform) identifies him as a servant, and the silver collar and padlock around his neck indicate that he is enslaved."

It's possible the slave in this painting is Cross, but of course we have no way of knowing.

For more tertiary evidence, it is clear from the primary sources and more modern histories that each representative of the British East India Company had slaves assigned to their manors in "White Town", where the rulers were segregated from "Black Town". I see no reason to give Elihu Yale the benefit of the doubt, especially when his cruelty was notable to even his 18th Century contemporaries.

24.63.168.193 (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Legally, slavery was never recognised in England, although this was not formalised until the late 1700s, slavery had largely ceased to exist since shortly after the Normans arrived (1066). This does not mean that Yale could not have had a slave in Britain, merely that 'ownership' would have been unenforcable. There are known instances of 'slaves' entering and leaving Britain - since the 'slave' may have had little incentive to leave his 'master', given that alternative employment would have been impossible at that time, except on similar terms. I know that in European painting of that time, a black 'page' or 'servant' would have been an 'exotic status symbol', grotesque though that seems to us now. So these paintings may say a lot about Yale's attitudes to slaves and those of his time, but may or may not be factually accurate - or may be simply bragging. The silver collar is clearly metaphorical rather than practical.Pincrete (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Remove references to Elihu Yale as a "slave trader."

Elihu Yale was not a slave trader in the way the term is used by the vast majority of people. Footnotes 1 and 7 which purportedly supports the term, calls him a slave trader "[a]lthough he probably did not own any of these people – the majority were held as the property of the East India Company – he certainly profited both directly and indirectly from their sale." I.e., Elihu Yale did not own slaves or personally trade them.

There may be activist or academic reasons to call someone a slave trader who "profited" from the slave trade. But that's not the way it's commonly used in English. It's highly misleading to retain it. Nycbusiness86 (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Amkgp 💬 11:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The balance of sources on the page already justify that, whilst his company profitting from slaving is undisputed, that he was actively a trader is disputed. The lead should be a summary of the article - this was not and I have amended accordingly.Pincrete (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Title and content of section about his slave trade legacy and the naming of Yale University

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

RexAntica is insisting - with no discussion or even the courtesy of edit summaries - that the section about Yale's involvement in the slave trade and the naming of Yale University (a) have the unhelpfully vague title of "Controversy" and (b) state that Yale "was never a slave trader, never owned slaves, opposed the slave trade, and imposed several restrictions on it during his tenure." The only source that RexAntica cites for this statement is an article in a student newspaper, an article that also includes the blunt statement that "disagreement over Elihu Yale’s involvement in the slave trade persists."

