Talk:Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville

message: I have tightened this section considerably. Perhaps too much. However, I definitely think the minutiae of internal processes at the Toronto City Council was excessive. Meticulo (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you did - substantial referenced paragraphs cut down to mere sentences. I've written something succinct, but more detailed than current. Turini2 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The section (and a sentence in the intro) has been removed twice by an IP user in the last 2 days - keep an eye on it, probably should request semi protection if this continues. Turini2 (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

text: The City of Toronto report on Dundas's legacy was prepared by staff in support of their recommendation, and is not sufficiently authoritative to be cited as proof of a fact. The paragraph, which relies almost entirely on the report, is not based on acceptable authority for an encyclopedic reference. (Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:RELIABILITY. )  The author of the staff report is anonymous, and the report was self-admittedly not based in a review of evidence, as stated in the removed paragraph. Staff said they restricted their review review to academic materials. They declined to consider unpublished research or primary sources. They also declined to consider media reports and op-ed publications in which respected and eminent historians stated views that conflicted with the narrative preferred by staff.  Also, despite their statement that they restricted themselves to academic publications, staff nonetheless went on to pose novel theories.  For example, they stated that Dundas contributed to the subjugation of Indigenous peoples. This theory lacked supporting evidence or academic authority.  They based their theory solely on the fact that the Lieutenant-Governor, J.G. Simcoe, developed a trail that had been cleared by local Indigenous nations, and used it as the military road that later became Dundas Street.  Staff failed to cite any evidence of any harm at all from development of the trail.  How this became the "subjugation" referred to by staff is a mystery.  The new road may possibly even have been a benefit to Indigenous Nations, whose lands were being targeted by American aggressors.  The staff hypothesis about the road cannot be considered credible.E.M.Morrison (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I've had another attempt to tighten this section. Again, the details of internal processes of city councils, even if properly referenced, is just not necessary in my opinion for those wanting an overview of the reaction and outcome. I'd also point to WP:RECENTISM in this regard. Meticulo (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy over legacy

message: The article starts off by calling Dundas a "British Advocate." Both epithets are true: he was a British Subject and an Advocate. He was more specifically, a member of the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh, rather than a Fellow of the Society of Doctors' Commons in London, so he is better described as a "Scottish Advocate" or, more vaguely, a "British Lawyer." NRPanikker (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Advocate 

message: I can't see any mention of "the Secret Service" on the source you have cited, page 276 of The Trial. There's mention of "a secret service" on page 278, and "for secret service" on page 241, but both of these seem to be rhetorical flourishes about hypothetical speeches that might be given by, respectively, a coin and the late William Pitt the Younger, not an actual payment to an intelligence agency. Meticulo (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My previous post is redundant after a helpful edit since then by another editor. Meticulo (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret service