Talk:Dido Elizabeth Belle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Question

This is remarkably similar to our aricle. Which came first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RetiredUser2 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

Another potential source at the BBC. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have some internal errors - Did Dido leave at the age of 20 (when she was married) or when after thirty years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh Petrie (talk • contribs) 11:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dido (Queen of Carthage)

It was the custom in the 18th an 19th centuries name African slaves after people in antiquity, thus Dido (Queen of Carthage) might have been the name chosen for Belle.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Some contradictions and points of confusion:

The article mentions that she died in 1804, this was also the date given for her spouse's death, yet in the section marked later life it says she was survived by her husband who remarried and had 2 other children. which is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.172.125 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph never says that her mother was known only as "Belle". Apart from the one reference to "Maria Belle", the name "Belle" is used to refer to Dido. The reference to how she would have been treated outside of Britain merely indicates how precarious her position was (slave / aristocrat). After all, she was born out of Britain. The dates 1793-1804 next to her husband's name in the infobox record the period of the marriage, not his lifespan (he's unlikely to have married and fathered children if he died at the age of 11). You are right about the family tree. That seems to be a slip-up, but the tree is technically a separate article. Paul B (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"...was illegitimate, in a time and place when great social stigma usually accompanied such status."

Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.157.48 (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714133635/http://www.nitro.co.uk/news/reviews/an-african-cargo-greenwich-theatre/ to http://www.nitro.co.uk/news/reviews/an-african-cargo-greenwich-theatre/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Excessively strong inference

Premise:

In his will written in 1783, Lord Mansfield officially granted Belle her freedom from slavery.

Excessive conclusion:

The fact that Mansfield granted Belle her freedom in his will indicated that he also believed that his ruling did not abolish slavery in England.

Somewhat more justifiable conclusion:

The fact that Mansfield granted Belle her freedom in his will indicated that he also believed that his ruling did not abolish slavery in England incontrovertibly.

Hard to argue against the wisdom of adding an official document in the belt-and-suspenders mode as a hedge against legitimate challenge and willful misinterpretation of his past ruling. — MaxEnt 07:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Mansfield's ruling didn't abolish anything, it stated that there was no legal basis to hold someone in Slavery under English law; slavery as an institution in England had not existed since the Norman conquest. In so far as slaves may have existed in England, their status was de facto, not de jure. Regarding the explicit grant of freedom in his will, one might consider that Belle may have wanted to travel at some point in the future, so it was prudent of him to explicitly spell out a grant of freedom to assure her status should she visit a slave jurisdiction.2001:470:1F09:133E:64:D18B:4357:8E13 (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I've just been reading the Schama book. Schama does make the point that the case was over the right to transport a slave against his will out of England. He does this in part by using a slightly different report of Mansfield's words (Sharp's transcribed notes - from where? Sharp was not present at the judgement (Schama p61)) rather than Loft's Reports which most writers use. See Schama's note 16 to chapter II for his justification. Notwithstanding the preceding Schama in the next paragraph makes the points that both sides though he had made all slavery illegal in England. The chapter mentions that some slave hunting and auctioning did occur after the case, but ultimately slaves could and did leave their masters quoting the Somerset case. Nowhere in the cited 10 pages is there any mention of a 19thC date, and the claim "This ruling was misinterpreted as presaging the formal end of slavery in Britain, but in fact slavery continued to be legal in the country until the 1830s" is uncited and a misrepresentation of Schama's thesis. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

As a layman I would like to remind us all that this article is not "The legal history of slavery in the Great Britain" or somesuch. Therefore I feel the best approach would be to simply skip the finer details (referring the reader to a more technical article). The focus here can well be "if it didn't impact Belle we don't have to mention it". CapnZapp (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Put otherwise - arguing over the exact legal status is a worthy endeavour indeed, except perhaps not for this article? Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. That is why I've removed the contentious statement and invalid citation but not added anything back. Go over to Somerset v Stewart for more information on the case, that is the place for the finer details. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

"extraordinary vivacity"

The description of the painting was recently [1] removed. This core of this phrase was added by 210.245.51.151 back in June 2009: [2], that IPs last Wiki edits since. No citation was given. It was later embellished several times, such as by Richard Keatinge in January 2014 ([3]) and by Steshome in October 2015 ([4]). No edit provided any sourcing.

