Talk:William Jardine (merchant)

message: Can anyone who knows add a paragraph explaining why some members of the family tree have red boxes, while others are green? Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.182.10.225 (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Red boxes in family tree?

message: This article is hagiographic, that he was a swell upstanding guy, and glosses over the fact that he was an avaricious smuggler of illegal drugs, who started a war to further his own ambitions.--KTo288 (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So your comment "he was an avaricious smuggler of illegal drugs, who started a war to further his own ambitions" is somehow neutral? You should bear in mind that opium wasn't illegal in England at the time and opium trading in the Far East (with the cooperation of the Chinese and Indians) wasn't considered "a bad thing" in the overall ambitions of the mighty British Empire to dominate world commerce. Furthermore, it was Palmerston (a man with a burning dislike for Jardine) who gave the go ahead for war.  Philg88 ♦talk 19:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm entitled to my opinion of the man, so long as I don't allow that opinion to influence my editing of the article, and I don't think that I have. With regards to legality, until June this year I could have gone to my local high street and brought as much Qat as I desired, it being legal in the UK until then. However if I was to have brought the stuff, put it in a crate and tried to mail it to the United States, (as some have tried to do) I'd be a criminal. The argument that Jardine did not consider any laws outside that of the British Empire of any consequence, but that worldview is his, and that of our countryman of the time; and that should be reflected in the article. The way the article is written is that that worldview pervades the article. I take on board your argument, that we had on your talk page, with regards to allowing modern world views to colour our understanding of historical figures. As a thought exercise, I considered what an article look like if we wrote that Edmund Tudor was a paedophile, and that Oliver Cromwell was a war criminal, because that is what they would look like to modern eyes the answer is to state the facts and allow the reader to make up their minds. The problem with this article is that there is too much use of quotes from Jardines' contemporaries for whom he was a jolly good chap.--KTo288 (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on William Jardine (merchant). 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/20110812005435/http://auden.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/auden/individual.php?pid=I20092&ged=auden-bicknell.ged to http://auden.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/auden/individual.php?pid=I20092&ged=auden-bicknell.ged
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've reverted recent changes which were unsourced or POV editorialising:
*The claim he was the first-ever drug lord to cede territory from a country is unsourced. Even if true, it's original research without a reference.
*He's obviously notable for the illegitimate opium smuggling. But he also did legitimate commerce. So to remove "merchant" altogether in the first sentence and replace it with "opium godfather who persuaded the British empire to start a war against China and looted the Hong Kong island" is straight up editorialising. The first sentence should identify the subject in simple broad terms that ideally covers all their activities, not just one aspect. 
*Citing another Wikipedia article doesn't count as a source.
Please read the neutral point of view policy, particularly the sections on the neutral wiki voice and impartial tone. By no means am I trying to whitewash Jardine. The history of the opium smuggling should of course be mentioned. But adding your own unsourced personal commentary from the very first sentence violates policy. We all have our own personal views, but it's not OK to blatantly add our own biases to articles. Spellcast (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This reversion is clearly essential.  Scandalising the subject pushes us into the realm of Daily Mailing, etc. sirlanz 09:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead changes 

message: This is not clearly written.  "Lord Palmerston, the Foreign Secretary who succeeded Wellington, decided mainly on the "suggestions" of Jardine to wage war on China.  Gotta blame somebody eh? In mid-1840, a large fleet of war ships appeared on the China coast and with the first cannon fire aimed at a British ship, the Royal Saxon, the British started the first of the Opium Wars."  Sound like the british shot themselves eh?  The article is an insult to history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7ED1:2E00:649A:E355:C5F0:8CDB (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic Gibberish Hides Historical Facts?