Wikipedia:Peer review/William Wilberforce/archive1

William Wilberforce

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA and there are active and capable editors who wish to take the article to FA.

Thanks, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• lead - picky, but perhaps 'take on the cause of abolition." Just saying "take on the cause." seems a bit unencyclopedic and perhaps a bit POV. It's very picky though. done
• Don't we usually use just the last name after the first usage of the full name? You have a couple of William WIlberforces at the start of the Early Life section.done, though I have left the first
• Early life, second paragraph, sentence starting "Wilberforce profited from the innovative and supportive..." is it his father not this? I suppose it might be referring to the headmaster but you say he became a life-long friend.. Also, did the father die at age eight? Or was Wilberforce 8 when the father died? as written seems to say the father was eight.done
• I take it that Wilberforce's family was Anglican, thus the opposition to Methodist headmasters? fixed
• First paragraph, second sentence of Early parliamentary career seems very cumbersome to me. Perhaps reword? fixed
• You do 1779-80 once and then later 1781-1784. Not sure what MOS says on that, but probably should be consistent, either shorten or not shorten the second date.
• You mention political upheaval of 1781-1784, but what was it about? Remember, some of us still live in the middle ages... fixed
• First sentence of Early Parliamentary action is very long and windy. Consider breaking it up some? 'fixed
• War with France section, the sentence starting "Later the same year, and again in 1794..." seems awkward to me. I think it's the placement of the instead, perhaps consider rewording? 'fixed
• You might consider moving the the marriage and family section up higher in the article, it is a bit of an afterthought after the abolition issues. Given that he married in 1797, it makes more sense to me up near the Conversion section.
• You may need to link to suttee. Not everyone is going to know what that means. (Evangelical Christianity section, last paragraph) done
• Current ref 95 (BBC Radio 4 in our time) is lacking PUblisher information. (MIght as well get it in now before FAC) fixed
• Ref 119 ("For a definitive copy of the act...) has a bare link in it. You probably should format it pretty like with a piped title. done

I'm not a copyeditor, so don't take it as copyedited for wordiness or stuff like that. Looks pretty good though, expect to see it at FAC soon.

Thanks very much for all your suggestions and help. It really is great to get some new eyes on these things! Slp1 (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your suggestions and advice. Much appreciated. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Qp10qp (talk · contribs)

Congratulations to the main editors on all their hard work and research. This is a thorough and well-referenced article with the potential, in my opinion, to become an FA. The prose is rather loose in places, I feel (not concise enough). Rather than say too much about that, I will try a copyedit, hopefully this weekend. I also felt that the organisation was not entirely logical in places.

Some queries and observations:

• ''A close friend of Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger, in 1785 he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian. Do the two parts of the sentence go together?

Nope, no connection! fixed

• I'm not a fan of infoboxes, but even when we have them, I'd say that they don't need surplus detail, like this stuff about his different tenures and partners as an MP. To me, it's information for the sake of it and not very professional-looking.

I agree, it is horribly long and tedious. How does one find out what is required, I wonder?

Nothing is required at all. Some projects or template enthusiasts go round trying to make everything consistent, but they have no authority. I always ask myself: what does one see in history books or in other encyclopedias? To my knowledge, none ever have such clodhopping trivial detail emblazoned at the top of their articles or pages.

cut down to a better size, I believe--Slp1 (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• What's an "Evangelical Christian", in this context?

I'm not exactly sure whether this is a question for here or to be expanded in the article: this seems to refer to the lead so I have made a few additions, but I can't imagine you are hoping for that much explanation there, are you? --Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I sensed a need for more precision in the lead about his role in the aboliton of the slave trade and slavery. It seems to me that he was the parliamentary leader of a wider movement that led to the abolition of the British slave trade in 1807. I don't think that should be conflated with the abolition of slavery which started in 1833 (it wasn't a one-shot success just before he died). I don't think he can be called the leader in this second abolition, though, of course, he was a supporter.

I have tried to clear this up at bit.--Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• between 1767 and 1768. I'm not sure if more or less precision is needed here, but this seems an odd way of putting it to me.

done --Slp1 (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• sister of John Thornton. I think we should add a phrase of explanation for people like him and not depend on the reader to check the link.

done --Slp1 (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• ''somewhat hedonistic. Can one be somewhat hedonistic?

nope, fixed

• enjoying playing cards, gambling and late-night drinking sessions – although he refrained from doing so to excess. But if they were late-night sessions, then they were excessive by definition. More precision is needed, I sense.

it seems a bit superfluous given the following sentence, so clipped --Slp1 (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• the Prince of Wales reportedly said that he would go anywhere to hear Wilberforce sing. What does "reportedly" mean here? Does your source elaborate? If so, I think it should go in the text.

Hochschild doesn't elaborate and says reportedly himself. I will check into it further though

I tend not to follow secondary sources when they do that. I like to be able to see the source in their notes. It might be a diarist who reported this, it might be a much later historian, it might be a tradition. qp10qp (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no source in the notes, but here is probably the origin of the story (in print at least!)[1]. The sons report that somebody told WW that this is what the POW said! Will try to attribute as clearly as possible. --Slp1 (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

done --Slp1 (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wilberforce also used his mesmerizing speaking voice in political speeches. I think the trouble here and in the last point above is that the article is not mediating the source enough. We need to avoid any hint that we are approving of Wilberforce ourselves. So, if we want to say that his voice was mesmerizing, we should quote or paraphrase the source, or, preferably, the source quoting or paraphrasing the primary source. ("Sir John Jones recorded in his diary that he had never heard such a mesmerizing speaking voice as Wilberforce's", or whatever). It is the same with "he managed to pass his examinations due to his quick brain and high intellect" and "he was an excellent mimic and singer".

Good points. Will work on this.Slp1 (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

done --Slp1 (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• The couple were devoted to each other, and though Barbara showed little interest in Wilberforce's political activities and tended to narrow-minded possessiveness, she was very attentive and supportive in his increasing ill-health. Here again, I think we should be mindful of the difference between the needs of an encyclopedia article and the sort of thing one finds in biographies. Here, we are showing bias against this woman. The fact is that he loved her and that the marriage was a success: unlike biographers, we don't need to make a value judgement.

I've changed it a bit, removing the possessive. I do think it is important for a full picture of WW and his household/home life to include that she wasn't terribly interested in his political goings on.--Slp1 (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• a compromise Pittite candidate in the 1784 General Election. Was he still an independent, or had he become a Tory?

Good question. He was never a Tory, but he was seen as a Pitt supporter at that election and voted for as such, but it seems that we have already established that he was an independent Pitt supporter in the paragraph so it doesn't need repeating specifically. Slp1 (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• urging others towards his new faith but never imposing it. How would you impose faith anyway?

"Impose" is the verb Hague uses, so maybe we should ask him! By not forcing it on people I suppose

I've reworded this to "tactfully urging others towards his new faith". I shudder at the idea of William Hague as a writer, but still. (I note you don't link Hague, by the way.) qp10qp (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I shared your surprise. But it got good reviews e.g.[2] [3] and there were certainly helpers involved who get credited! Links now done for Hague and Hochschild--Slp1 (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• a letter from Sir Charles Middleton which was to re-ignite his interest in the subject of the slave trade. It hasn't been clear when it was first ignited or became de-ignited, as far as I can see.

How about 'renewed' instead? I agree igniting is a bit much.Slp1 (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• For me, the article is lacking in scope about non-parliamentary activism on anti-slavery. What had the Quakers been doing? What were the Testonites doing between 1783 and 1787 (we hear that Wilberforce met Ramsay in 1783 and then we jump forward. In fact, the article doesn't explain the significance of the meeting with Ramsay—presumably he awakened Wilberforce about the slave trade).

