Talk:Francis Drake/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

(Slavery) Jan 2023

I noticed that Drake is described as a "slave trader" in the lead. I agree with many users from the discussion above that this characterization, in such a prominent place in the article, is in error. A couple reasons:

• While I'm not a historian or a Drake scholar, even a brief reading of scholarly sources (such as the excellent ones provided by Hu Nhu above), just don't support his wholesale characterization as a slave trader. The VAST majority of writings on him focus on his navigational and exploratory work for England, which occurred later in life than his slaving voyages, on most of which he was a simple crewman. There is also considerable attention paid to his relationship with Diego, a former African slave who became a free man under Drake. There's far more that I could say, but a lot of it has been said in the above discussion above.
• An argument for its inclusion is that he's received a lot of coverage contemporarily for his participation in slaving, particularly by the renaming of landmarks that bear his name. This places an outsize emphasis on current news reports, and unfairly devalues the works of historians in other literature. News reports (whose focus isn't actually Drake himself, but events surrounding his name) aside, Drake's characterization looks much different in the whole body of reliable sources.
• There is very little mention of Drake's command of slaving activities in the article body. His early career section mentions slaving voyages, but again, he was a simple crewmate. It doesn't make sense to mention in the lead what isn't well-supported by article material.

I'll be removing the mention in the lead. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a tedious argument and I'm reverting this change. The reference to Drake as a slave trader includes three recent reliable sources by professional historians, and even Sugden's sympathetic biography makes it clear that Drake was far from "a simple crewmate," but a member of the Hawkins family who commanded both the Gratia Dei and the Judith during slaving voyages led by Hawkins. That historians in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and most of the 20th century did not emphasize his involvement in slavery should not surprise anyone—but the fact is, more recent historians have focused on it, and it merits inclusion in the header.

Drake's relationship with Diego is completely irrelevant to his role in England's early attempt to break into the slave trade. Bringing him up in this context is a crude example of the Magical Negro trope.

Regarding the discussion of slaving activities in the article body, I'm all in favor of adding more, since it is increasingly relevant to contemporary interest in him. But that is a problem with the body of the article, not with the description of Drake as a slave trader. Ynizcw (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

There were 4 editors in this discussion who disagreed with the characterization, and you were the only one opposed. Re-opening this discussion is by no means "tedious" or tendentious at this point.

To @Jenhawk777's point, there do appear to be some sources which characterize Drake as a slave trader. However, as @Ivar the Boneful has already pointed out, WP:ROLEBIO states "Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." When I made my assessment, this characterization being present in the lead was not supported by the *whole range* of reliable sources, and didn't immediately appear notable to Drake's character. I see that much work has been done in recent days to create a new "Slave Trading" section. I think it's worth reviewing the sources in this section to confirm they're appropriately cited in this article, and based on that, determine whether the characterization of "slave trader" does indeed deserve mention alongside the roles of "navigator" and "pirate," for which Drake is more classically known. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

In its current state, the article cites only 3 sources which refer to Drake as a "slave trader". One does so in passing, and does not provide a descriptive characterization of Drake as such (Heroes, Hughes-Hallett); one is an unverifiable inclusion from an encyclopedia to which there is no access without paymennt (The Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History); this leaves just one that makes it a point of characterization (Smugglers..., Lane). That doesn't seem sufficient to back up that Drake's characterization as a "slave trader" is well-supported. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You prove that a commitment to neutrality is not gone from Wikipedia. It just can't be done alone anymore - maybe in reality it never could . We have to work together. Consensus neutralizes bias. Pun intended. The problem isn't so much a lack of neutrality as it is laziness I'm afraid. One has to be willing to do the work. You have. So thank you. Thank you for your commitment to neutrality and for your willingness to do the research, and most of all, for your perseverance.

Your response to Ynizcw is valid and imo, this establishes a consensus view that should be in the article. Please make those content changes. I would say leave slaver in the lead but with the caveat that it is not agreed upon by scholars. Sometimes that's all that can be said accurately and w/o OR. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This edit keeps moving and is interfering with the normal progression of discussion, so I have moved it up here to its appropriate date. 2A01:4C8:473:4B24:1:1:802A:C0F4 Regarding your edit to the lead of this article, please familiarize yourself with the ongoing discussion here, and participate in support of your edit if you wish. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

PhotogenicScientist, this hasn't gone exactly as suggested, but I am glad to see you being BOLD. The reference you cite as needing to be a better source because it's behind a paywall does not actually need replacing. It is as good a source as they come. It is an excerpt from The Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History, Volume 1. Oxford Academic is currently unavailable to me, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request can probably access it for you. It is authored by John B. Hattendorf whose list of accomplishments is too long to include here. Sorry. This does not support your cause.

Indications are that Drake was involved, albeit somewhat indirectly, with slavery through his cousin when he was in his wayward and unpredictable youth and never again thereafter. It is a point that he was never involved as an adult when he was in charge. At his start, he was at the bottom of the ladder with no guarantee of success in his career, and had to take what opportunities came his way. It was short term, and was no doubt circumstantial for him, but there doesn't seem to be any support for the idea that he was never involved at all. That's why I did not support completely removing the claim from the lead, but do support qualifying it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above, it was only a minor part of his life. His circumnavigation and subsequent fight with the Spanish and Portuguese didn't involve slavery and often involved befriending freed slaves who would end up helping him - Diego is an example. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I added the "better source needed" tag to that reference for 2 reasons: First, the claim in the article to which this citation is attached is contradicted by Drake scholar John Sugden. In the link I provided, he mentions hard evidence of Drake's involvement existing only for the Lovell and later Hawkins expeditions. Second, the claim of evidence of Drake's involvement cannot be easily verified, since the source is a book which isn't readily accessible via the internet. Perhaps I could check out the resource project to satisfy myself, but that wouldn't help any reader who came after me wanting to verify the same information. There's nothing "wrong" with this source - it's just not very accessible. This is is why I noted the need for a "better" source, and left this source in.

As for still including his slaving activities in the lead, I don't think it should be necessarily excluded. But I have issues with the 2 ways I could see it being added: 1) As a job title held by Drake (opposed per above), or 2) As its own section, with mention of the increased contemporary focus on it. By virtue of having its own section, however, I still think that would be an WP:UNDUE mention in the lead. If anyone proposes a way to integrate it, I'll discuss. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove this phrase again, PhotogenicScientist. It is especially counterproductive to justify this revert by citing consensus, given the lack of evidence for it here. Since your first removal of the phrase and my reverting of it, others have been adding to the body of this article to provide additional support for Drake's involvement in the slave trade. I have just added two more references by professional historians that refer to Drake as a slave trader. The first, by Bergreen, is quoted above, so you should have seen it. The second, by Richard White, who writes, Activists in Marin County, California, have demanded the renaming of places commemorating Francis Drake, an English explorer and naval hero as well as a slave trader and pirate. How many more do you need? 5? 10? 100? This is why I described the discussion is tedious. How many reliable sources has anyone provided that explain why Drake should not be described as a slave trader? Zero. The reference by Lane explicitly states that Drake's involvement in the slave trade has been "whitewashed" in previous histories. Wikipedia should not perpetuate this error.

It's pretty straightforward: Drake traded slaves, so he was a slave trader. And it is an important part of his biography, since it helps to explain how he rose to prominence and provides important context for the subsequent events in his life. You state that this was a "minor part of his life," but this is a subjective statement, and I believe I have provided ample evidence that prominent historians think it is important enough to use the term "slave trader" to describe him. Ynizcw (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I see that ITBF reverted this again. I don't want to engage in an edit war, so please see my comments above that justify the placement of "slave trader" in the first sentence. I do intend to revert the change after a reasonable period of time, however. Ynizcw (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ynizcw In saying "How many reliable sources has anyone provided that explain why Drake should not be described as a slave trader? Zero." you've shown how little you care about reading the opposition's comments. In a single comment by Hu Nhu above, they collected 6 sources that have deemed Francis Drake undeserving of the label "slave trader." The sources need not say explicitly "Drake was not a slave trader"; it's sufficient that they do not characterize him as such in their analysis of him. For example, in the opening of Turks, Moors, & Moriscos in Early America by Umar Faruq Abd-Allah, Drake is described as "the famous English seaman, discoverer, and privateer"; what follows is an analysis of an incident where Drake liberated Muslim galley slaves, where he is mentioned 136 times in the body. In this scholarly work, after Abd-Allah's research of Drake, he deemed Drake not worthy of being described, characterized, or introduced as a "slave trader." These are the kinds of examples that exist in the body of literature around Drake, and the opinion of those that wrote them should not be discounted simply because they don't explicitly state the negative of the positive you're asserting. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, @PhotogenicScientist, it is not constructive to personalize this by accusing me of not caring about reading the comments of those with whom I disagree. Back off, please, and assume good faith.

There are literally thousands of scholarly sources on Drake, so it does not surprise me that someone can find 6 that did not emphasize his role in the slave trade. That does not address my point, which is that it is now common for historians to emphasize this part of his biography, and I provided several recent reliable sources to support that view. Given that reliable sources do describe him in this way, I think the burden should be on those who disagree with that characterization to provide a reliable source that explains, explicitly, why this is inappropriate. Ynizcw (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." You have provided a handful of sources that characterize Drake as a slave trader. That's great - we can include them in the article. But these sources, by a neutral viewing, do NOT appear to represent the majority opinion of scholars and historians on Drake. A minority viewpoint, if well-sourced, may be mentioned in the article, but how it's used must conform to WP:NPOV. Putting it in the lead gives it undue prominence in the article, in my opinion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It also says, "Age of the source and rate of change of the subject—Where a subject has evolved or changed over time a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation."

The problem is that the literature on Drake is rife with systemic bias, which the WP:UNDUE article also cautions against, and Wikipedia has gone so far as to urge corrective action: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. For example, the source by Zelia Nuttall listed above, New Light On Drake, was published in 1914 (note that 1967 date above indicates a republication date), and Richard White (historian) quotes from it to provide evidence that historical literature on Drake from this period was an expression of Anglo-Saxonism, a form of white supremacy. This literature casts a long shadow, and any reasonable discussion of Drake's biography should account for it.

I would propose that the proportionality principle fails in this instance, and that a more "accurate" approach to his historical treatment would acknowledge that the question of what is most important about him is subjective, and the cultural interest in him has changed. This isn't a question of including flat-Earth opinions in a scientific article, as the WP:UNDUE article describes. It's about giving the reader an accurate sense of the current historical understanding of the subject—and this emphasizes his role in slaving voyages more than earlier accounts did.

A useful reference here is the book Sir Francis Drake: Construction of a Hero, by Bruce Wathen (2009), which describes how the image of Drake has evolved through the centuries. He makes it very clear that this image is not as stable as you suggest, and that this is a normal part of historical inquiry. "No doubt each transformation has appeared to disclose the ‘real’ Sir Francis Drake. I have tried to show that there is no ‘authentic’ Drake to be discovered but rather a series of interpretations that are determined by the dominant culture of the day." (p. 179) Ynizcw (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The "proportionality principle" is spelled out in Wikipedia policy, so despite your opinion that it's not valid here, it is. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I have read the policy, @PhotogenicScientist, and indeed quoted it above. We have a substantive disagreement about how the policy should be applied in this instance. Dismissive comments such as "despite your opinion, [what you claim is incorrect]" is not helpful or constructive. Ynizcw (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd also recommend against reverting to your preferred version "after a reasonable amount of time." You should seek consensus in talk page discussions to decide on content, rather than wait for some timer to expire. The latter is borderline edit-warring behavior. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, @PhotogenicScientist, I have no interest in engaging in an edit war, and I said so in my earlier comment. Since you have reverted several contributions yourself, however, I would urge you to exercise the same restraint. Ynizcw (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of edit wars, @PhotogenicScientist, I see that you reverted a contribution from @Desertarun on the grounds that it constituted an "interpretation of source, no mention of Drake's involvement, let alone responsibility." However, the reference [1] clearly states that Drake "embarked with Hawkins on his voyages to Sierra Leone between 1562 and 1569. Here they enslaved around 1,200 Africans. According to slavers’ accounts of the time, these acts would have involved killing at least three times that number of people." Please do not engage in WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Please restore the original contribution or explain how this is not both an explicit mention of Drake's involvement and an implicit assignment of responsibility. Ynizcw (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

One edit neither an edit war nor WP:DISTRUPTIVE makes. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No but one edit made repeatedly does. The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @Jenhawk777, this was precisely my point. Ynizcw (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Ynizcw You're welcome. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ynizcw If that was your point, you should've provided 4 diffs of reverts I made in a 24-hour period. Or diffs of my reverting the same content for the same reason. You did neither of these - the diff you provided was my first edit of that content, and one of only 2 edits I made at that time. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist the term you directed at me was "borderline edit-warring," which lies outside the strict definition that you now prescribe. I don't appreciate your repeated condescension, @PhotogenicScientist. Please make an effort to be WP:CIVIL and I will do the same. Ynizcw (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You outright said you intended to make edits that edit-warring policy says in the first paragraph you shouldn't. I informed you why making that edit would be a bad idea.

By contrast, you directly labeled one of the edits I made as disruptive, and heavily implied that making that edit was edit-warring behavior on my part. I explained that making a single revert of content is not an edit war (are you kidding me?!)

These interactions are not comparable. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we abandon this unproductive tit-for-tat and resolve to be WP:CIVIL with each other going forward. Can we agree to that, at least? Ynizcw (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Since you started this with this comment, if you drop it, I will too. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Ynizcw This is not as cut and tried as you assert here. I can't find your reference to Richard White, but Marin County activists? Really? Is politics a factor here? How about this as a compromise: let's take slave trader out of the larger list of descriptors and give it its own sentences. Perhaps something along the lines of "Drake began his career working for his cousin John Hawkins, learning smuggling, the transporting of slaves and piracy. The degree of Drake's involvement is debated by scholars." Would that be a satisfactory compromise? Or can you offer an alternative that will respect the sources - all of them - and the other editors here? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 it looks like the reference was removed by @ITBF on the grounds that it was WP:CITATIONOVERKILL. Here it is: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/opinion/drakes-cross-white-supremacy.html. Note the date: June 23, 2020. The reference to Marin activists is just to provide relevant context for White's main argument, which is that Drake's cross in California should be understood as a monument to white supremacy. Richard White (historian) is a Professor Emeritus at Stanford, a MacArthur award recipient, and a former president of the Organization of American Historians. I included his quote as evidence that professional historians do refer to Drake as a slave trader. I included the Marin activist part of the sentence for completeness. To focus on it is to miss the point of the reference. Ynizcw (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I accept that some historians do reference Drake as a slaver, and I also get that some dispute how much. That is self-evident in all of this exceedingly long and repetitive discussion. But surely the nature of the article you reference does deserve a little focus. It's a political op-ed. It is by its nature, biased. Interpreting the past by modern standards is always a logical fallacy, partially because it automatically creates bias. I feel strongly that keeping modern politics out of this discussion is a must if there is any hope of neutrality here. Keeping our own biases in check is a necessity.

There does not seem to be a scholarly consensus on this subject, there's just a lot of different historians making opposing statements.

Wiki's policy is here: [2] which says: when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

Let's do that. Suggestions? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. It seems like this article should accommodate both viewpoints. And it's up to editors like us to determine how to balance them.

@Ynizcw To quote from your comment above, there is no ‘authentic’ Drake to be discovered but rather a series of interpretations that are determined by the dominant culture of the day. However, it's not our job on Wikipedia to reflect the culture of the day. What we do here is summarize whatever can be learned in reliable sources. You've implied that older sources potentially biased toward Drake are less valid than more recent evaluations - that is not correct. If a source may be considered 'reliable', it may be included in an article. To what extent, is decided on by consensus of editors. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Ynizcw and PhotogenicScientist I would like to be BOLD and make sure slaver is removed from the list in the lead, then add my two sentences (above) in its place. It's a compromise. Nobody gets everything, but everybody gets something. If you have a better idea, please suggest it. Let's follow WP guidelines and create a little balance. Can we agree on that?

I do sincerely want to thank you both for your passion, and for caring so deeply about making Wikipedia a quality encyclopedia. This process is often difficult and time consuming but the end result is always a more balanced more neutral article. Thank you for all your contributions and for your perseverance, persistence and patience, for not giving up until you made sure that quality was reached. Thank you, genuinely, thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? @PhotogenicScientist has already removed the term "slave trader" from the opening sentence (twice, if memory serves), and I have left it that way as we have been engaging in this discussion. I believe it is premature to conclude the discussion here. Ynizcw (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Ynizcw I see that removal now. I left off checking the edit history for a bit purely out of fatigue.

I want to add slaver back, but not in the list of "Drake was...". IMO it should be in the lead, but it should be in a separate couple of sentences that recognizes the differing opinions amongst scholars on his involvement. The scholars are defining "slaver" differently from a very narrow (only those who acted directly and profited directly) to a very broad all inclusive definition (anyone who had anything to do with any of the ships). That's created our problem.

Since all the sources I can find that attempt to trace this in any detail all say that in those early days with Hawkins, Drake sailed as a simple seaman, that he was not part of the consortium that arranged the first slaving trips to the Indies, that he was only about 22 when he sailed with Hawkins and had no choices concerning destination or activity as he was under Hawkins' "umbrella" so to speak, therefore, the narrow definition seemingly excludes him from personal culpability and its label.

Simply labeling him a 'slaver' requires the broadest of definitions - but it has some validity. It's true he would have had no input and no decision making ability, and would no doubt have simply been grateful he had a job, but it is also an apparent fact that he piloted at least one ship for Hawkins on at least one of those slaving voyages. I might not think that makes him a full-fledged slaver in his own right, but it certainly makes him involved peripherally, making the broad definition accurate.

Those who use the narrow definition and say nay are right; those who use the broad definition and say yea are also right. So there we are.

Later in his life, no one alleges he participated in slaving, so this debate all comes from the most obscure and least documented period of his life. This is in the section content I believe, but a summary sentence or two in the lead is also called for. How would you suggest doing that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I take your point that the term "slaver" (or "slave trader", which is the term that I had used) has the potential to be misleading, as this thread demonstrates, and I appreciate your constructive suggestions for how to remedy it. To build on that suggestion, I would note that the current description of Drake as an "English explorer, sea captain, privateer, naval officer, and politician" is excessive, and that the inclusion of "politician" over "slave trader" is wildly inappropriate.

(It's notable that "slave trader" attracts criticism because it doesn't appear in some minimum fraction of reliable sources, while exactly the same criticism could be applied to the term "politician", which is left alone without further scrutiny. It reflects the Systemic bias of the biographical literature on Drake, which is consistently colored by a Great Man hero-worship narrative that has developed over centuries. This topic has been covered extensively in the historical literature, and I will try to add more discussion of it in the body of the article. But for now, we just need to agree on language for the introductory sentence.)

I would suggest that we simply remove the laundry list of titles and say something along the lines of "Sir Francis Drake was an English privateer who participated in the early slaving voyages of John Hawkins and John Lovell and was one of the first people to circumnavigate the globe." Would you find this acceptable? Ynizcw (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I like it - with just a little modification. Let's put the most significant item, what he is most well known for, first without omitting his other achievements which are all well documented. Then we can still put the most disputed and least documented in the lead, by placing it last. "Sir Francis Drake was an English explorer who was among the first to circumnavigate the globe. He was also a sea captain and a naval officer who probably began his seafaring life as a privateer (pirate) and smuggler, who also participated in at least one of the early slaving voyages of his cousin John Hawkins and John Lovell." Is that acceptable?

I know there is systemic bias in much of the literature. I also know that bias doesn't automatically make what that literature says wrong. Research can be biased and still be correct.

On my user page I have written a short essay on neutralizing bias. One of the first points is that everyone has biases. Neutralizing bias begins by recognizing that it isn't just you, but also in recognizing that it is you because it's all of us. As long as we can only see the failures of others, we will never be able to improve our own. While I suspect that modern politics is involved, I do still appreciate that you feel strongly about this. That makes me admire and appreciate - more than you can know - your willingness to compromise. Bravo to that. Adding content - that is balanced, encyclopedic and neutral - is a good way to do that. Thank you. Let me know if you accept this for the lead. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I'm happy with your formulation either, @Jenhawk777, but I think we can work from it toward a solution that is mutually acceptable. I'd like to take a break from this for now, but I will see what I can do over the weekend and will post my suggestions here before I edit the article itself. And I appreciate your appreciation, and hope you will accept the same from me. ;)

Regarding your comment about modern politics, I would suggest that this is confusing cause with effect. What you suspect to be a change in historical perspective driven by modern politics—if I have understood you correctly—I would describe as a popular reaction to changes in historical perspective, as more and more people have become aware of research over the last 50+ years on the ways that contemporary historical narratives have been influenced by earlier ideologies—some of which were explicitly racist, and prone to celebrating the conquerer while suppressing the perspectives of the conquered. Wathen's 2009 book, which I cited above, discusses this at length with respect to Drake historiography, with support from 10 pages worth of about 250 references (for what it's worth). There are many discussions of the same phenomenon in other contexts, such as the American Civil War. Drake may have lived in the 16th century, but in the 19th century he became a symbol of British empire and Anglo-Saxon supremacy, and it took time for historical scholarship to clarify this legacy. Popular movements such as Black Lives Matter may have played a role in raising awareness about these changes in our historical understanding, but in Drake's case, at least, they were supported by decades of historical research. In my view (and that of many academic historians), the popular backlash to these changes is driven more by politics than the changes themselves. Ynizcw (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like my version. It is representative of the sources.

Your sentence put the smallest aspect of his life, that is the least documented, first and foremost, giving it undue weight, putting the thing he is most famous for last, and completely leaving out other aspects of his achievements, as if they didn't matter at all. That is not representative of the sources. Nor is it neutral. It seems like an attempt at historical correction, representing your personal views, but that is not what WP is for.

History can only be fairly judged within its own context. We think we are right in our views just as these earlier people believed they were in the right to do as they did. We are all of us influenced by the culture in which we live. Whatever history might say, it is only possible for human beings to walk in the light they have at the time. They could not see into the future in the way we can see into the past. It is only hindsight that is always 20/20. Narratives have been influenced by ideologies, but they still are. This discussion wouldn't be happening if that were not the case. You are no more free of it than any of your predecessors.

I bow to your decision to take some time off. Please do not come back with a modern political interpretation of Drake. We have gone round and round about this enough that I will feel compelled to take the next step at that point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 I'm coming around to your point of view, to make mention of Drake's early career as it relates to the slave trade in the lead. I also agree it should be less prominent in the lead than the rest of what's currently there. My suggestion would be a simple construction placed at the bottom, that mentions the point of view of some historians that Drake was a slave trader, but qualifies it somehow to show it's not part of the mainstream view. Citations to specific historians wouldn't be needed to support this in the lead - there are plenty of these in the 'Slave trade' section.

I, too, intend to take a break from this article for a bit. Though, if you want to continue editing, feel free to ping me if needed - I don't mind responding to those at all. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Placed at the bottom of what? The first paragraph? I appreciate this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Bottom of the lead. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 as I said, while I'm not entirely happy with your most recent draft, I do think that we can build on it. Let me describe what bothers me about it, to see if we can find a way forward.

I see your point about the order of the items. I chose to lead with "privateer" because his naval activities largely fall under that umbrella, and still believe that is a better term to begin with. It doesn't bother me at all to put circumnavigation before his participation in slavery, so long as the writing flows well. Putting it in chronological order made sense to me, but I can see that it suggests an emphasis that I didn't intend.

Below is a list of the (relatively minor) issues that I have with your draft, which I hope we can resolve. Then, hopefully, we can all move on.

• I tend toward "privateer" over "explorer", since he completed his circumnavigation, his slaving voyages, and other notable exploits as part of his privateering activities. The term "pirate" might be more accurate for some of his activities, but the lead is probably not the place to get into this.
• Using "probably" and "at least one of" strike me as misplaced expressions of MOS:DOUBT. Most sources that I have seen express more confidence that he participated in privateering, smuggling, and in multiple slaving voyages.
• I'm afraid I don't understand why it's important to include "sea captain" and "naval officer". They just seem redundant to me. What am I missing?
• I noticed that Drake's role in defeating the Spanish Armada doesn't appear in the lead, and I think it should. It's a major theme in the historical literature about him.

If it were up to me, I would just change the order of my original sentence and add the Spanish Armada: "Sir Francis Drake was an English privateer who was one of the first people to circumnavigate the globe, participated in the early English slaving voyages of John Hawkins and John Lovell, and was celebrated for his role in defeating the Spanish Armada."

I hope this moves the discussion forward productively.Ynizcw (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Ynizcw Thought you were taking time off! Apparently your tendency to focus on privateer over explorer represents a good chunk of the very much divided scholarship on Drake. Since I have discovered this, I thought I would leave you and PhotogenicScientist to hash through what is fair in the lead. Slaving is currently completely excluded from the lead, and while I don't agree with putting it first (none of his other accomplishments are delineated by chronology), I also don't agree with excluding it as if it never happened. I don't want to make more - or less - of it. I just want to mention it with due weight. However, I do recognize that there has been a shift in scholarship and that this topic is particularly sensitive in our modern day, therefore I have added some to the slaving section itself. If you want to go by chronology, then go by the number of years he invested in his many pursuits. Slaving was maybe, a couple of years when he was first starting out and had to take what he was given, but he was also a private sea Captain and a naval officer for many more years, and really, I have to argue that politician should be in there somewhere too, as he did spend years of his life on that as well. I like this sentence from Sugden: His rise from poverty to international significance led Drake to become a "businessman, property magnate, civic leader, parliamentarian and magistrate as well as [a] bold sea rover."(Sugden, 2012)

As to your sentence for the lead, I like it, but it needs a little fleshing out. Do that and as far as I am concerned, we are good to go. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad we seem to be converging on a more stable formulation. I did take a break, but am eager to have this issue resolved. Ynizcw (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello all. I have written extensively on the New Albion article and Timeline of Francis Drake's circumnavigation article. As such, I've read much about Drake. I've greatly avoided the Drake biography article as it is so troubled and has been a mess. I see the article improving much.

I have participated in a similar discussion on this particular article regarding the slaver matter and found the issue poorly addressed with no satisfactory solution. I do observe the article from time to time and am pleased to see some progress in accuracy being made. Please know that I will not be editing the Drake biography article.

I kindly suggest that the article could do well with information about Drake's propensity to fight the slave trade. Much information can be found about this in John Sugden's book Sir Francis Drake and Laurence Bergreen's In Search of a Kingdom: Francis Drake, Elizabeth . I understand that there are concerns about Bergreen's book's accuracy, so look at it may not be so useful. Additionally, here are articles by Sugden and publish Drake scholar, Michael Turner, regarding this aspect of Drake: http://drakenavigatorsguild.squarespace.com/guest-commentators.

Additionally, the Sugden article lists a most interesting writing by Umer Faruq Abd-Allah: “Turks, Moors and Moriscos in Early America: Sir Francis Drake’s Liberated Galley Slaves and the Lost Colony of Roanoke." There, even further information exists about Drake as a slaver liberator.

Please know that I offer these because any information about Drake as a slaver is incomplete and therefore inaccurate when there is a failure to address his actions against slavery. Much success to you with your improvements and kind regards to all.Hu Nhu (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Nice to see you back. In my own research I also saw events that could be construed as liberating slaves by Drake. I chose not to include them. This is my reasoning. First, this article cannot become an all inclusive discussion of all of Drake's lifelong attitudes toward slavery. That might make a really nice little sub-article, and perhaps you would be interested in writing it - take what's here and expand it - but this article, as the main article, cannot become that.