@RexAntica: Why are you insisting on this vague title and why are you misrepresenting this issue by pulling out only part of (very weak) source? ElKevbo (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am insisting on the title of "controversy" as the issue is a controversy, meaning there are several heated opinions. This is because titles related to "slave trade legacy" imply that Yale was self-beneficially related to the slave trade, which is disputed. Furthermore, the paragraph there is not my own, and is completely copied from the Yale University page. I am merely restating it as it is better reviewed. Although it is true that Yale was connected to the slave trade it is wrong to assume, without evidence, that he owned slaves, was a slave trader, or benefited from the slave trade. Especially when prominent historians have directly stated that he was not a slaver or slave owner.
RexAntica (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The title "Controversy" tells readers nothing except that something is...controversial. Why do you insist on being vague?
And why are you still insisting on that statement that is only sourced to a student newspaper article that bluntly states that "disagreement over Elihu Yale’s involvement in the slave trade persists?" ElKevbo (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, controversy tells the readers very little, but I thought it more neutral than any other option. I simply think the title should be neutral, as this is a heated and controversial issue, but if there is a better neutral option, I would support it. As for my sources, I already said I didn't choose those sources, I merely copied an existing paragraph. Of course I'd support more sources from other perspectives, I just am not yet aware of them. RexAntica (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Why do you object to the title "Slave trading legacy and naming of Yale University"?
And why in the world do you think that "I copied this from somewhere else" is a good reason to include information with such weak sourcing? ElKevbo (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
We've been over the title. The title is biased as it presumes he was self-beneficially involved in slave trading, which is disputed. I suggest something more neutral. Do you have a better proposition for sourcing? If so we could review it to make this article as accurate and unbiased as possible. Also, student newspaper doesn't imply weak source or even biased source, as the contents of the source are the important part, not the publisher or publication. RexAntica (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
That title doesn't presume that "he was self-beneficially involved in slave trading." You're reading way too much into this and it makes me wonder if you have a bias that is influencing your judgement. The controversy - to the extent that there has been a controversy - is precisely over whether the nature of his connection with slave trading. That he had some connection is not disputed; what is disputed is the nature of that connection. Hiding that behind the nearly meaningless title "Controversy" is a grave disservice to readers. It's not just bad writing but it's so misleading that it's POV.
And of course a student newspaper articles is likely biased in favor of the institution. And of course we place little if any weight on the writing of an undergraduate student. If you can't accept those two basic ideas then I'm not sure you have any business editing any article in Wikipedia.
Do you have a connection with Yale? ElKevbo (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I have no connection with Yale. Also, there's no need to be ad hominem, we're both just trying to make this article as accurate as possible. And yes, the title does imply that he was self beneficially involved in slave trading, same as writing, "pedophilic legacy" on Vladimir Nabokov's page would imply that he was himself a pedophile, even though he only wrote a book concerning it. Also, the fact that it is a student newspaper is irrelevant, you're focusing on the publication and not the publication's content. Criticize the latter, not the former. Also, there's no reason to be ad hominem towards a student. One cannot disregard someone's writing by saying "he's just a student." One must instead consider the writing itself. Also, do you have a negative connection to Yale, as you seem fairly hell-bent on hostility towards it.RexAntica (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Yale does have a connection with slave trading; the dispute is about the nature and depth of that connection. Obscuring that behind a vague section title is editorial malfeasance.
Of course we place less weight on writings by students, particularly in areas like this where there has been substantial professional, scholarly research. That is so obvious that it raises genuine questions about your competence.
I have no connection with this institution, incidentally. I am only perturbed by your inability or unwillingness to provide credible explanations for your actions. ElKevbo (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I am aware that he had a connection, but the way you phrase it makes it seem like he benefited from it. Furthermore, you have failed to criticize exactly where in the student publications there are flawed thoughts or ideas. Please, provide your "substantial professional, scholarly research" here, so that we may review it together. Additionally, you are still attacking ad hominem, the fact that you cannot acknowledge this as a logical fallacy makes me genuinely question your competence. You must explain where in the source there is flaw. Also, I am not on trial, and I suggest that you remember that we are both here with the same goal: to provide accurate, unbiased information. RexAntica (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
No, I don't think we're here for the same reason. You seem to be more invested in protecting the reputation of this person and the university than in providing accurate, helpful information to readers. I'm not invested enough in this article to continue arguing with you so I'm going to remove this from my watchlist and move on. You're free to continue misleading readers with vague section titles and poorly sourced material blindly copied from other articles. ElKevbo (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
All I asked for was a more neutral title, to point out what was wrong with the content of my source, and for you to propose a better source, but okay. RexAntica (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Slave Trader history

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Why is this not discussed? I’m literally shaking RN!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:587:100:97:AD55:260C:D011:8929 (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like you should get some help if you're that upset about something that has no evidence of being true. M4570D0N (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

A quick search for reliable sources proves otherwise.

There's no reason to deny the claim or hint that it's a rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivian James (talk • contribs) 04:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Elihu Yale was indeed a slave trader. Naturally, this will never be mentioned on Wikipedia. We've got to protect Yale's reputation. The admins will ban anyone who tries to add this well documented fact to the article. And in a few months, this section of the talk page will be purged as well, under the guise of "maintenance". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceran (talk • contribs) 15:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

In his address to the Yale Class of 2019, Yale Dean Jonathan Holloway stated, referring to Elihu Yale: "there’s no doubting the fact that he participated in the slave trade, profiting from the sale of humans" https://yalealumnimagazine.com/articles/4171-yales-narrative-andyours — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.243.187 (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I find it interesting and typical that his slaver history has been muted by no more than a self serving article by a student at Yale. It seems that woke only goes so far if it threatens a progressives employment prospects. No point in editing here given the partisanship.174.89.237.182 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead too short

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I made an attempt to make a longer lead section and summarize the important points of the article. Feedback welcome. 🌊PacificDepthstalk|contrib 03:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Move genealogy to new article

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

The Family, Ancestry, and "Marriage and Children" sections seem too detailed and not salient. I propose moving this content to a new article "Genealogy of Elihu Yale". 🌊PacificDepthstalk|contrib 03:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