We got critiqued earlier for having too much tangential information about abolition that had little or nothing to do with Wilberforce and deleted a bunch of things as result. It is a biography of Wilberforce, so I do think we shouldn't stray too far from the subject. Are what the Testonites and Quakers were up to that relevant, given that this is not a history of the abolition of slavery?

Very much so. The article tells us of a meeting between Ramsay, the vicar of Teston (was he that yet?), and Wilberforce in 1783, but we are not told of the significance of that in relation to the Testonites, who are mentioned in 1786. In my opinion the article should place Wilberforce's speeches in the context of the abolition movement as a whole. This is not about straying, since one can make sure that only aspects of the abolition movement that related to Wilberforce are mentioned at any point. The article at the moment sometimes makes it seem as if Wilberforce was the key figure; but he was in effect a figurehead of the movement, its parliamentary spokesman. (Or one of them, because others spoke in the house, including on behalf of the Quakers.) I agree that this is not a history of the abolition of slavery, but it uses key moments from that history as markers for Wilberforce's achievements. qp10qp (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Still working on this --Slp1 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And I have done my best to respond to this now.--Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Apart from this information about Ramsay, the article gives us little context from the slave trade and colonies themselves. How was slaving practised at this time? What were the economic factors that sustained it? Was there unrest in the plantations? (I always think it is wrong for groups of white folks to get all the credit for abolishing slavery, when the slaves themselves often challenged the system or escaped to the hills.) Even in England, there was protest against slavery from Equiano; and however dubious some aspects of his book, its publication must have been important in fuelling the movement. It would be good also, for context, to hear about anti-slavery movements in other countries, such as France and the northern US states. Wilberforce's achievements should be put in perspective. Criticism of him does appear later in the article, but this early part does seem to follow the sanctified view of him as a Christian hero—the knoll under "Wilberforce's Oak", and all that.

As above, I take your point, but how far should we go into this in a bio of William?

A politician reflects the issues of the moment and is not simply a general theorist. So what events inluenced the key moments and changes in Wilberforce's abolitionist career? A politician depends on briefs; who was briefing Wilberforce? How did his strategies adapt or change during such a long campaign? etc. I would say that this sort of information is germane to his career. 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Still working on this --Slp1 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Have done what I can here, too.--Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• ''had become convinced of the need to end the slave trade after writing an essay on the subject. Was this a public essay or something Clarkson had written in private

It was a prize-winning essay written at Cambridge that was then modified and published. Have added some information on this

• They formed in an informal community, characterized by considerable intimacy. Some detail about this group would be interesting here. What is meant by "intimacy"?

Tried to do this--Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• It was only when the article said that he moved his family from Clapham that I realised he had lived there. The earlier hint of that was rather weak and might need reinforcing, perhaps.

Done Slp1 (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to have a short extract or two from his speeches given in the text, so that the reader can gain a sense of his oratorical impact?

I think this would be a good idea, though I note that there are no official records of his speeches, and according to this [4] the records that there are (from newspapers) "in many cases altered what they had heard to serve their own political agenda". It makes me a bit anxious about including speeches verbatim, though I note lots of the bio quote bits of his speeches as if they were accurate. Do you have any opinion about this? --Slp1 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it might be possible to give a flavour, so long as you make clear any reservations about the source. If you think it won't work, please ignore my suggestion. qp10qp (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Added a text box with a quote that seems reliable.--Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• One month later, Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act which gave most enslaved people in the British Empire their freedom. I sense unfinished business here. Only "most"? Perhaps later bills should be mentioned, to round off the campaign's success. By this time, was Wilberforce supporting the Whigs? I doubt it; but they deserve credit, since they grasped the nettle after years of Tory prevaricating from Pitt and ever-more-mediocre successors.