This article discusses one aspect of slaving only: whether or not Drake can accurately be referred to as a slaver because of 4 voyages with the relative who gave him a job. Whatever he might have done later in his life to rescue or free slaves would not undo the actions of his youth, making any references to his future attitudes tangential at best.

If your point is that Drake never participated in slaving as an adult - when he had the power to make that choice for himself - then I think that point is already made in the slaving section. It's often hard to determine what to include and what to leave out, but in my opinion, his future attitudes are not relevant and have no bearing on whether or not he was a slaver in his youth. Sorry to disagree. I have appreciated all your comments here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello to you, too @Jenhawk777. I am glad to that you are working on this article, work that is much needed. My point is not that Drake never participated in slaving as an adult. Clearly he was an adult when Hawkins have him command of Judith. I suppose to have a biography of Drake and leave the notion of his participation in the slave trade (and the term slaver really does lack precision) and not include the fact that far more many years of his life was spent liberating enslaved people, that his reputation as a liberator was well known among enslaved people, and that he allied with former slaves is a very important aspect of his life, fundamental to understanding Drake, and necessary to an accurate biographical depiction of him.

I appreciate your kind encouragement about a sub-article; I have considered it. I believe such an article would entail much edit warring. Woke is a destructive influence, bias a powerful tool, Wikipedia unfortunately a convenient medium for such. Any article about Drake and slavery would, I believe, be overwhelmed. I am currently working on an article about the commander of the Texas National Guard, one who replaced Tracy R. Norris. It is a safe article to engage in. Most kind regards to all. Hu Nhu (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to tell you a short story. I first started on WP in July of 2017. My education is in world religions, philosophy and ethics, and that's where I started writing. I soon discovered there is even more controversy and bias in those areas than in politics. I expected to run into fundamentalists, but that isn't what happened. What I ran into was a virulent hatred of Christianity from one particular editor. He would revert everything I wrote, call it garbage, and attack me personally repeatedly. He would follow me from one article to another. I once asked for an RFC on article he kept wanting to delete, and even though the community said it should be kept, he went in and blanked the page effectively deleting the entire content. I asked for help a couple of times, but he knew how to game the system. I gave up, and for about a year and a half, I left WP entirely. I'm not proud of that. Then I was notified that so many other people - women - had the same kind of trouble with him that admin had banned him from WP for life. I learned that admin works slowly, but eventually, it does work, and it does so fairly. I trust them now.

So I came back. Since then I have noted that he was unusual. Most editors on WP are decent and fair, and if you keep the focus on good sources and WP guidelines, they are cooperative. But what I also noticed is that my editing had improved, and if I was honest, I owed that partly to my nemesis. He didn't intend me good, no doubt, yet I gained good from it anyway, and that's what I hope you can take away from this.

It doesn't matter if you get reverted. Don't take it personally. Everyone gets reverted from time to time. It can all be worked through with some perseverance and good faith, and WP becomes a better encyclopedia in the process. Stay focused on that. You are contributing to an encyclopedia read by millions, and every time you get opposition, you can choose to let it make you a better editor. An open mind and good sources contribute to your article being balanced, neutral, fair and accurate. None of us know everything. I have two - and a half - degrees in my field and I am learning here everyday. I positively love that!

Disagreement doesn't have to lead to edit warring. You can choose not to do that. You can choose to go to the talk page, post good sources and good logic, and if the other person doesn't respond in good faith, you can call for a third opinion - I'll answer - or an RFC, and if that doesn't move things in the right direction, you can go to admin and your opponent's lack of response will sink them - not you. WP works. It's ponderous and slow, but it works. It would be a real shame if you give up on making significant contributions just because there will be others who want to play too. Let them. Talk to them. Don't let biases get in the way of enjoying this opportunity. WP can be a great joy. That's just one editor's experience here, but I'll bet I am not alone.

If you have sources and want to write a short maybe three sentence paragraph on Drake as a liberator, I will support that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You have very thoughtful comments Jenhawk777 and I am in full accord with them. Our experience as editors is similar. After dealing with a particularly nasty editor, I disengaged, removed my account, and remained away from Wikipedia for quite a while. Eventually, I returned, notified the appropriate administrator that I was returning with a new name, continued adding to Wikipedia Commons, and resumed editing in articles which took me to topics I did not expect--such as the barely notable Bissinger Wool Pullery. I will consider your encouragement to write the paragraph regarding Drake's later actions regarding slavery. The sources are numerous and solid: Miranda Kaufmann, John Sugden, and Umer Faruq Abd-Allah are probably the best. The assertions of Larry Sanger are accurate; perhaps with further improvement, I'm hopeful his assertions might no longer apply to the Drake article. Kind regards to all.Hu Nhu (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm astonished that Larry Sanger's unhinged rant, "Wikipedia Is Badly Biased", is being cited as an unimpeachable critique of WP, and even more bizarrely, as a rational reason to find fault with edits that have been made to this article. With all due respect for the important work he put into co-founding this site, Sanger's off-Wiki screeds read like something that I would compare to the ravings of a reactionary crank suffering from the effects of long Covid or perhaps premature Alzheimer's disease. They certainly have no bearing on the composition of this article.

His embrace of the 'bothsidesism' approach to composing WP articles is laughable, and it's just as disgraceful here as it is in journalism—pretending that phony "scandals" generated by the right-wing rage machine are equivalent to the actual crimes committed by Donald Trump. Give me a break. Please dump this leaning on Sanger's outrageous and nonsensical bullshit and concentrate on points actually germane to the article. Carlstak (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that was an unnecessary overreaction. I will chalk it up to your headache. Let's keep personal politics to ourselves, please, and don't be answering with "he started it" as none of us are in first grade anymore. Please treat others with the respect you want to receive. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. Please don't put hypothetical words in my mouth or give me commands. Larry Sanger's off-Wiki political fulminations are not references or guidelines and should not be cited as a lodestar for editing this article. WP does not have to indulge the lies and distortions of right wings hacks and idealogues to be "balanced", as Sanger would have us do, and cites of his political writings regarding WP have no place here. They're off-topic and have nothing to do with the composition of this article. Carlstak (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Carlstak There was no commanding. There was a polite request beginning with please.

I put no words in anyone's mouth. But this did: Larry Sanger's unhinged rant, "Wikipedia Is Badly Biased", is being cited as an unimpeachable critique of WP, and even more bizarrely, as a rational reason to find fault with edits that have been made to this article. That didn't actually happen. What was actually said was perhaps with further improvement, I'm hopeful his assertions (of bias on WP) might no longer apply to the Drake article. That seems rather benign. It's perfectly accurate that bias is an ongoing issue on WP, and has been on and off, from one side and the other, in this article.

WP does not have to indulge the lies and distortions of right wings hacks and idealogues. But it does. It must indulge all political views. Disallowing one side cannot create balance; that is the very definition of imbalance: too much of one thing and not enough of its opposite. Surely that's obvious to all.

This is just the talk page. Others have mentioned their opposite political views here without being trounced for it. People say stuff. But I agree that personal politics is off-topic. Can that not be said without hostility? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You're projecting. I disagree with most of what you say, and I stand by what I said. I suggest you address your anger issues. It's not healthy to carry all that around. Carlstak (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that editors avoid referring to Drake as a "liberator" of slaves. The historical evidence is much more ambiguous. Ynizcw (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, it seems that we are reaching a consensus that Drake's participation in the early English slave trade should be mentioned in the lede, but that the term "slave trader" lends itself to misunderstanding about his role.

Previously, I proposed as the opening sentence, "Sir Francis Drake was an English privateer who was one of the first people to circumnavigate the globe, participated in the early English slaving voyages of John Hawkins and John Lovell, and was celebrated for his role in defeating the Spanish Armada." In response to the discussion here and after reviewing my references, I would like to revise this to the following.

"Sir Francis Drake was an English seaman who was one of the first people to circumnavigate the globe and participated in the early English slaving voyages of John Hawkins and John Lovell."

Here is my rationale:

• The term "seaman" is more encompassing that "privateer," and is used in the one-line summary of John Hattendorf's article on Drake in the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History. This is consistent with the MOS:ROLEBIO recommendation to "avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles," which in this case could include (and at various times has included) "pirate", "privateer", "sea captain", and "naval officer". Earlier versions included "politician" but the current version does not, which I believe is appropriate—I am not aware of any reliable source that suggests that his political career is important to his notability, except perhaps for people in Devon.
• Upon reflection, the phrase "celebrated for his role in defeating the Spanish Armada" is misleading and goes against the WP:NPOV principle, since it is really English-speaking people who have done the celebrating, and the phrase does not make clear that this part of Drake's notability is more popular legend than historical fact. For example, Hattendorf writes, "When the Armada came in 1588, Drake was a vice admiral against it, and although he acquitted himself creditably, he was not at his best in big operations, and was accused of endangering the fleet by disobeying orders." I considered changing this phrase to say something about Drake mythology, but thought it better to leave this aspect of his notability to the body of the article.

