Talk:Elihu Yale

Untitled

Note that Alexandra Robbins' book is called Secrets of the Tomb, not Secrets of the Tombs.... It's singular because it is one building. Still, if you insist on tombs, it's not worth an edit war. -- Someone else 06:40 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

I see there's been a brief edit war over whether or not the Bones building is called the tomb or the tombs. I can't speak for what it used to be called, but at least when I was at Yale, not too long ago, it was quite certainly the tomb. Like Someone Else, I don't want to start an edit war either, but I will go ahead and change it now. Remes 01:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wives

Mention should be made of his wives and companions, and his children. Catherine Hynmer and their 4 children, Hieronima(sp?) de Paiva and their son David, and perhaps others who were rumoured... and also of his children. +sj + 08:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any decent text bio will suffice to improve on this; but see also a few online bits.

Slave Trader Disruptive Editing

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

The source in the article says that "[a]lthough he probably did not own any of these people – the majority were held as the property of the East India Company – he certainly profited both directly and indirectly from their sale." That's not what the vast majority of people mean by "slave trader." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycbusiness86 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The source being used for this claim - and others - was written by Joseph Yannielli described on the source's own website as "“Digital History at Yale” was originally established by Joseph Yannielli in 2009, in his capacity as Instructional Innovation Intern for the Department of History." There is no reason to doubt the factual accuracy of Yannielli's claims - but an intern is hardly the ultimate authority on Yale. Only if the balance of sources use the term, should it be used - otherwise attributed and give due WEIGHT.

I agree that 'slave trader' is being used because it sounds bad rather than because it is the most accurate, widely used or informative term. "Arms dealer" sounds worse than "investor/manager of a company supplying equipment to government(s)", but they often amount to the same thing morally, except one sounds sleazy and morally culpable, the other doesn't. Elihu Yale, profited from the slave trade, the uncomfortable truth is that so did almost everyone, except the slaves themselves, including the people of Europe who got cheap sugar etc as a result, and the white people of America who established a profitable functioning economy, and democratic society, built substantially on the labour of people wholly excluded from the economic benefits or democratic institutions.

I think the role of Yale, and the source of his wealth deserve coverage, but present text is skewed towards giving undue emphasis to 'slavery' in the light of recent events - that isn't our job IMO regardless of modern sensibilities about the injustice of slavery. Pincrete (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Pincrete, I've seen that you've commented on Elihu Yale's talk page before about the "slave trader" term, and there is an open dispute about this term here on the talk page, and on the resolution board here at : Elihu Yale Dispute Resolution. Is it possible to have your opinion on the matter as there are not many participants in the discussion. Academia45 (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nycbusiness86, I've seen that you've commented on Elihu Yale's talk page before about the "slave trader" term, and there is an open dispute about this term here on the talk page. Will be great to have more participants in the discussions and at the open dispute about it here at Elihu Yale Dispute Resolution. Academia45 (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the idea that historic figures who didn't live by our modern values can easily end up with skewed -demonising- WP accounts, but in this instance I'm reluctant to get involved with a DRN process. Crudely though, AFAI can see, Yale isn't ordinarily called a slave-trader (it was one of many things he did rather than the main thing he was) and the coverage should be proportionate to that in best historical sources, rather than opinion and advocacy pieces.

On a purely personal level, I've always simply assumed that 'benefactors' have acquired the wealth that they dispense by ruthless acquisitiveness - Wolsey, Henry VIII, Yale, Carnegie, Rhodes, Getty and Gates etc etc etc were/are proof that fame, massive wealth and moral purity aren't necessarily obvious bed-fellows. Those who think they should be are somewhat naive IMO, they are buying into the moral simplicitude that they affect to reject. Shock, horror, the wealthiest people in any age aren't always the nicest! People acquire wealth and power according to the rules and values of their time - and everybody in the West benefitted from the slave trade to the Americas, (if only by cheaper sugar and cotton and stimulation of Western economies), so it's also naive to demonise those facilitating the trade. Recording the modern debate is apt though IMO. Pincrete (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Pincrete, thank you for your feedback! I was thinking of the same thing basically. Feel free to edit the overall page. I will keep working at preventing abuses on this page. Academia45 (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

spelling

Second sentence:

"he benefitted from the slave trade"

read:

benefited

Dispute resolution

The subject of Elihu Yale's links to slavery is under discussion here, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Elihu Yale. Any interested parties are invited to contribute. KJP1 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I replied to some of your sources above, as there was way too much. I hope it will help with the discussion. Academia45 (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"as there was way too much"...evidence from the sources against the position you're advocating? Well, we are agreed on that. KJP1 (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1 No, I could refute all the references you added but I don't have to. I've already shown that your statements are not undisputed but contested, yet you keep adding sources to push a point of view, aka Wikipedia:Advocacy, which is not what wikipedia is for. Besides, I will repeat my self again from what I've written on the Dispute Resolution page :