Have expanded on this: also making clear, I hope, that he really was an independent, and tended to collaborate with whoever was in power as long as he could pursue his causes --Slp1 (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• ''Wilberforce was an indulgent and adoring father who revelled in his time at home and at play. Does this mean playing with the children (or did he still go out on the cards)?

Has always stuck out for me too... finally fixed!

• Those prosecuted included brothel keepers, distributors of pornography or seditious material, and those who did not respect the Sabbath. For me, there's an odd one out here, in a section titled "Moral reform". Surely, the political and social reform section is the place for this. What sort of "seditious material"? (It would help to explain Wilberforce's politics.) Did Wilberforce regard Paine as seditious? Shame if he did, because Paine was a fellow abolitionist.

Too true. Seditious removed. But he didn't like Paine... too much of a radical for WW. Revolution, not a good thing.

Fair enough. But I'm still not clear where Wilberforce was coming from. What was the philosophical or religious basis upon which he opposed slavery? Clearly it was not the equality of man. qp10qp (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a earlier summary section on how his conversion affected his politics/world view overall would be a great idea. I will work on it soon. Thanks for the suggestion.--Slp1 (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Done my best on this too.--Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wilberforce was also keenly involved in other societies, including anti-slavery societies, which had no punitive functions; these were more successful, his inspiration encouraging others to show leadership in the reformation of British morals, as well as social responsibility and resistance to secularisation. These societies were innovative in that they brought different social groups together for a common purpose, pioneering the substantial involvement of women in such activities as well as grassroots extra-parliamentary campaigning. Without examples, I found this paragraph a little vague and windy.

::too true, and not very interesting either. Since I wrote it, I can delete it without a care! --Slp1 (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• The material becomes rather scattered in the later part of the article. We find more abolition material that is cut off from the long narrative of the abolition movement. The Sierra Leone section seems to me misplaced: is it not part of the abolitionist narrative? And as a reader I found that I had to start joining things together from different parts of the article. For example, we heard earlier on that Wilberforce opposed workers' right to organise for better working conditions and later that he advocated legislation to improve their working conditions: these points might go better together, with some commentary on the issue of combination. I'm not much wiser about Wilberforce's political thinking, which comes over as incoherent (which I'm sure it wasn't).

::Good point. Have moved things about a bit to satisfy this I hope. --Slp1 (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• in a year of food shortages gave to charity more than his own yearly income. Was this his MP's wages, or did he still have a private income through inherited wealth?

Yes, total income, inherited money as well. Can you suggest a way of phrasing this so that it would include the information you think relevant? --Slp1 (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just that I instinctively did not believe it. But if your sources say so ... qp10qp (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• his focus on morality and the belief that human nature could be reformed by religion influenced social thought and legislation, particularly the treatment of criminals and the disadvantaged. The claims here seem too large to me; he may have influenced legislation on this, but surely the belief that human nature could be reformed by religion was a commonplace.

• His emphasis on charitable works and the role of voluntary societies also laid the groundwork for concepts of social responsibility and action in the Victorian era. Again, this is a large claim. It almost makes it seem that he did this singlehandedly, but there were widespread political and religious movements to this effect.

• For me, the legacy section is too long and windy and repeats material from earlier in the article. Wilberforce's legacy comes through in the article already. As it is not an essay, the page doesn't need a recapitulatory conclusion, as such.

I agree. Deleted in part --Slp1 (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wilberforce University, located in Wilberforce, Ohio, United States, is named after William Wilberforce. Well, so's the town, surely.

Done --Slp1 (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article, despite the fact that instead of hero worshipping Wilberforce, I always feel restrospective disappointment that these campaigns took so long and that slavery was finally abolished so late. This is a very important article, and I am so pleased that the editors have chosen to improve it. qp10qp (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all these wonderful questions and suggestions. I really appreciate your thoughts and help. I will start work on answers and changes asap but just at the moment my ironing awaits. <sigh> --Slp1 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)