@Jenhawk777, you had approved of the earlier version with the caveat that "it needs a little fleshing out." Could you elaborate? @PhotogenicScientist, do you have anything to add? Ynizcw (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I can. The rest of the WP guideline you have appropriately quoted reads: emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph Keeping this in mind:

• I like your sentence and agree with the switch to seaman, but let's shorten that first sentence to just the first half. Sir Francis Drake was an English seaman who was one of the first people to circumnavigate the globe. All sources agree that is what he is most noted for, so it should have placement as the first sentence.
• Slaving is not what made him notable either during his life or for some centuries after, yet we are including it because that reflects modern sources, and because it is a section in the article. Imho, it should not be in the first sentence, which gives it a notability it didn't have, but it should be in the lead somewhere.
• The second paragraph begins with At an early age Drake was placed into the household of a relative, William Hawkins, a prominent sea captain in Plymouth. I think putting the other half of your sentence immediately after that - "As a young seaman, Drake participated in the early English slaving voyages of John Hawkins and John Lovell" - puts it close to the front, follows logically and chronologically, and reflects the sources.

Imho, that should do it. Divide your sentence, place the parts in the first and second paragraphs accordingly, and I'd say we have a good solution that everyone can agree upon. We can always ask for a RFC if needed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

How about just splitting the sentence into two? "Sir Francis Drake was an English seaman who was one of the first people to circumnavigate the globe. He also participated in the early English slaving voyages of John Hawkins and John Lovell."

This is simple and factual, and it describes what is notable about him, as specified by the general notability guideline. There is no need to place emphasis on his “youth”, which is irrelevant to the fact of his participation and minimizes his agency in it.

As for the argument that “slaving is not what made him notable either during his life or for some centuries after,” Drake's involvement in the slave trade has been a notable part of his biography for decades, as I and other editors have demonstrated through multiple sources. This aspect of his notability is not temporary, and if anything has become increasingly prominent with time. Knowledge and historical memory both evolve with time, and a good article should reflect a contemporary understanding of its subject. I think it's fine to leave this part of his story out of the first sentence, as you suggest, but I also see no problem with making it the subject of the second sentence. Ynizcw (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Ynizcw Then we are in complete agreement! Divide the sentence in two; put the first part as the first sentence and the second part in the second paragraph.

I do not object to removing "in his youth". It does lessen culpability, but that is just fair imo. People do stupid things when they're young that they often regret later. That's just human. We don't know if Drake regretted it, but it could be implied from the fact he never did it again. At any rate, some sources have implied that from later actions, which I chose to exclude (see discussion with Hu Nhu above.

Thank you for your perseverance and your reasonableness and for keeping your calm and working toward consensus. For once, a disagreement has not left me with a bad taste in my mouth, but has instead made me feel that I hope we work together again some time. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 Done! Thank you for your productive engagement. I hope that the resulting version will be more stable. Ynizcw (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Ditto! Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 @Ynizcw I like the current version of the lead, with one caveat: I much prefer the opening paragraph of this version. In my opinion, we shouldn't call Drake simply a "seaman," then go on to list his achievements. This goes against the common practice on Wikipedia biography pages, of listing notable positions a person held in the lead sentence. For Juan Ponce de León, one of Drake's peers in exploration, his article starts by calling him "Spanish explorer and conquistador". For Horatio Nelson, another English naval officer, his article calls him a "British flag officer in the Royal Navy." In a general example, for Alexander Hamilton, the article starts off with "American military officer, statesman, and Founding Father." I think that for Drake, "English explorer, vice admiral and privateer" was a great summation, especially considering it cut down what used to be a longer list of titles.

This is also how Drake is introduced/characterized in scholarly material, like in Turks, Moors, & Moriscos... by Umar Faruq Abd-Allah, as I mentioned above ("the famous English seaman, discoverer, and privateer"). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Those are all good arguments and good references. I have no problem with your conclusion. Go for it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

PhotogenicScientist That is a definite improvement I think and more representative of his notability. I really like it. I hope this will lead to an increased stability. It looks good now imo. It's balanced, representative of ALL the sources and seems as neutral as we can humanly make it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree, @Jenhawk777 and @PhotogenicScientist. As I mentioned in my rationale, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History entry by John Hattendorf uses the one-line description, "English seaman and circumnavigator."

After all this discussion, I simply do not understand why we would restore "vice admiral" after removing "slave trader" on the grounds that it was an insufficiently notable role. We have multiple reliable sources that include the phrase "slave trader" in the introductory information. Here is yet another: the Oxford Companion to English Literature has a single paragraph on Drake that begins with the sentence "Drake, Sir Francis (1540–96), buccaneer, born near Tavistock, Devon, of yeoman stock but with useful family connections to Sir John Hawkins, whom he joined in the slave trade and piracy." It also mentions that he was a vice admiral during the Spanish Armada, but goes on to say, "English writers came to celebrate him—inaccurately—as a staunchly Protestant founder of British naval supremacy," a reference to the fact that Drake's role in the Spanish Armada is among the most mythologized portions of his biography. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History notes, "When the Armada came in 1588, Drake was a vice admiral against it, and although he acquitted himself creditably, he was not at his best in big operations, and was accused of endangering the fleet by disobeying orders."

While we're at it, why use the term "privateer" instead of the more legally dubious "buccaneer" or "pirate"? Kelsey's book-length biography is subtitled, The Queen's Pirate. Surely we should include this, too, if we're going to list all of Drake's notable roles?

The term "seaman" adequately encompasses Drake's multiple naval roles, including slave trader, vice admiral, explorer, privateer, buccaneer, and pirate. Listing all of these overloads the sentence, and excluding the more palatable roles while keeping the others is a form of WP:BIAS. I recommend that we restore "seaman" and leave it to the rest of the article to clarify the details. Ynizcw (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Brevity is surely to be valued, but shouldn't be used to justify over-simplification. "Seaman" is an inadequate way of describing Sir Francis Drake. Biographical subjects are introduced with their titles, as I noted above.

As for WHICH titles to include, the problem with comparing "slave trader" to "vice-admiral" is both relevance AND verifiability. It's pretty unanimous in sources that Drake WAS certifiably a vice-admiral, and it's relevant enough to receive often mention - I'm not sure you could find a source that analyzes Drake's life that doesn't mention his engagement with the Spanish and English armadas. Nobody is arguing that "vice admiral" is a title Drake did not have. In that way it differs from "slave trader". While it is verifiable that Drake participated in slaving voyages, the title of "slave trader" implies a level of agency and ownership, a level which historians seem to debate Drake ever had (and, as we've seen from the sources brought into this discussion, most historians seem to be on the side against labeling him as such). That debate, juxtaposed with the unanimous agreement about him being a vice admiral, is part of why we shouldn't start off this article calling Drake a slave trader. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Ynizcw The examples offered from other WP articles carries the weight imo. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, @PhotogenicScientist, I am not arguing that we should restore the term "slave trader" to the beginning of the article. As you know, I was content with mentioning Drake's participation in Hawkins' slaving voyages in the second sentence, to provide the context that the term "slave trader" lacked.

Nor am I contesting the fact that Drake was a vice admiral. I am contesting that this is notable, given the many possible words that could be used to describe him in the opening sentence. The current list involves word choices that I believe show evidence of systemic WP:BIAS. Drake was a pirate, too. Why not include that? And why is "seaman" adequate for the Oxford Companion to Maritime History, and not for Wikipedia?

I have pointed to multiple reliable sources in support of my argument, including both the Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History and the Oxford Companion to English Literature, that Drake's involvement in the slave trade is at least as notable to modern historians as his role as a vice admiral—indeed, modern sources, including the Oxford ones listed above, frequently indicate that any recognition that he has for his involvement in the Spanish Armada is largely the result of a British nationalistic revival during the 19th-century. So sure, he was notable in the 19th century for being a vice admiral, and plenty of people today may still know that about him, but modern historians view this aspect of his notability as a product of 19th-century ideology and myth making. Here's Wathen again: "The precedence given to the Armada narrative with its enhanced role for Drake was the direct result of Britain’s imperial status. Although there was no realistic prospect of a foreign power attempting an invasion of England, the potent image of a small nation peacefully going about its business but besieged by foreign aggressors could be mobilized in the colonial theatre, which was steadily increasing in size. This type of mythologizing deflected attention from Britain’s own aggression." A 21st-century encyclopedia should not pass on this 19th-century perspective uncritically as the contemporary view.

I didn't notice earlier that @Jenhawk777 has also reorganized the first two paragraphs, putting Drake's role in the Armada in the first paragraph and his role in the slave trade in the second. For the reasons that I just gave, I believe this counts as WP:BIAS. I see now that I overlooked this part of @Jenhawk777's recommendation in my eagerness to get this over with, so please forgive my raising this point now. Another, more minor problem with this change is that the introduction has become repetitive: the first and third paragraphs discuss the same facts. As further evidence of WP:BIAS, the word pirate is mentioned only in the final paragraph, and only to say that that's what the Spanish called him—presumably Harry Kelsey, the author of Sir Francis Drake: The Queen's Pirate, would disagree? Ynizcw (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Your assertion that Drake's title of vice admiral is not notable because of the presumed inherent bias in the sources which discuss doesn't hold water. The motivating force for these scholars having written about it doesn't really matter - what does matter is we have plenty of sources that discuss Drake's involvement as a vice admiral. His victory and subsequent defeat are both major historical events. And without getting too much into it, these battles also had a great influence on Drake's life thereafter. To quote from Sugden (emphasis mine):

• "For the first time in his life Drake tasted failure."
• "For many months the repurcussions of the voyage were heard... while the war of the Atlantic lapsed into small-scale privateering and Drake was not employed at sea, he was entrusted with valuable local work."
• "Drake spent most of the next six years in his native Devon. Writers have also seen these years as another hiatus in the admiral’s life, an uneventful period in which Sir Francis lived in official disgrace, looking longingly out to sea where lesser commanders handled the war with Spain. That is less true. For far from being idle, Drake was never busier than in the years after he returned from Portugal, and far from being in disgrace, he was considered so valuable to the government that he was overburdened with important administrative and defence responsibilities."