How is the genealogy of this individual independently notable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you Academia45 (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
The ancestry section fits with the history of Yale College as they used the man coat of arms and ancestry to name it.. Don't see any reason to change it, even less to remove it at all. That edit must be undone. Also, the family section shows the family network as a whole, which is easier to understand for the reader as you understand the context at the time. Academia45 (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump @Academia45: would you accept merging "Family", "Genealogy" and "Family, marriage and children" sections as joint subsections under one top section? 🌊PacificDepthstalk|contrib 17:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Having looked at the content of the new 'genealogy' article, I have to question whether some of it should be included at all. Much of it seems to be cited to material well over 100 years old, which isn't generally considered good practice (more recent scholarship tends to be more trustworthy), and I think that the level of detail is probably somewhat excessive. The article seems rather unbalanced, as a biography, and would do better to concentrate on Yale himself, rather than his ancestry. The latter clearly needs mentioning, but not to the extent that it overwhelms the actual subject of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with you that the Genealogy section could be shortened. What do you say if I shrink this down to a few sentences about the origin of the surname (Thomas Yale) and the origin of the coat of arms? 🌊PacificDepthstalk|contrib 05:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
What about simply moving the ancestry section at the end of the page ? See Owen Tudor page as an example or maybe Napoleon Bonaparte page for family matters. I don't think a few sentences would suffice to explain the ancestry of Elihu Yale and his family. A big reason Universities used coat of arms, as it is still the case today, was to associate themselves with that ancestry and the past. As the man was part of nobility, called the lower nobility or gentry in england, there was reason for the university of using his name rather the one of Jeremiah Dummerper per example. But I agree that there is content there that could be shortened. By keeping that ancestry section, and having it at the end of the overall page, I think we can just merge the early life and family section, and cut much of that family section, as it would become too repetitive. I will move it and update the early life section and start the trimming process. Academia45 (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
These edits look good and make the article flow better. Thank you. I have been looking at some primary sources and I'd like to beef up the subject's earlier years over the next month or so. 🌊PacificDepthstalk|contrib 19:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

American?

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

While Yale may have been born in Boston, MA, his family moved to Wales when he was two and he spent the rest of his entire childhood and youth growing up in Wales. He spent most of his working life in India and then spent his retirement back in Wales. He never once went to America. I do not know what he claimed to be but most people would not call him an "American". 99.4.120.135 (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I propose editing the initial paragraph to "...was an English merchant..." And expanding the section about his early life: "Yale was born in Boston, MA, but his parents moved to England when he was two years old." To say he was an American would mean changing many other contemporary entries in Wikipedia - they were born in America (and some lived there for over 20 years) before living in England. They are called English. There was also no "American" country or concept of "American" citizenship at that time; but also - because of the important contribution they made to English society and English history; because they spent their adult lives in England; because they came from English families. He was certainly "a native of America". (99.4.120.135 (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC))

Reasonable time has passed and no one has commented either way so I'll make the change. (99.4.120.135 (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC))

  • Yeah, there was no warrant for that other IP editor to change it back. I added--as you may have seen--"American-born" since his birth is pretty important to his life and esp. his legacy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I've further changed it to "British" since although he was educated in London and spent part of his time there in retirement, both the family seat and his personal home are in Wales, not England. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
      • "American-born" he may have been, but that's not the convention on Wikipedia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wentworth_Miller - he was born in Britain (in England to be more specific) but is clearly considered an American. There are many other examples. How is "American-born" important to his birth - beyond (like all of us) simply being born?

Also - Britain didn't exist until way after his death so "British" is not applicable (we don't call Roman Emperors "Italian"). The "where he was born" and "his family background" can/should clearly be mentioned in the "Early Life / Life" section. Neither of the recent edits is warranted but the discussion is still open... 99.4.120.135 (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Not encyc.

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Alexandra Robbins alleges that Yale's headstone was stolen years ago from its proper setting in Wrexham. She further alleges that the tombstone is now displayed in a glass case in a room with purple walls.