I have googled around, but I can't find any source using this phrasing I can verify is independent of Wikipedia, or written before our edits. So unless you find something, I'd like to thank 78.144.77.159 for bringing this to our attention. I then welcome everyone to find a replacement description of the painting, this time with proper sourcing. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Excessively strong inference 2

It is a fiction perpetuated by Paula Byrne's book and Asante's movie that Belle lived as a freewoman in Mansfield household. Those assertions are unreferenced. I have read the actual will entries, which I have referenced, and it is clear that she was a slave in Mansfield' house until he died. That also clearly points out that Mansfield considered slavery to be in existence many years after the 1772 Somerset ruling. She only gained her freedom when his will was published in 1793. I have made the correction accordingly.Mikesiva (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You say both "Those assertions are unreferenced" and "fiction perpetuated by Paula Byrne's book"? This could mean one out of several things: 1) Our assertation The Murrays educated Belle, bringing her up as a free gentlewoman is unreferenced. 2) You believe Byrne's assertation The Murrays educated Belle, bringing her up as a free gentlewoman is wrong. In the first case, the answer is no, it isn't. In the second case, we either have to take your word for it (which is OR and we don't) or we have two sources pitted against each other, and you need to argue why we should believe one over the other - ideally providing a source discrediting Byrne. That is, a source that directly discusses Byrne - not just provides alternative facts.

This alone isn't enough for me to revert your changes, but your usage of WP:WEASEL words is. That is, phrases like Some historians believe are to be avoided (with certain exceptions). However, I do welcome you to discuss here on talk, make a new improved attempt to edit the article, or both. Hopefully we can arrive at an amicable resolution. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

CapnZapp (talk) I have Paula Byrne's book. She provides no primary source reference to prove that Dido Belle was freed before the will. In contrast, the historian James Walvin, whose reference you've deleted, refutes the suggestion that Dido Belle was free before 1793. Why would you delete the reference of a respected historian of British slavery, while keeping that of a literary biographer with no comparable background in researching the history of British slavery? Surely, his reference should remain. In addition, the quote from the Gentleman's Quarterly makes it clear that his will made her free. Contrary to what you're saying, Byrne's assertion that Belle was a free woman is not proven, so I don't understand how you can dismiss what renowned historians have to say on this matter. Just so that we can maintain the fiction that Dido Belle was free? To what end? Since there is no reason to censor the excellent work of the renowned historian Walvin, I will put it elsewhere in the article. I would like to think that this is not a propaganda piece, and that both interpretations of the history can exist side by side.Mikesiva (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Last time this came up editors were referred to Somerset v Stewart. Since it appears that the details are again being misquoted, here is Mansfield's ruling:

The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.

Put briefly: slavery could only be established by statute and not by common- or case-law. There was no such statue in England, ergo there was not slavery. However inconvenient (to slave owners) the practice had no standing in law and hence Somerset, as a free man, could not be removed from England into slavery. Getting back to Belle: if there was no (legal) slavery in England, then she wasn't a slave. The will could therefore only confirm her status, not change it.Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Anybody who has read Somerset v Stewart will see that slavery DID exist in England, and that it continued to exist until it was abolished throughout the British Empire in the 1830s. Our own Wikipedia article on the case says this: "While Somerset's case provided a boon to the abolitionist movement, it did not end the holding of slaves within England." In order to get a full understanding of how slavery existed in England itself, I recommend a reading of Gertrude Gerzina's "Black England" and James Walvin's "Black Ivory". Both Walvin and Gerzina refute Usherwood's outdated interpretation. It's a fallacy to think that slavery did not exist in England. It did, and the Mansfield ruling did not abolish it. Walvin in particular makes it very clear that slavery existed in England for as long as Belle lived, and up to the Emancipation Act of 1833. Mansfield himself made it clear in subsequent cases that his ruling did not address the institution of slavery in England, but just operated within the narrow framework of whether a slave could be transported from England against his will. That's all! By the way, my area of specialty is slavery in Britain and the British Empire.Mikesiva (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You are mixing two things up. (1) did slavery exist in England? - in small measure, yes. (2) was slavery legal? - no. Somerset v Stewart clearly states that "It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law" and there was no such law. To give a modern analogy: people trafficking is illegal within the UK, but it exists. Murder is illegal, but also exists. Incidentally, statements such as "my area of specialty is slavery" is suggestive of WP:POV pushing or WP:OR. We assume that all editors here are seeking the best information from reliable published sources. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Mikesiva It's better that we hash out a consensus here on talk than have sources battle it out in the article. In any event, the article needs copyediting. CapnZapp (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mikesiva and CapnZapp: I strongly concur, it's the third stage of WP:BRD. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. For the casual observer (me) there appears to be not one, but two, instances of possible OR.

One is that Mansfield's will did not only confirm Belle's status, but that this document is crucial to her legal transformation from slave to free woman.

The other is that she could not have been a slave, since slavery was not legal in England.

As far as I can understand, both contain a measure of (possible) OR. Our article is about Belle. If she led a life comparable to her cousin Lady Murray, it is simply not appropriate to call her a slave, no matter the legal status. At this time, what the master of the house said carried much greater practical weight than some general legal point. And so the claim "Walvin points out she was legally a slave" can exist side by side with a claim such as "In his will of 1793, Lord Mansfield confirmed her freedom". And "Belle lived as a freewoman in Mansfield household" can definitely be 100% correct - note the difference between "lived as a freewoman" and, say, "was legally a freewoman".

The flip side of this coin is that arguing slavery wasn't legal so she couldn't legally be a slave is also inappropriate for the same reasons, mostly because it's besides the point.

In my view, we should focus on Belle, and what our sources tell us about her life. If a source says she lived the life of a slave, that's one thing. But if a source simply uses Belle as an example to make a point "she could well have been a slave legally" that is simply less relevant for this article, and should be discussed on a page about legal theory. We can link to such a page just fine. We should not let those considerations distract readers of this article, though. CapnZapp (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but as renowned slavery historian James Walvin has pointed out, slavery DID exist after 1772. And Walvin points out that Belle WAS a slave. Just because you disagree doesn't make your interpretation more important than Walvin's. So, Walvin's interpretation deserves to stand. Your adherence to Paula Byrne's interpretation can stand too, but you need to provide a citation, so that others can work out for themselves who's more accurate. It's disingenuous to present Byrne's interpretation as the truth, when clearly the truth is in dispute.Mikesiva (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

At this point I need to ask you if you comprehend that these two statements aren't mutually exclusive and can both be true:

1. Belle lived as a freewoman in Mansfield household
2. Belle was legally a slave until Mansfield released her in his will

I'm not saying either is - I'm not the expert here. I just see your aggressive take, and wonder if maybe you think we don't believe YOU. This is not the case, not me at least. CapnZapp (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

You're getting way too defensive on this issue. I'm fine with both interpretations to remain on the article, as it currently is. What you suggest is possible, but that's it. Any speculation needs to be backed up by citations.Mikesiva (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

No, there are two issues already in the lead. First the part where we have warring authorities, it reads as if two editors can't agree and needs serious improvement. Second, the whole paragraph on slavery is just not relevant for the article on Dido Belle. I'm afraid your additions come across and clumsy and not well integrated into the text, as if making a point is more important to you than maintaining the integrity of the text flow. The same with However, historians point out ... (in the article proper. That's just bad writing.

Again, my point is that even if you believe Belle was a slave, there is no reason for you to oppose the article saying "Belle lived as a freewoman in Mansfield household" since one does not exclude the other. Please stop discussing as if we are having a legal debate. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dido Elizabeth Belle article. CapnZapp (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Edits have been made. Before you edit the page, User:Mikesiva I invite you to specify any sentences or phrases you contest, because I have removed most of the stuff that has caused all these edits, boiling it down to: "Belle's legal status while Lord Mansfield was alive is uncertain." Note, I avoided "contested" or "controversial" because I'm not convinced there actually is a contest or controversy. Plus we would be obliged to specify and before we do that we need to keep in mind: This article is on Belle, not the legality of slavery. CapnZapp (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

So, who are you to decide whether there's a contest or a controversy? Walvin clearly disagrees with Byrne about Dido's status, but you've unilaterally deleted the reference where he argues that Dido was a slave until Mansfield's will. Once again, you've put back the statement that Mansfield's will "confirmed" rather than granted her freedom in the opening paragraph, uncontested. Sorry, but by deleting the Walvin reference, you are engaging in censorship of another valid interpretation of the history. In the opening paragraph, you cannot say she was brought up as a "free" gentlewoman, when her freedom is a source of contention. I'm therefore reinstating the Walvin reference in the opening paragraph.Mikesiva (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not decide whether there's a contest or a controversy. You are free to replace "confirmed" (now "conferred") with a better phrase, but I did not add it because I think Walvin is wrong, but because I think it's good phrasing. It does not mean our article rejects Walvin! Your claims of censorship are counterproductive and nonconstructive. You discuss as if I am your opponent, but I am only interested in finding language that is 1) good 2) does not explicitly contradict the position of any historian.

YES we can say "she was brought up as a free gentlewoman" even if she was legally a slave! I brought this up in a 10:58, 31 October 2020 edit and I ask that you meet my argument before dismissing it.