And from a wikipedia policy perspective, the lead should serve as a summary of article body content - there are sizable sections on the Spanish and English armadas in the article, with 10 or so different citations. I feel like our lead should prep readers on what they can read about in the article below. And before you say that "slave trader" goes in the lead by the same argument, as I already said, his status as a slave trader is in dispute, while his status as a vice admiral is not. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Ynizcw Up above I said about the slaving issue , divide the sentence you wrote and place the parts in the first and second paragraphs and you responded I think it's fine to leave this part of his story out of the first sentence, as you suggest, but I also see no problem with making it the subject of the second sentence. which I misread as agreement to put it in the second paragraph. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I can certainly sympathize with wanting this to be done. You said you had originally placed slaving chronologically, so that's where I put it. But I don't object to it being the second sentence, although it would read a little oddly - as an interruptor - in the discussion of circumnavigation. Your objections to the lead's repetitions are sound. Let's see if we can fix that.

I have no objection to including pirate either, and definitely think either privateer or pirate or a combination term like privateer/pirate should be right up front. It was a primary characteristic of his entire life whether he did it for himself or his country, so yes. I think everyone sees that.

I am not sure I am understanding exactly what you are objecting to though. Saying he was a vice-admiral? Seaman is a position, a class, that determined hierarchy on a ship - how you got paid and who could tell you what to do etc. Seaman first class, and petty officer, and bosun's mate, and so on. He started as a seaman but he ended a vice admiral, so calling him a seaman as a description of his entire life would be inaccurate. If you want to be more general you could call him a man of the sea, but that seems a little poetic for WP. It seems to be normal WP procedure to ref a person's major achievements in the first sentence, and not just how they started out. That doesn't qualify as bias by any standard. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the good faith efforts of the invested editors here to improve the article. I'm a little surprised that more editors aren't participating, because it is an important article, but I suspect that most people, like me, are allergic to interminable discussions with many walls of text. Why doesn't someone call an RFC so these can be settled (one hopes)? I thought you editors might have resolved these issues by now, but that doesn't look likely to be happening anytime soon.

I intend to start a review of the article for fact-checking, copy editing, and perhaps to add some new material, cited with academic sourcing, of course. I don't have any major changes in mind. I have access through the Wikipedia Library to all the major journals available there, although Taylor & Francis are rather stingy with what access they allow. I have a good bit of experience with such tasks on WP, and a considerable library of my own. Carlstak (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Carlstak. We all have access to the WP library, don't we? I think so.

We had achieved a resolution, then some further changes were made. Then I changed them again in an effort to accommodate everyone's concerns, but as you can see in the section below - "Lead" - not everyone agrees. I would call for an RFC but I don't know what it would be for! Can you figure it out? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Jenhawk777. An editor has to sign up for and be approved for access to each journal; at least that's the way it used to be. I don't have time this morning to take a look at the lede. I have a project going on and have to travel a hundred miles daily. Will try when I have a chance, but I have little mental energy left at the end of the work day.;-) Carlstak (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have access to the WP Library... yet. One's account needs to be 6 months old with 500(?) edits to gain access. I'm almost there on the time gate.

I have also thought the RFC route not worth pursuing up to now. In my experience, RFCs need to start with a strong proposal to be of use - one that's clear, concise, and specific. I haven't seen one large, specific enough issue for an RFC to settle things; just a collection of (relatively) small content issues. I would participate in an RFC, but didn't want to start one myself for fear of failure and wasting editors' time. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Just getting back to this, sorry for the delay. I don't have any experience with RFC's but I'm open to it. I think that one of the underlying issues is that Drake is as much a legendary figure as a historical one. This has produced a biographical literature on Drake that tends to portray him positively, in the tradition of Great Man theory of history, which has not been taken into account when evaluating the merits of different sources—the emphasis that editors have placed on Sugden's portrayal is just one example of this. I believe this pattern is reflected throughout the article, although I focused on the lede. The whole article would benefit from sources that focus less narrowly on Drake and more on his role in the broader historical trends that he participated in, including the early English attempts to enter the slave trade. I've introduced a few sources on Drake's historiography and cultural significance, and will try to add more to the body of the article as we continue to figure out what to do with the lede. Ynizcw (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

As you add to the body of the article, take care to ensure the article as a whole doesn't skew away from WP:NPOV. Wikipedia articles aren't for righting great wrongs, such as the perceived positive bias with which many historical and scholarly works view Drake. The Wikipedia article about Sir Francis Drake should simply reflect what can be learned about him in the breadth of reliable sources. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. Could you please refrain from accusing me of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, @PhotogenicScientist, so that we can work productively toward resolution? It's quite unnecessary. I have described a positive bias in historical Drake scholarship that is well documented in reliable sources, and I am citing those sources as I argue for changes to correct it. You cite the section on WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, but it specifically notes that "If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles." I would ask that you start from the assumption that is exactly what I am trying to do, and that I am doing so in good faith.

And it's not just me that sees evidence of this bias in the article itself. If you look at the edit history, other editors have made a number of changes toward a more neutral point of view, and many of them involve removing unnecessarily exuberant language and excessive detail that doesn't belong in an encyclopedic reference. Ynizcw (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I never accused you of any sort of improper editing (though you haven't shown me the same courtesy in this discussion). I merely offered a caution against it. Which I don't believe was baseless, considering you've expressed repeatedly [3] [4] [5] [6] the view that certain contemporary sources should be given prominence in the article, either in placement or depth of text, without much regard to what many other sources say. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m right there with you on the RFC Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Good to see some responses here, if nothing else. I have a few minutes on my break (I'm on Spanish time, in America, after lunch and beers;-), so I wanted to say something that might be pertinent. People say that we shouldn't judge figures of the past by modern standards, but we can certainly judge them by the standards of the time. The article makes no mention of Sir William Monson, a contemporary, who says, for example: "And yet he must not go so clear without stain or blemish. For you must know that though he deserved well in the direction and carriage of his journey, yet the ground of his enterprise was unjust, wicked, and unlawful, his design being to steal, and thereby to disturb the peace of princes, to rob the poor traveller, to shed the blood of the innocent, and to make wives widows, and children fatherless."

I would also note that the article reads a bit Anglo-centric, and gives short shrift to Spanish scholarship, which has a good bit to say about the pirate Drake. I have more material that I've been collecting, and will add more this evening. Carlstak (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a neat source, and an interesting read from Monson - thanks for providing it. On the whole, the thesis of Monson's introduction there seems to be that Drake was a multi-faceted person; this being recognized even in his own time is interesting to see. Primarily, Monson seems intent on answering some of Drake's detractors, in ways he believes Drake is either absolved, or generally unworthy of reproach. But he distances himself from Drake's "friends and favorites" with qualifications such as the one you quoted. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

That would place nicely at the end of the slavery section after the sentence "...must still share some culpability for his participation" or in his early career, which is a little sparse since moving the slavery stuff out of it or even in a section of its own as a subset of early career. I have also noted that the article is anglo-centric. I agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Jenhawk777. I'm intending to incorporate this into the content I add to the article, but I'm a little out of kilter since I received a threatening letter from the state I live in this morning, based on false assertions. I have no idea what is going on, but that's how it is here now with Christian nationalist Viktor Orbán's buddy in charge. Carlstak (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Yikes! So sorry for your troubles. Hope everything works out well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Sic Parivs Magna Redirect

@Carlstak Sic Parvis Magna in contemporary times is highly associated with Uncharted and its protagonist. The blurb at the top of the section should be retained as such. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Knightoftheswords281. Be that as it may, a link to the Nathan Drake (Uncharted), about a supposed descendant of Sir Francis Drake who is the protagonist of the Uncharted franchise, "most notably in the video game series", is unencyclopedic and inappropriate; as I said, it tells us nothing about the actual subject of this article, which should be the very minimum standard for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Carlstak (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The segment I added was the Template:Redirect. Sic Parvis Magna redirects here, however, today, it is highly associated with his fictional descendant and his video game series. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's "associated with his fictional descendant and his video game series", but not with the subject of this article. That's why it shouldn't be here. Carlstak (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That's why it should be here though. It's specifically directed towards readers who may have typed in in expecting something relating to Nathan Drake or his games but were redirected to this article due to the redirect. That's the point of the Template:Redirect and Template:Redirect2, to point readers to articles they may have wanted to go but were redirected here instead. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea of redirecting "Sic Parvis Magna" to the 'Knighthood' section. However, I think the blurb should be kept simple, and doesn't need to mention the Uncharted game series at all, for the reasons Carlstak mentioned. Knight, having played the Uncharted series myself, I'm pretty sure anyone searching that term on Wikipedia knows that it's predominantly associated with Sir Francis Drake, and would not be too confused without seeing mention of the game series in the blurb. FWIW, there is a mention of Uncharted already in the article, down in the 'Cultural Impact' section. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, readers "who may have typed in expecting something relating to Nathan Drake or his games" should not be redirected to this article in the first place. I find it a bit strange, but I'm not going to die on this hill.;-) Carlstak (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent revisions

Ynizcw I'm very curious to learn how we come to know "Francis Drake the man" without also coming to grips with the "interpretations of historians." Interpretation is historiography; history is describing a set of facts as accurately and coherently as possible. This article seeks to present history. We do that by sticking to the facts that are directly relevant to Drake himself. It is on us to recognize the difference between fact and interpretation and not quote the latter as if it were the former. 