Is this clairvoyancy? It needs a supporting statement. Valetude (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Elihu Yale’s fondness for slaves may be found in two oil paintings that used to hang at the Yale University: in each of them, a floridly accoutred Yale is flaunting his good fortune with a small dark-skinned boy, a Tamil it would seem, by their side. What makes the image even more distasteful is that the boy wears a collar like a domesticated wild animal, around his neck. (see https://scroll.in/magazine/829298/the-indian-history-of-the-racist-slave-trading-yale-university-founder)It is irresponsible to be whitewashing the history of this slave trader. 2601:584:301:5130:9CE1:952:22D1:F2C6 (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 05:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

edit request concerning "Tenure as President of Madras" section

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It currently has the phrase "very much against their will" as a qualification to the children being kidnapped. This is redundant since kidnapping is by definition against one's will.2600:1700:7D0:97A0:EC72:CA58:675:C41F (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is no mention of Eli being a SLAVE TRADER!! 2601:152:4501:BFF0:BD0C:F077:C376:226B (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Darren-M talk 22:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is an indictment of Wikipedia and the types of editor that love the empowerment of the rules but not the content!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On 09:17, 9 June 2020‎ I made these edits by just moving the sections around. I never changed the wording, just the order to make it read better.

I was interested in this article because the man had estates near where I live and it was a piss poor article as it stood because the sections were just facts in no discernible chronological order.

Anyway after just reordering the content and not really changing anything my edits were almost immediately reverted by MaterialScientist (probably one of the most egregious editors on this site). Remember I never changed anything except reorder the sections and the already written paragraphs. But apparently that was not acceptable to this individual. They would rather have a crap article that they protect than a well written one.

Now I see the page has been blocked to people with common sense and fresh perspective and the usual (I will ask somebody else to do the work for me) tags have also been added. It's quite pathetic really. In fact it's more than pathetic, when you take what is written and make it better but then it's reverted by people who have no vested in the content only control. The article is a chronological mess that jumps forward and back in time through just a random list of facts.

And you can thank MaterialScientist for that. Until more people complain about this person, the more crap article like this will continue. 81.159.166.232 (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ownership and Execution of Slave "Cross"

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The primary texts unambiguously document not only Elihu Yale's involvement in trading, punishing, and executing slaves, but also a specific incident with his slave named Cross (who Yale hanged for riding a horse without permission).

"...some of them have been so fond of that privilege that Mr. Yale hanged his groom (Cross) for riding two or three days' journey off to take the air..."

This incident was also mentioned in the most comprehensive, 20th Century history of Fort Saint George.

The hanging incident was mentioned in Indian press (in perhaps the most prestigious paper in India, _The Hindu_) upon former President Levin's visit in 2005:

The primary texts such as the Records of Fort Saint George do not make a distinction between terms like groom and manservant, and these social positions were synonymous with the word "slave" (which they used in property, trade, and criminal records). The curators note for one of the three portraits of Elihu Yale with a male slave refers exactly to this:

"Nothing is known about the boy on the right, who has just finished pouring Madeira (a sweet, fortified wine) into the glasses on the table. His fine red and grey livery (or uniform) identifies him as a servant, and the silver collar and padlock around his neck indicate that he is enslaved."

It's possible the slave in this painting is Cross, but of course we have no way of knowing.

For more tertiary evidence, it is clear from the primary sources and more modern histories that each representative of the British East India Company had slaves assigned to their manors in "White Town", where the rulers were segregated from "Black Town". I see no reason to give Elihu Yale the benefit of the doubt, especially when his cruelty was notable to even his 18th Century contemporaries.

24.63.168.193 (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Legally, slavery was never recognised in England, although this was not formalised until the late 1700s, slavery had largely ceased to exist since shortly after the Normans arrived (1066). This does not mean that Yale could not have had a slave in Britain, merely that 'ownership' would have been unenforcable. There are known instances of 'slaves' entering and leaving Britain - since the 'slave' may have had little incentive to leave his 'master', given that alternative employment would have been impossible at that time, except on similar terms. I know that in European painting of that time, a black 'page' or 'servant' would have been an 'exotic status symbol', grotesque though that seems to us now. So these paintings may say a lot about Yale's attitudes to slaves and those of his time, but may or may not be factually accurate - or may be simply bragging. The silver collar is clearly metaphorical rather than practical.Pincrete (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Remove references to Elihu Yale as a "slave trader."

Elihu Yale was not a slave trader in the way the term is used by the vast majority of people. Footnotes 1 and 7 which purportedly supports the term, calls him a slave trader "[a]lthough he probably did not own any of these people – the majority were held as the property of the East India Company – he certainly profited both directly and indirectly from their sale." I.e., Elihu Yale did not own slaves or personally trade them.