Now please stop adding this legal stuff to the lead - it lowers the quality of our article! Please address the argument that is about article quality and stop solely discussing legal status! This article is about Belle, and since editors/historians disagree her status, that's best covered in the article.

Finally, before you get upset lead references are moved down into the body of article, read MOS:LEADCITE.

I am removing your language changes while keeping your reference. CapnZapp (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

References

There is no evidence she was kept as a slave. Most sources suggest she lived as part of the family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.24.203 (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

A more important point is that Belle was born in London and not the West Indies as the article states. Reference [3] backs this as well. As a woman born in England she was not a slave. Alastair parsons (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Sir John Lindsay motive

his motive bringing dido back to kenwood, but left her nothing and barely even seeing or care for Dido himself. most historian even dido fans have agreed that john lindsay infact left dido nothing, because there are proof of correspondence between his other 2 illegitimate children, one of them is another Elizabeth, she has lived with John lindsay.

then i came across video discussing Jane Austen novel, in which Royal navy or Royal officer is sometimes honor bound if they want to stay in service, what it means is if you have spoken debt you have the honor bound to pay it or you will be deemed unworthy and then released by the General, etc. This led to many officers reluctantly confirm to their honor bound, which in Sir John Lindsay's case would be providing for his illegitimate children, which technically he does for all his children.

"After giving evidence against Sir Hugh Palliser to the ensuing courts martial, he resigned straight after Keppel" we get straight evidence from sir john lindsay wikipedia page about the so called "honor bound", Palliser was wrong about his accusation "The court-martial outcome meant ruin for Palliser. He was defended by Lord Sandwich, but still had to resign from Parliament and as Lieutenant-General of the Marines", one wrong accusation and Palliser had to resign Parliament and as Lieutenant-General of the Marines, technically he has done nothing wrong except questioning other men's honor

Wentwort12 (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Bias?

I am noticing a bias towards claims and statement that make her free, liberal, independent over statements that discuss slavery and restrictions.

For instance the claim she was born illegitimate has been removed. Why? Unless you're prepared to argue Sir Lindsay married her mother, this should be uncontroversial. Illegitimate means "born outside of wedlock".

The interpretation of Mansfield's ruling gets a fact tag, while the claim Belle didn't eat with the guests was simply removed. Why is the former questioned while the other's veracity is simply assumed to be false? Without checking sources I would assume a legal discussion of Mansfield is at hand, making the former statement uncontroversial, while the latter statement wouldn't have been entered if it wasn't sourced properly.

Currently the article BOTH claims Belle was born a freewoman (highly unlikely) and that her freedom was only confirmed/conferred in Mansfield's will. See next previous topic for more on this bit.

In this section I just want to flag the overeager edit actions by some editors that appear to prioritize a happy fuzzy feeling over encyclopedic facts.

CapnZapp (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

i agree, when the biased is this bad on wikipedia you can imagine it will be 10x enhance in the movie. lol needless to say the ironically african director threw all the fact we know about Dido and make it the opposite. Wentwort12 (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I have zero problems with a movie director wanting to create happy fuzzy feelings. Please do not confuse the aims, goals and standards of a non-documentary motion picture with those of an encyclopedia, thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

well i don't! the movie director intentionally made everything the opposite in order to revision history, it gives the revisionist people drive to change the actual history or encyclopedia. if you can't understand that then i say you are otherworldly, false information and narrative should be held accountable all the same, thank you Wentwort12 (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Was Dido a freewoman?

This edit by @R21205 changes Dido being a slave to being a freewoman. A quick Google search indicates a consensus of her being a slave at birth. Not familiar with this topic specifically so can someone else weigh in? Fun Is Optional (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, without checking sources it would seem overwhelmingly likely that Maria Belle's baby would remain a slave in squalor had her father not made the momentous decision to bring her back to England. How can she then have been born a freewoman? Does this source explain how she was NOT simply one out of likely tens of thousands of babies born after British sailors had their way with locals, enslaved or not? Even if Maria Belle was not a slave and instead just a regular woman (perhaps not even a prostitute?) from the Indies, how would you end up phrasing it as Belle being born a "freewoman". I doubt regular people called their progeny that. But maybe the source explains it all and is otherwise a good source, and the edit should stand; that's what we're discussing here. CapnZapp (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Recently several(?) anonymous editors change the article to make it claim Dido was born a free woman and/or born in London.

I hope y'all understand that all these attempts will be reverted and that you need to DISCUSS the article first. Present your sources. Let them be evaluated by the community. CapnZapp (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)