Talk:Society of Merchant Venturers

Removal of "critical" comments from this article & need for citations

Several edits have been made today to this article removing any criticism from this article. It is important that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy is being maintained, and further references to information, both positive and negative, about the society would be helpful.— Rod ^talk

User:Ohnoitsjamie found this excellent source, referenced in the current version of the article as <ref name=latimer />

It's the full text of a 1903 book written by John Latimer.

I'd use the book myself to expand the article some more, only my head's pretty much already exploded from reading the blasted thing. It's heavy going.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Schools, colleges and/or evening classes

My father - born 1918 in Bristol - talked, occasionally, about attending evening school at the MV school or college in Bristol, after work [as an apprentice]. He has been dead for these ten years: if anyone else can flesh this out [perhaps before all his classmates and sucessors pass away, too] it may be good.

Autochthony wrote - 2042z 18 May 2010. 81.156.52.159 (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Society of Merchant Venturers. 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/20140613131401/http://www.flocs.com/websites/bristolslavery/people/merchantventurers.htm to http://www.flocs.com/websites/bristolslavery/people/merchantventurers.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509084803/http://www.trinityhouse.co.uk/interactive/gallery/flatholm.html to http://www.trinityhouse.co.uk/interactive/gallery/flatholm.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pls/portal/coflein.w_details?inumlink=6060979

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) 12:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Added the "reorganise" maintenance flag

I have added the "reorganise" banner on this page. Readability of this article could be enhanced through better use of sentences and paragraphs. Sections could also be organised in a more logical order. A good reorganisation may contribute to a better flow of the article. Hayley007 (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Info on SMV's advocacy of Edward Colston?

I came to this article expecting to find some information on SMV's continued defense of the Statue of Edward Colston in Bristol, as well as their efforts to water down criticism on the plaque. If that's the organization's main political activity these days, why is there no information in the article? —dgies^t_c 16:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Me too. I doubt very much that this information, or anything referring to the debate will appear, or if it does, will be quickly deleted. This article is highly sanitised, as you might expect from apologists for slavery. Perhaps interested parties may refer to this article. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/08/edward-colston-statue-history-slave-trader-bristol-protestStephen A (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A section on recent events involving the statue was added to the article at 16:44, 8 June. Per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM, that paragraph is probably sufficient for now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I have just carried out a couple of edits to reflect the notability of Edward Colston and Statue of Edward Colston and their association with the Society of Merchant Venturers. These are good faith edits, which I believe to have a neutral point of view. I'm sure that more informed editors will come along and make future improvements, but if you suspect that bad-faith editors are attempting to vandalise this article and whitewash Merchant Ventures's attempts to protect the Victorian fiction of Coulston being a local hero, please contact the editors that Wikipedia have been authorised to protect pages and mediate disputes.

This is an evolving story and the Society of Merchant Ventures are probably going to be forced to publicly explain their long association with Edward Colston and the way that his name is plastered across Bristol. So I would expect some good quality secondary sources to be published which allow for this aspect of the Society to be developed much more accurately. Big Mac (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit that moved material into the lede; for one, I think we need to be wary of WP:RGW; secondly, the source for that isn't particularly strong (and is now only accessible via archive.org). The other recent additions look appropriate in terms of neutrality and weight to me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

About the lead.

The second lead paragraph strikes me as problematic, since it gives a sanitized view of the society. It ends with the phrase 'charitable agendas' which is what'll stick in the reader's mind, but that phrase is supplied by the society's own on-line advertising rather than a reliable secondary source.

By 'sanitized', I mean that this society was set up for the sole purpose of monopolizing the sea trade from the port of Bristol, and later lobbied for access to access to the slave trade - but the lead makes no mention of such matters and so gives a biased impression of the society.

Such matters are fundamental to the purpose and history of the society, and I feel that it's important for them to be mentioned in the lead in order to provide some balance.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources

The archived flocs.com source, which appears to have been a personal site created by a Bristol teacher, probably does not meet WP:RS. I found an alternative that may be a good replacement to cover most of the associated material; this appears to be the full text of a 1903 text written by John Latimer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the website in question strikes me as a reliable source. A school teacher with an interest in history can usually be trusted to get it right and provide unbiased, reliable information. And since the claims seem reasonable and uncontentious, I don't see why it shouldn't be used.

Certainly, it's more of a reliable source on this subject than the website of the Merchant Venturers which one can assume is basically public relations propaganda but is nevertheless used in the lead.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I've opened up an RSN discussion here seeking additional opinions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think any such discussion is now moot, given that you've found an excellent book to use as a source and the book backs up the claims on the personal web page. One reason for citing the personal web page is that it's a sight easier to read than the book.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I've seen many other discussions where a personal site maintained by an amateur historian was rejected. Furthermore, the lede as currently written is very awkward. The bit about slavery just seems like a random tidbit tossed in, because of recent events. I'm not trying to defend the Society (I've only driven past Bristol) but am rather more concerned about Wikipedia maintaining a neutral point of view, and avoiding WP:RGW. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

All very sensible (I've actually visited Bristol - once). But: the thing about Bristol and other ports such as Liverpool is that their merchants and merchant companies made an awful lot of money from the slave trade and that fact was studiously swept under the carpet. The wealth of Britain was (arguably) founded on wool, then (certainly) enlarged on the back of slavery - but the full facts are not adequately publicised mostly (as far as I can tell) because it's a national embarrassment.

There's been a deliberate coverup about the profits from slavery made by British interests going on for - well, a very long time. Recent events have brought attention to various aspects of this coverup but that's no reason not to do something about it.

Yes, I know about WP:RGW. But the thing is, the 'profiting from slavery' thing is something which is missing from various Wikipedia articles. When an organization such as the Society of Merchant Venturers actually made a point of getting the law changed so that they could make more money from the Atlantic slave trade, and engaged in that trade until it was outlawed, well, it should be mentioned because they made such a lot of money from it: it had a massive effect on the society's power. If you read the history, the society was founded to cut other merchants out of their markets. Then they went on to oppress the Irish, trade in slaves, and other deplorable things - not just doing those things, but lobbying Parliament to change the law to ensure those things were done.

The fact that the Society's PR efforts have until recently effectively buried the murky truth about its past is no reason not to include properly sourced information.

Having said all that, I take your point: the wording is poor and needs improvement.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

If a source is not reliable for the claim, we should not cite it at all. WP:RS does not say that unreliable sources should be cited in conjunction with reliable ones. buidhe 06:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)