There may be activist or academic reasons to call someone a slave trader who "profited" from the slave trade. But that's not the way it's commonly used in English. It's highly misleading to retain it. Nycbusiness86 (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Amkgp 💬 11:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The balance of sources on the page already justify that, whilst his company profitting from slaving is undisputed, that he was actively a trader is disputed. The lead should be a summary of the article - this was not and I have amended accordingly.Pincrete (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Title and content of section about his slave trade legacy and the naming of Yale University

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

RexAntica is insisting - with no discussion or even the courtesy of edit summaries - that the section about Yale's involvement in the slave trade and the naming of Yale University (a) have the unhelpfully vague title of "Controversy" and (b) state that Yale "was never a slave trader, never owned slaves, opposed the slave trade, and imposed several restrictions on it during his tenure." The only source that RexAntica cites for this statement is an article in a student newspaper, an article that also includes the blunt statement that "disagreement over Elihu Yale’s involvement in the slave trade persists."

@RexAntica: Why are you insisting on this vague title and why are you misrepresenting this issue by pulling out only part of (very weak) source? ElKevbo (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am insisting on the title of "controversy" as the issue is a controversy, meaning there are several heated opinions. This is because titles related to "slave trade legacy" imply that Yale was self-beneficially related to the slave trade, which is disputed. Furthermore, the paragraph there is not my own, and is completely copied from the Yale University page. I am merely restating it as it is better reviewed. Although it is true that Yale was connected to the slave trade it is wrong to assume, without evidence, that he owned slaves, was a slave trader, or benefited from the slave trade. Especially when prominent historians have directly stated that he was not a slaver or slave owner.
RexAntica (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The title "Controversy" tells readers nothing except that something is...controversial. Why do you insist on being vague?
And why are you still insisting on that statement that is only sourced to a student newspaper article that bluntly states that "disagreement over Elihu Yale’s involvement in the slave trade persists?" ElKevbo (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, controversy tells the readers very little, but I thought it more neutral than any other option. I simply think the title should be neutral, as this is a heated and controversial issue, but if there is a better neutral option, I would support it. As for my sources, I already said I didn't choose those sources, I merely copied an existing paragraph. Of course I'd support more sources from other perspectives, I just am not yet aware of them. RexAntica (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Why do you object to the title "Slave trading legacy and naming of Yale University"?
And why in the world do you think that "I copied this from somewhere else" is a good reason to include information with such weak sourcing? ElKevbo (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
We've been over the title. The title is biased as it presumes he was self-beneficially involved in slave trading, which is disputed. I suggest something more neutral. Do you have a better proposition for sourcing? If so we could review it to make this article as accurate and unbiased as possible. Also, student newspaper doesn't imply weak source or even biased source, as the contents of the source are the important part, not the publisher or publication. RexAntica (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
That title doesn't presume that "he was self-beneficially involved in slave trading." You're reading way too much into this and it makes me wonder if you have a bias that is influencing your judgement. The controversy - to the extent that there has been a controversy - is precisely over whether the nature of his connection with slave trading. That he had some connection is not disputed; what is disputed is the nature of that connection. Hiding that behind the nearly meaningless title "Controversy" is a grave disservice to readers. It's not just bad writing but it's so misleading that it's POV.
And of course a student newspaper articles is likely biased in favor of the institution. And of course we place little if any weight on the writing of an undergraduate student. If you can't accept those two basic ideas then I'm not sure you have any business editing any article in Wikipedia.
Do you have a connection with Yale? ElKevbo (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I have no connection with Yale. Also, there's no need to be ad hominem, we're both just trying to make this article as accurate as possible. And yes, the title does imply that he was self beneficially involved in slave trading, same as writing, "pedophilic legacy" on Vladimir Nabokov's page would imply that he was himself a pedophile, even though he only wrote a book concerning it. Also, the fact that it is a student newspaper is irrelevant, you're focusing on the publication and not the publication's content. Criticize the latter, not the former. Also, there's no reason to be ad hominem towards a student. One cannot disregard someone's writing by saying "he's just a student." One must instead consider the writing itself. Also, do you have a negative connection to Yale, as you seem fairly hell-bent on hostility towards it.RexAntica (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Yale does have a connection with slave trading; the dispute is about the nature and depth of that connection. Obscuring that behind a vague section title is editorial malfeasance.
Of course we place less weight on writings by students, particularly in areas like this where there has been substantial professional, scholarly research. That is so obvious that it raises genuine questions about your competence.
I have no connection with this institution, incidentally. I am only perturbed by your inability or unwillingness to provide credible explanations for your actions. ElKevbo (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I am aware that he had a connection, but the way you phrase it makes it seem like he benefited from it. Furthermore, you have failed to criticize exactly where in the student publications there are flawed thoughts or ideas. Please, provide your "substantial professional, scholarly research" here, so that we may review it together. Additionally, you are still attacking ad hominem, the fact that you cannot acknowledge this as a logical fallacy makes me genuinely question your competence. You must explain where in the source there is flaw. Also, I am not on trial, and I suggest that you remember that we are both here with the same goal: to provide accurate, unbiased information. RexAntica (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
No, I don't think we're here for the same reason. You seem to be more invested in protecting the reputation of this person and the university than in providing accurate, helpful information to readers. I'm not invested enough in this article to continue arguing with you so I'm going to remove this from my watchlist and move on. You're free to continue misleading readers with vague section titles and poorly sourced material blindly copied from other articles. ElKevbo (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
All I asked for was a more neutral title, to point out what was wrong with the content of my source, and for you to propose a better source, but okay. RexAntica (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Slave Trader history

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Why is this not discussed? I’m literally shaking RN!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:587:100:97:AD55:260C:D011:8929 (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like you should get some help if you're that upset about something that has no evidence of being true. M4570D0N (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

A quick search for reliable sources proves otherwise.

There's no reason to deny the claim or hint that it's a rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivian James (talk • contribs) 04:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Elihu Yale was indeed a slave trader. Naturally, this will never be mentioned on Wikipedia. We've got to protect Yale's reputation. The admins will ban anyone who tries to add this well documented fact to the article. And in a few months, this section of the talk page will be purged as well, under the guise of "maintenance". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceran (talk • contribs) 15:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

In his address to the Yale Class of 2019, Yale Dean Jonathan Holloway stated, referring to Elihu Yale: "there’s no doubting the fact that he participated in the slave trade, profiting from the sale of humans" https://yalealumnimagazine.com/articles/4171-yales-narrative-andyours — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.243.187 (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I find it interesting and typical that his slaver history has been muted by no more than a self serving article by a student at Yale. It seems that woke only goes so far if it threatens a progressives employment prospects. No point in editing here given the partisanship.174.89.237.182 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead too short

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I made an attempt to make a longer lead section and summarize the important points of the article. Feedback welcome. 🌊PacificDepthstalk|contrib 03:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Move genealogy to new article

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

The Family, Ancestry, and "Marriage and Children" sections seem too detailed and not salient. I propose moving this content to a new article "Genealogy of Elihu Yale". 🌊PacificDepthstalk|contrib 03:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

How is the genealogy of this individual independently notable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you Academia45 (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
The ancestry section fits with the history of Yale College as they used the man coat of arms and ancestry to name it.. Don't see any reason to change it, even less to remove it at all. That edit must be undone. Also, the family section shows the family network as a whole, which is easier to understand for the reader as you understand the context at the time. Academia45 (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump @Academia45: would you accept merging "Family", "Genealogy" and "Family, marriage and children" sections as joint subsections under one top section? 🌊PacificDepthstalk|contrib 17:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Having looked at the content of the new 'genealogy' article, I have to question whether some of it should be included at all. Much of it seems to be cited to material well over 100 years old, which isn't generally considered good practice (more recent scholarship tends to be more trustworthy), and I think that the level of detail is probably somewhat excessive. The article seems rather unbalanced, as a biography, and would do better to concentrate on Yale himself, rather than his ancestry. The latter clearly needs mentioning, but not to the extent that it overwhelms the actual subject of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with you that the Genealogy section could be shortened. What do you say if I shrink this down to a few sentences about the origin of the surname (Thomas Yale) and the origin of the coat of arms? 🌊PacificDepthstalk|contrib 05:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
What about simply moving the ancestry section at the end of the page ? See Owen Tudor page as an example or maybe Napoleon Bonaparte page for family matters. I don't think a few sentences would suffice to explain the ancestry of Elihu Yale and his family. A big reason Universities used coat of arms, as it is still the case today, was to associate themselves with that ancestry and the past. As the man was part of nobility, called the lower nobility or gentry in england, there was reason for the university of using his name rather the one of Jeremiah Dummerper per example. But I agree that there is content there that could be shortened. By keeping that ancestry section, and having it at the end of the overall page, I think we can just merge the early life and family section, and cut much of that family section, as it would become too repetitive. I will move it and update the early life section and start the trimming process. Academia45 (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
These edits look good and make the article flow better. Thank you. I have been looking at some primary sources and I'd like to beef up the subject's earlier years over the next month or so. 🌊PacificDepthstalk|contrib 19:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elihu_Yale/Archive_1&oldid=1215998715"