I note that one of the newspaper articles on the same topic as your recent edit opens with the sentence: Francis Drake was an historical figure, but he later became a symbol. That differentiation isn't in your edit. It is how people later used him to symbolize what they wanted that Richard White has written about. American historian Richard White asserts that these commemorations originated from nineteenth-century Anglo-Saxonism,. I'm sure that's true, but it isn't as if Drake had any say in that.

We can't know how Drake might have felt about any of it. There are no sources. We do know Drake could not have embraced Anglo-Saxonism as it was a 19th century invention. So all of this discussion of what happened later really has almost nothing to do with Drake himself. It's a discussion of what others have done in his name. That has only a very limited place in this article.

This whole discussion has centered around the weight that we should assign to different reliable sources written by professional historians. No it hasn't. This discussion has centered around disagreement over what constitutes point of view pushing. In writing about history, we do not assign weight, the scholars do that. We don't give more weight to one set of sources because they are modern or because we like them. The reliable sources should all be represented. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m content to agree to disagree on the neat division that you’re drawing between historical fact and interpretation. Getting back to the edits, could you please elaborate on your objection that my edit did not differentiate enough between Drake the man and Drake the symbol? That text is in the section entitled “Legacy” after all, and it is explicitly about Drake commemorations, which are by definition symbolic. I also don’t see how it’s relevant to bring up Drake’s hypothesized feelings about how his image has been used by subsequent generations. If we’re going to stay true to the historical record, and the record shows that his image was used variously for nationalist, imperialist, and colonial purposes, then this is part of his historical legacy whether or not he would have approved. And if the article devotes space to such trivialities as his appearance in a video game, then surely we can make room for this more consequential aspect of his legacy? Ynizcw (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

If you could indent it would make following a discussion easier.

1) I’m content to agree to disagree on the neat division that you’re drawing between historical fact and interpretation. The "neat division" isn't mine, and who you are disagreeing with isn't me. These are the definitions of scholars. On the web [7] it says History is the event or period and the study of it. Historiography is the study of how history was written, who wrote it, and what factors influenced how it was written. and on [8] The main difference between history and historiography is that when you study history, you study the events of the past, whereas when you study historiography, you study the changing interpretations of the past events in the works of individual historians. and on every other website and those University sites that have articles on it, that's what it will say.

What you want to discuss is historiography. This article is history.

2) What Richard White wrote is historiography. However, this article could contain a section titled historiography, and I would support you if you wanted to add that. It would have to include all of how Drake has been interpreted over time - and not just the modern view. You could write that, but you would have to be as neutral about the past interpretations as the modern ones, and so far, neutrality has been an issue.

3) could you please elaborate on your objection that my edit did not differentiate enough between Drake the man and Drake the symbol? That text is in the section entitled “Legacy” after all, and it is explicitly about Drake commemorations, which are by definition symbolic. I think the text needs a sentence telling the reader that Drake has been used as a symbol - and is being used as a symbol today by BLM. The fact those memorials are of ideas he may or may not have agreed with certainly seems significant in a discussion of this type, but I can see leaving that out as well. I won't die on that hill. I would include it if I were writing it just to be sure I was balanced. Drake as symbol is not currently included. Don't assume your readers know what you don't say.

4) To balance this text better, I would like to see a mention of controversy having surrounded Drake when he was alive and how that has continued into our modern day. Controversy is part of his legacy.

Terms like "shown" and "racist" are emotive terms that bias text, so I attempted to make those more neutral. I then moved the remaining examples into a note. The point was made. It didn't need the rest, and shorter is always better. I did not remove it completely anyway. I put it in a note so content could be balanced and less biased.

5) this is part of his historical legacy whether or not he would have approved. Absolutely true. I don't object to it being there. To demonstrate that, Please see the diff here: [9] I left the paragraph on "Public scrutiny ... Several California landmarks that commemorated Drake were removed or renamed." I agree it is part of his legacy. It's how you communicated that, and what was implied, and how the text communicates one pov as "right" - that's what I objected to. Even if we both agree on that "right", even if everyone agrees, that is not what WP is. If that's what you want to write, start a blog. It doesn't belong here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 Many thanks for this reply. In particular, the differentiation between history and historiography. You've put my feelings on this matter into words more eloquently than I found myself able to do. PhotogenicScientist (talk) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It didn't make any difference. However, the content isn't bad as it is. It's interesting and semi-relevant. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Au contraire, it absolutely makes a difference. Every comment made in discussion on the talk page shapes future discussion of article content.

To clarify, are you referring to the 'Legacy' section? If so, between these 2 versions (1 and 2), for the part that starts with "Several landmarks...", do you have a preference? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Please review my argument against the language in version 2 above.

Just a quick response to @Jenhawk777: I'm well aware of the distinction between history and historiography. The issue here is that they interact, and that is where that I think you are drawing too neat a division. But as I said earlier, I don't think it's productive to argue about this in the abstract; it's better to discuss concrete edits, since the context matters. And regarding edits, it sounds like we agree that a discussion of the different periods of Drake historiography would be appropriate to discuss in the Legacy section, so I will develop that, and I will make an effort to keep it concise and proportionate. Hopefully, once we have concrete text to discuss, we can revise it. In the meantime, I would ask that you avoid revising the paragraph beginning, "Several landmarks in northern California were named after Drake," and if there is something that you believe would be harmful not to change, then engage with me here before changing it.

PS: my responses are showing up indented in my browser, so they appear unindented to you and/or you know how I might make changes to enable indenting more reliably, please let me know. I prefer to use the Visual editor directly in the browser. Ynizcw (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I am indeed referring to the legacy section, and in response to your question on which version I prefer, I will go out on a limb and say, I don't really like either one. The first is too heavily point of view and out of proportion to the rest of the section in sheer amount, and the second version attempts to undercut a respected scholar by using weasel-words. [[10]]

My objections to the first version are listed above: Drake has been, and is being used by others, as a symbol, of ideologies he could not possibly have been associated with, himself, as they did not exist in his lifetime. I have no real doubt that R. White is right, and those monuments were put up to commemorate Anglo-Saxonism. Accepted. So what is my next question? To what degree does that actually qualify as part of Drake's legacy?

He could have had nothing to do with Anglo-Saxonism since it began in the nineteenth century - over 200 years after he was dead. Did he espouse some of A-S's original ideas in any writings or actions he took? No. This connection between Drake and white supremacy is heavily debated because it is based entirely on his limited involvement in Hawkins' slaving ventures. Those few years of peripheral and non-optional involvement are insufficient to carry the weight of such a claim all by themselves, and since Drake was never involved in slaving again, and since he demonstrated an egalitarianism uncommon to his time later in life, those who oppose connecting Drake to white supremacy do seem to have a leg to stand on.

The fact that there is disagreement over this, and why, is not presented in either text. Both sides are not presented. Only one view, from one scholar, is presented - or undermined - in both versions.

Both versions are too much and not enough. It introduces one side of a topic it fails to fully discuss; the extended discussion of contemporary views of white supremacy are too long - compare the length of that discussion to the rest of the section - it is twice as long as anything else mentioned; and it is probably off topic anyway, since it is not a direct legacy of Drake's, but is instead a sort of "once removed" legacy of those who have used him for their own ends.

I don't like either of them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, @Jenhawk777. I'm glad you are willing to accept that Drake commemoration has historical connections to Anglo-Saxonism, since that hadn't been clear to me. If that's the case, then, I don't quite understand why you resist discussing this topic as part of Drake's legacy. If we understand "legacy" to mean "a long-lasting effect of an event or process [OED definition 5b]," then part of his legacy includes the heroic stories about him and the cultural significance of these stories, from the time when he was alive through the present day. In that sense, I would not agree that Drake "could have nothing to do with Anglo-Saxonism," because clearly I think he does—not because he espoused the ideology (which as you say, didn't exist at the time), but because he became a symbol of it, as Britons like Charles Kingsley adapted his stories to promote their vision of Anglo-Saxon superiority and as Anglo-Americans adapted them to justify their presence in California. And since Anglo-Saxonism is a form of white supremacy, Drake is also connected to white supremacy in the same way. I really don't think that this connection is controversial at all among historians (and could provide sources if you like), so I would say that those who oppose connecting Drake to white supremacy are just confused about the nature of the connection. If your point is that the article needs to clarify this to avoid confusion, then I would be interested to know how you think that could be done. But I really don't think that it is useful to frame this as a debate between those who think a connection exists and those who do not, where we have an obligation to present "both sides." Ynizcw (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Ynizcw Okay let me see if I can explain better. We all know and agree, I hope, that America was populated by whites through settler colonialism. The government lied and stole and fought and killed to take the land. Then, as time passed, people adopted the American Indian as a symbol of a 'brave warrior', who never gave up, as mascots for our football teams. This is not a symbolism the native people like, agree with, approve of, or were consulted about. It is damaging to them, and not representative of their culture. For them, it is a negative symbolism. Is it part of their legacy? Not directly. It's part of America's. It's an American cultural response demonstrating the ongoing problem of racism, and it is only theirs because they are Americans, for better and worse, whose culture is still being misrepresented. Laying that misrepresentation at the feet of the native Americans themselves because he became a symbol of it would be another injustice.