The overall page has a major problem which is is the constant mix of sources that are not independent from the subject, aka WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:COI, and the constant "fights" of Yale University related people toward adding "slave trader" to its lead. The sources relating to the slave trading stuff is almost always from Yale University, Yale University Press, Yale students, Yale University professors, Yale departments, Yale Daily News, etc. The dispute here is just one of many that I've seen on the page's history with editors fighting against each other to add and remove the slave trader term. It is what I would desbribe as a battle of idealogies, not of encyclopedic terms. The man, Elihu Yale, was a colonial governor at a time when slavery was a global institution under the British Empire, working for the British East India Company. He had per example 400 personal body guards at Madras Palace, and the control of the Madras Army (47,000 soldiers in 1847). He also ruled as President of Madras, about 1/4 of the overall territory of India. See Madras Presidency Map. The activites in relation to slavery were part of his job as governor, not his role in the company, just as Julius Caesar, who traded probably the most slaves in history, Source Here, is not qualified as a slave trader by historians or on wikipedia, simply as a Roman Emperor. All Roman Emperors were slave traders, and all aristocratic Roman families were slave owners, yet there are not qualified as such by historians, and certaintly not in their lead on Wikipedia. There is a constant push toward adding "slave trader" next to the guy's page, which is simply not based on historical terms but on modern conflicts between Yale University related people. The last source added from David W. Blight, well, the man himself is an employee at Yale, hired by its president to "work" on their PR Campaign in relation to the George Floyd protests and the naming of monuments and institutions, etc, even with a timeline "that" was somewhat controlled.

• 1) Now about the lead, my conflict here is the push to add slave trader to it. I am in complete disagreement with that term as this is not what he was in historical term, but how he is portrayed by Yale University related people and sensational news articles. A more historical term to add to his lead could be that he was among the largest diamond merchant in the world at the time, which was the basis of his fortune. He also waged his private wars, did diplomacy with Sultans and Emperors, dealt in spices to a very large extent, etc. Slavery was a side effect of the role of a colonial governor, there is nothing special or different from him and other governors during this colonial era. What is different here is that he is related as a namesake to an institution. Therefore, I am asking for WP:NPOV, which means simply treating his wikipage as any other colonial governors page.
• 2)I don't mind that things around slavery be added to the Yale University section of the article, as long as it doesn't get out of proportion, as it seems already. I suggest they go write their Yale University stuff to Yale University page rather.
• 3)Other issues, well, to solve the problem definitely on the guy's page as it keeps repeating it self among editors, I am suggesting the removal of all Yale University related sources from the page to start to clean it up, starting with Blight, Yale employees, Yale students, Yale statements, Yale News, research, departments, Yale University Press, etc, and allocate to the Yale University page what belongs there. By having it all removed, maybe we could restart this page with a foundation based on neutral sources, independent of the subject and of Yale University current conflicts that doesn't concern wikipedia. As an example, the House of Windsor page is clean and independent from all current news on the British royal family, as editors constantly remove them. See the page history.

Academia45 (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC) Academia45 (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Update

Following the DRN, I have made updates to the article. The principal aims are:

• To ensure that the lead reflects the content of the body, per MoS;
• To reflect the most up-to-date scholarship;
• To give a chronological narrative - the previous version was very back-and-forth in relation to Yale's years in India;
• To properly reflect his involvement in the slave trade.

I think there is more to do;

• The cites are frequently a mess;
• The Ancestry section appears to me to be Undue; largely irrelevant, Yale is not mentioned once; and poorly sourced to a bunch of 19th century genealogical histories, of questionable reliability. This point has been made previously on the Talkpage. I think it would sit better, if anywhere, in a Yale Family page.

Very happy to discuss any issues here. KJP1 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Academia45 - If you continue to remove relevant. sourced and cited material based on your misunderstanding of Neutral and Independent sourcing, it will be necessary to take the matter further. KJP1 (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @KJP1. May I ask why you reverted all my past edits today ? and why you a threatening me to take the matter further ? Some of the material you added recently was biased and I corrected the informations. If you disagree, let's debate then as we should. After the lack of communication during the past Dispute Resolution Board, I've simply disengaged as stated in the WP:DR when two users cannot agree. It is not because you added content recently that this is now the "final" truth about the topic, and that other editors cannot modify or change what you have written. Academia45 (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Academia45 - Certainly. You are removing relevant, sourced, and cited information and you have no basis in policy to do this. If you revert again, you will be edit-warring at three reverts and that is a conduct, not a content, matter. KJP1 (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Academia45 - For a long time you have sought to sanitise this article, by over-emphasising Yale's aristocratic relations and his supposed pedigree while seriously underemphasising his involvement on the slave trade. To do this you are removing relevant, sourced and cited material. You have no policy basis to do so, as you misunderstand both NPOV and Independent Sources. I shall again re-instate this material, and remain very willing to discuss it. But if you again just remove it, I shall take the matter to the ANI Edit-warring board. KJP1 (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Making an effort to understand your perspective, can you set out your rationale for not including the image, Elihu Yale with Members of his Family and an Enslaved Child and discussion of it, yet including a detailed section on his ancestry, sourced to very out-dated works, which doesn't mention him once? It seems to me that the portrait, and 21st century discussion of it, are both very relevant to Yale the man, as well as to his heritage as a contributor to Yale University. KJP1 (talk)

The painting looks quite reasonable where it is atm, IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)