Drake has been used in a similar manner to represent ideas that came after him. Those ideas possibly, maybe probably, represent a distortion of him. The text, as it sits, opens the door for that whole discussion that Hu Nhu suggested a month ago about Drake's later dealings with slaves and slavery that demonstrate the opposite of white supremacy on his part.

Have scholars demonstrated agreement that Drake personally supported the idea of white supremacy? Is there a consensus/majority view? No, and for anyone to claim scholars agree on that point is simply false. But I really don't think that it is useful to frame this as a debate between those who think a connection exists and those who do not, where we have an obligation to present "both sides." But we do have that obligation. If this historiography is to be left in the text as it sits, we must in fact include all the scholarly views on it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Jenhawk777, I think we're getting somewhere with this. I take your point that it is more accurate to say that 19th-century cultural references to Drake are more a legacy of Anglo-Saxonism than Anglo-Saxonism is a legacy of Drake, so as I move forward with this section I will try to make this distinction more clearly. That said, I think we agree that such commemorations are part of Drake's legacy, too, and in fact they were listed, devoid of their Anglo-Saxonist historical context, in earlier versions of the article. My goal is to put these artifacts into their proper context, and my sense is that we agree that that would be valuable, also, although we may disagree about how much is appropriate—I'd prefer to leave that for a later time.

Before I put time into that, though, I'd like to clear up what seems to be an ongoing misunderstanding. There is definitely a consensus/majority view about whether Drake personally supported the idea of white supremacy: he did not, and it is nonsensical to suggest that he could have. Drake died in the 16th century and white supremacy developed in the 17th century. (I see now that the Wikipedia article on the history of white supremacy is not very good, and suffers from both recency bias and an a neglect of its influence in the British Empire. It hardly mentions the all-important developments of the 19th century.) Drake's role in white supremacy is entirely symbolic. And to go back to the previous point, it is impossible to present his current legacy accurately without discussing this symbolic function.

I hope we can agree on this point, and that it is worth clarifying in the article. Ynizcw (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 regarding "asserted" as a weasel-word, see my reply to Ynizcw above. In a nutshell, since I wasn't able to find any historical scholars besides White that support that finding, I think it's best to qualify the idea as belonging to White. I'm not super familiar with using historical or scholarly sources specifically... but some of the P&Gs I can think of that recommend this type of approach are WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:INTEXT, and WP:WEIGHT. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I have in fact read every word of all the discussion from the beginning, and I do agree with what you said in that particular Dif. But the text does in fact attribute the "finding" to Richard White. It mentions no others, as if there are no other views, and therein lies the problem imo. See above reply to Ynizcw Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You pose a good question above, about the mention of Anglo-saxonism in the 'Legacy' section. I don't immediately know the right answer, but I think looking at other Wikipedia articles on historical figures can help. First, I noticed that of these articles, where they discuss events or discussions that happened after the person's death, some name these sections 'Legacy' while some are more like 'In popular culture'. The former I think implies a higher level of scrutiny and discussion taking place among reliable sources (like for high-profile figures such as Alexander Hamilton and Christopher Columbus). The latter is often used as a catch-all section for anything that happened after their death related to them (like for Hernán Cortés). With that in mind, I think it may be appropriate to keep a mention of White's analysis in Drake's 'Legacy' section, as it relates to the renaming of Drake's monuments/places in California.

Also, to look at the 'Legacy' sections of some others who were swept up in this wave of monument-renaming (Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Leopold II of Belgium), these sections do include mentions of this particular contemporary focus. Whether or not these sections place WP:DUE emphasis on this, I won't get into... but they do get mention. So on those grounds as well, I think White's finding might not be worth excluding.

Feel free to disagree with any of this - I just wanted to get my thoughts on the matter out there. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This is tremendously helpful. Then we all agree that White and modern scrutiny has a place in the legacy section. So all we need to work out now is to what degree? "Is the current edit too much compared to other content in that section?", and "Does leaving this edit as is necessitate balancing it with additional scholars?" If the answer to the first question is yes, then it can be cut - some - and the answer to the second question can be no; but if the answer to the first question is no, then I think the answer to the second one must be yes. What are your views? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Is the current edit too much compared to other content in that section? Yes, by a bit. It goes too far into what Anglo-saxonism is, and the presence of 3 citations on Anglo-saxonism (none of which even mention Drake) draws undue attention. And I still think we should attribute the link to Anglo-saxonism to White by using "asserted" or a similar word.

At which point: Does leaving this edit as is necessitate balancing it with additional scholars? I don't think this would be needed. One paragraph in the 'Legacy' section about the California renamings should be fine. White's idea that sources were originally named by Anglo-saxonists is but a part of that paragraph. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see my earlier response to @Jenhawk777 about clarifying the relationship between symbolic Drake and historical Drake, and about the relationship between symbolic Drake and white supremacy.

The Wikipedia article on Christopher Columbus has an entire section on commemoration that covers very similar ground to what I have been advocating for Drake. Junípero Serra also has a Legacy section with an extended discussion of his commemoration controversies. Both are figures in history who are also important as symbols. I'm sure there are others.

The references that I added don't refer to Drake because they are not about Drake, they are about Anglo-Saxonism and genocide, which I understood @Jenhawk777 thought was necessary to contextualize with references. The reference to White's work already made the connection between Drake and Anglo-Saxonism. The purpose of the additional references was to clarify it.

White is not the only historian who has discussed the influence of 19th-century ideology on Drake's modern-day representation, and I have referred to a few others over the course of this discussion. Wathen's book focuses explicitly on the historical evolution of Drake's cultural significance and has plenty of references. You might want to look at it before discounting White's views as out of the mainstream because you couldn't find evidence of it in a Google search. White has presented a mainstream idea—that commemorative practices and historical narratives reflect the ideology of those doing the commemorating and narrating—using Drake as a specific example. He is an expert on the history of the American West, and one of his areas of interest is the role of myth and ideology in shaping history. It is standing the argument from ignorance on its head to suggest that White's historical analysis can not be considered mainstream unless and until there are other references that specifically link Drake to Anglo-Saxonism. Ynizcw (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ynizcw and PhotogenicScientist This has created a problem for me as I find myself agreeing with both of you.

First, Ynizcw, I support pretty much every word of your suggestion in this Dif - [[11]]. I find it insightful, it makes important points, and it's more factual and less historiography. My complaint from the start was that Drake as symbol was not sufficiently explained, but modifying the text with this approach, it will be. I completely 100% agree with this approach. Brilliant. Thank you.

Second - only because that's the order here - PhotogenicScientist, I asked these questions and you answered: [[12]], and I also agree with you. Your reaction was my first reaction as well, and what you suggest is exactly how I originally edited the section down, (so obviously that makes you brilliant imo too).

Now, because of Ynizcw's additional suggestion, there is a third alternative, and it looks like the best choice. Please read what he suggests. It would make the concern over White and "assertion" moot, it would include the modern perspective, but from a more factual and less historiographical basis, and could be a truly valuable addition to the article. Let's start a new thread specifically discussing this. What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks. Ynizcw (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Goodness glad that's sorted thanks and apologies. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Finding sources with ChatGPT

Most of my time working on WP articles is spent finding sources and reading the pertinent passages or chapters. I experimented using the chatbot ChatGPT to find some Spanish sources for this article; it gave several suggestions, but strangely, none of the articles suggested seem to exist, even though the journals they supposedly appear in do exist. Was wondering if anyone else has tried using ChatGPT for a similar purpose. Carlstak (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a known problem with large language models: they invent nonexistent references and present them without qualification of any kind. Recently I saw a good explanation of how and why this is a problem, so I’ll look for it and report back if I find it. Ynizcw (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Ynizcw. I would be very interested to read it. I even tried translating the given Spanish article names into English, and searched for those, with no results. Also, some of the given author names were the names of actual scholars, others appeared not to be. Carlstak (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Found it:

https://twitter.com/dsmerdon/status/1618816703923912704

It’s a Twitter thread by an economist, not a computer scientist involved in AI. It focuses on a fake economics reference, where his domain expertise provides insight into the choices that ChatGPT makes when responding to this kind of request. Ynizcw (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Aha. That thread is fascinating, and it really explains the phenomenon as I experienced it. Thank you very much, Ynizcw. Even before I read this, I had come to the conclusion that I could probably get non-fake results with better-targeted prompts, but I was too busy making some real Cajun jambalaya that looks just like the picture, except my shrimp are not over-cooked like those.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC))