Revision as of 17:11, 8 January 2012 editJohnbod (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers280,827 edits →Proposed solution to nationality debate: replies← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:56, 31 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,090,201 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 8 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
(314 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} | |||
{{ArticleHistory | |||
{{British English}} | |||
| action1 = FAC | |||
{{Article history | |||
| action1 = FAC | |||
| action1date = 02:05, 28 December 2005 | | action1date = 02:05, 28 December 2005 | ||
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington | | action1link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington | ||
Line 16: | Line 18: | ||
| action3oldid = 79668760 | | action3oldid = 79668760 | ||
| currentstatus = FFAC | | currentstatus = FFAC | ||
|otd1date=2017-05-01|otd1oldid=778227908 | |||
|otd2date=2019-05-01|otd2oldid=895015285 | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, 01st Duke of|blp=n|1= | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=y|military-priority=top|peerage-work-group=y|peerage-priority=High|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=High}} | |||
{{WPMILHIST | |||
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Biography=y|British=y|South-Asian=y|Spanish=y|Early-Modern=y|Napoleonic=y}} | |||
|class=start | |||
{{WikiProject University of Oxford|importance=Low}} | |||
|priority=high | |||
{{WikiProject Ireland|importance=Mid}} | |||
<!-- B-Class checklist --> | |||
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance =Top}} | |||
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> | |||
{{WikiProject London|importance=Mid}} | |||
|B-Class-1= no | |||
{{WikiProject India|importance=Low |maharashtra=y|maharashtra-importance=Low|pre=y}} | |||
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> | |||
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}} | |||
|B-Class-2= yes | |||
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> | |||
|B-Class-3= yes | |||
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> | |||
|B-Class-4= yes | |||
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> | |||
|B-Class-5= yes | |||
|British-task-force=yes | |||
|Spanish-task-force=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject Biography |living=no |class=C |listas=Wellington, Arthur | |||
|peerage-work-group=yes |peerage-priority=high | |||
|politician-work-group=yes |politician-priority=high | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Archive box|search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index | | |||
{{WikiProject University of Oxford|class=C|auto=inherit|importance=low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Ireland|class=C |importance=mid}} | |||
{{WP UK Politics|class=C |importance=Top | |||
|b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> =no | |||
|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =yes | |||
|b3 <!-- Structure --> =yes | |||
|b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =yes | |||
|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =yes | |||
|b6 <!-- Accessible --> =yes | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProject London|class=C |importance=mid}} | |||
}} | |||
{{archive box |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index | | |||
* ] : 2004 – 2005 | * ] : 2004 – 2005 | ||
* ] : 2006 – 2008 | * ] : 2006 – 2008 | ||
* ] : 2009 – 2010 | * ] : 2009 – 2010 | ||
* ] : 2011 – | * ] : 2011 – | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 6 | ||
|minthreadsleft = 5 | |minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
|algo = old(90d) | |algo = old(90d) | ||
Line 67: | Line 50: | ||
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{British English|date=August 2011}} | |||
== Wellington was an Irishman == | |||
{{archivetop}} | |||
The discussion has ceased without being resolved. The man was from Ireland; an Irishman. The article has been so amended. If this is disputed please state the verifiable reason why men from Ireland in 1769 were not Irishmen.<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> 124.169.181.163 | |||
:Just because the matter is unresolved, in your opinion, is not a valid reason to change the page. The issue has been discussed many times, please see the talk archives and refrain from making or imposing your own changes. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 03:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
The man was from Ireland; an Irishman. That is the reason for the change. The talk archives do not give any verifiable reason why men from Ireland in 1769 were not Irishmen. Wellington's nationality was changed from Irish to British on 26 September 2011, without discussion or reference to the talk archives.<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small> | |||
:Then quite simply put, you aren't reading them hard enough.. George. 26 September = reverts. The edit summary explains, discussion not needed. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 04:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Question: does a citizen from ] have the British nationality? And if the Duke of Welligton was born in England, would he be referred as "English" or "British"? ] (]) 06:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Yes. But they are also entitled to Irish citizenship. See: ]. Cheers, '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 06:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:{{ec}} He would probably still be referred to as ]. Being called "British" just means you're from the UK, it isn't really a nationality, more a citizenship. i.e. I'm English nationality, because I'm not Welsh, Scottish or N.Irish, but I'm a British citizen because I live in the UK. | |||
:In Wellesley's case, it's more complex because of the mix of English/Irish heritage and politics at the time. And his refusal to be tagged as being "Irish". | |||
:'''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 06:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Just to add to what Marcus has said, we go with self-identification where possible. I think "being born in a stable does not make one a horse" is pretty clear cut. ]] 06:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
: It's very complicated for me since I'm not from your isles, but I’m reading the text with a lot of amazement. Why that convulsive and avoiding behaviour to name him Irish? It's just a geographical denomination, like Scottish, English, etc. | |||
:I understand now that "British nationality" is not really common usage, but Welsh, Scottish or N.Irish are (do those from North Ireland really have the "North Irish" nationality?). That he didn't liked to be name 'Irish' doesn't matter. This is an Encyclopaedia describing facts, not feelings. And that someone does or doesn't like to be named with some description is not relevant per WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. | |||
:It's a fact he was Irish as part of the United Kingdom at that time. I'm not in favour of the term "]" because it refers to a socio-cultural ancestry and class, not a geographical origin, which is the common practise. So why not this alternative in the text: "...was an Irish born British soldier and statesman.." or "...was an Irish soldier and statesman in the United Kingdom.."? And in the infobox: "Nationality: Irish" I don’t understand all those avoiding behaviour. Call a duck a duck and not a swan just because he doesn’t like the first. ] (]) 07:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Because, in Wellesley's case, and a lot of similar people from that time, it is the socio-cultural ancestry and class which is more established than their "place of birth". Take Napoleon - Corsican, yet many call him French. Hitler, Austrian, yet many call him German. Neither are right. In the case of Wellesley and his family, they had deep English roots, stemming back through generations before settling in Ireland. The term ] is suited to their cultural past, not just some plot of soil they happened to be dropped on, at birth. You'll find a great many historians describe him as ], and only the Irish seem to consider him "Irish" without ever forming a plausible argument other than "he was born here". They have a disrespectful blind-sport for considering his full cultural identity. And I disagree that his opinion is not important. If this were a BLP, his opinion would be very important, because he could probably sue Wiki for using a nationality against his wishes. Just because he's dead doesn't mean we have the right to impose our own ideas of nationality on his biog. It's bad enough the Irish do that, mostly through racial intolerance of the British. But you don't see us Brits labelling "British", we agree "Anglo-Irish" is a fair compromise. Despite the fact all his victories were for the British Army, not an Irish one. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 08:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::PS: If you read ] you'll see Welly mentioned several times, with details surrounding his background. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 08:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::JUSTDONTLIKEIT doesn't apply here. That's when someone wants to deny a fact for NO reason, and they have NO plausible argument to support their refusal to accept a valid POV, simply put it's arrogance from the one who dislikes it. In this case, Wellesley's nationality can be argued with valid reasons, several sources and such. There is a POV, relating to his family lines, views, etc. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 09:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
A man from Ireland in 1769 was an Irishman; his subsequent social, cultural, religious, political and class may be included in an encyclopaedia; however he remains an Irishman. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--><small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small> | |||
:That'll be boring ] record stuck again. The Wizard of Aus didn't give him life. Ignore him. He's blocked because he's a dick. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 16:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Please cease the vandalism of the above posts and address the matter in hand. Information regarding Wellington. "Some Notice of the Family of Cowley of Kilkenny Author(s): John G. A. Prim Source: Transactions of the Kilkenny Archaeological Society, Vol. 2, No. 1 (1852), pp. 102-114 Published by: Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25489817" <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. The preceding ] comment was added at 04:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC).</small> | |||
It is noted that it Wellington's nationality has read "Irish" and "Irish/British" and "Anglo-Irish" and "British" over the last number of months. In 1769 Wellington was born in Ireland; this is not disputed. That he was an Irishman; this is disputed by one. The reasons given for the disputation are all subsequent to 1800, some thirty one years plus after his birth as an Irishman. There seems to be some alleged change of nationality in the years between 1800 and 1852, yet no one is able to identify or verify such a change. As a previous person, to this discussion, has said "lets call a duck, a duck". In this case "lets call an Irishman, an Irishman". The article has been reverted to reflect this underlying encyclopaedic philosophy of historical accuracy. {{spa|203.206.52.220|01:25, 18 October 2011}} | |||
{{archivebottom}} | |||
== Wellington was an Irishman: An unsolved problem. == | |||
{{archivetop}} | |||
Now we have an unsolved problem. How and when does an Irishman, born in 1769, cease to be an Irishman ? ] (]) 05:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC){{spa|203.59.53.82}} | |||
:], you are '''blocked''' ''indefinitely'', your ] and ], oh and ] have been logged and blocked where necessary. You are no longer accepted as a competent contributor because you are disruptive and your behaviour is dickish. YOU are the unsolved problem: How and when does an Australian (you), born whenever, cease to be an idiot? This and all further disruptions will be closed/ignored until you follow the proper procedures to get yourself unblocked. Until then ]! | |||
'''– Case closed.''' | |||
{{archivebottom}} | |||
===Comment=== | |||
{{archivetop | status=Resolved | result=Article has been updated to mutual agreement.}} | |||
I have made a research on this talk page (including the archived ones) how many registered Misplaced Pages editors think he should be referred in the introduction as Irish, Anglo-Irish or British: | |||
*He is Irish, ''de facto finito'' (5): ], ], ], ], ]. | |||
*He is Anglo-Irish (5): ], ], ], ], ]. | |||
*He is British (1): ]. | |||
*He is Irish Britton (1): ]. | |||
*Irish ''and'' Anglo-Irish/British (4): ], ], ], ]. | |||
*Don’t know / no preference (4): ], ], ], ]. | |||
I did not take into account the unregistered editors, because it is difficult to find out whether these edits originate form one person or multiple ones. | |||
Conclusion: there is no consensus at all that Wellington should be referred to as Ango-Irish. ] (]) 05:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I support the status quo: Anglo-Irish in the lead, British in the infobox. ]] 05:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::{{ec|5}} If there's no consensus that he's Anglo-Irish, then there's no consensus to change it to Irish either - controversial changes require such an argreement. And George no longer applies, he's indef blocked for being a disruptive a-hole. As for "consensus", you still need sources to support any changes - "consensus" is not a reliable source. If 50 people said Wellington was a gay man and 10 said he was straight, would you go on references or "mutual agreement"? Consensus isn't the end all of decision making, it needs verifiable references and logic, not personal nationalist opinions. I can throw plenty of unbiased historians your way stating "Anglo-Irish", can you do the same for "Irish"? Wellington himself is on the Anglo-Irish side, btw. Until then, I stand by the current status. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 05:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::When there is no consensus, the page has to be reverted before the edit that he is ], and if I'm correct this is "]". This until the matter is solved. ] (]) 06:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::{{ec}} Disagree - "British" is a POV, "Irish" is a POV, "Anglo-Irish" is a neutral POV, it gives both sides even-coverage. Only one person has sought to stir up trouble regarding that distinction, and he's ultimately blocked for disruptive behaviour, because he refused to seek consensus to change the article ''from'' Anglo-Irish. As it is a long-standing term I see no need to revert back several years.. there's no progression in using terms from original drafts. If you revert to "British" you'll find a lot of fuss. There has been less fuss with "Anglo-Irish" either because people accept it, or its detractors don't understand what it means. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 06:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::With respect, Marcus, "British" in the infobox is hardly a POV. His allegiance was to Great Britain. He was Prime Minister and field marshal of its armed forces. Am I not right in thinking you can't be elected to Parliament without being a British national? ]] 07:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::I think this refers to the "Anglo-Irish" reference in the Lead, not the info box. British there is fine, I oppose the full Irish view. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 08:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Righty-ho. Hard to see who you were replying owing to the edit conflicts. ]] 08:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::I think you'll also find there's a flaw in your consensus counting. Did you think to only count the views when the term Anglo-Irish was either first implied, or first disputed? If not, then half those counts don't count towards current status. Consensus ends when the last dispute was resolved, you can't just add you and George to the pro-Irish lot and say opinion has swung. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 06:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::Well, I have to disagree with your comment. | |||
:::::Look, I know this is your pet topic, with claiming that it is okay to use the term "Anglo-Irish", which is simply not true. First, there was ''never'' any agreement or consensus to use "Anglo-Irish". Claiming it was is a false statement. Secondly, a lot are/were opposing and discarding the term "Anglo-Irish" as an alternative (at least 5 against, and 4 in favor (5 with ] included now). This is the reason why this discussion is still ongoing, and not only by George. Banning people, or those who are lobbying the hardiest must be right, is not the solution. In case of no consensus, the guidelines advise to revert the edit to the previous one. | |||
:::::But I have an other alternative: why not avoid this discussion at all and refer him as "Irish-born British soldier and statesman. This is a gentle solution which could end the discussion. It's a fact that he was Irish-born, thereby referring to his geographical origin. This description does not speak about whether he still was or felt Irish. And British soldier and statesman: both are facts either, he was a soldier in the British army, and statesman of the UK (which included Ireland at that time). Problem solved, not POV, and staying only with the facts (instead of the socioeconomic description "Anglo-Irish"). ] (]) 07:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::Firstly, this isn't my "pet topic", it's simply an article I put a lot of effort into cleaning up due to tardiness. You may notice it "was" once a GA, and is currently C-class mess, quite a slip - mainly due to sloppy contributions. Even Napoleon's page gets better treatment than this British hero's. George doesn't lobby, he's simply a bigoted, delusional moron, and his pro-Irish (or anti-English, if you see through his deceitful commentary) contribs were to far more just this article. He not only advocate Irishness, but also is ignorant of Wiki policies, and doesn't understand the concepts: referencing, communication, collaboration. In short, his block is far more that for lobbying, it's for total incompetence and ignorance, sock puppeting to the extreme, disruptive behaviour, wiki-lawying. Personally, I add "breathing" to the list. | |||
::::::You go right ahead and put Irish-born British soldier if you feel it prudent. I'm not going to be responsible for any reversions, disputes, etc that result, however. (And if George comes back, pissing about, I'll request an admin break his knuckles so that he can never type again, in favour of a block.) You will find, however, that your anti-socioeconomic views is based on modern standards, and disregards the fact that socio-economic standards ''were'' very much present in those days. Lords, ladies and gentlemen, dukes, monarchs.. and peasants. Wellington's background is full of snobbery, wealthy, prigs and pomposity - ignorance of the fact that "Anglo-Irish" is a term used to imply social-economic class is paramount to censorship of historic accuracy, to which I convey strong disapproval. Wellington was a stuck-up Anglo-Irish man, he rode on a horse while men marched, drank good wine whilst men drank watered down small beers or gin, hanged men while never being at risk of being hanged, and got titles and batons whilst his men got flogged and came home to poverty and unemployment while he became Prime Minister - so ask yourself, if he lived in a time where upper-class status was distinct, why the motion to disregard it altogether? '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 07:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Thank you for your contributions. The following revisions may be appropriate. Lead: "Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, KG, GCB, GCH, PC, FRS (1 May 1769 – 14 September 1852), was a British soldier and statesman for Britain and Ireland. He was one of the leading military and political figures of the 19th century. An Irishman, he was commissioned an ensign in the British Army in 1787." Information box: "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." "Nationality: Irish." The reasons for the revisions are: Wellington was; a British soldier; an Irishman; a politician in Ireland before the union; a politician in Britain and Ireland after the union. The revision will also enable the article to move forward and obtain featured article status. Please comment. ] (]) 06:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC) {{{spa|203.206.85.136}} | |||
:'''Comment''' – sock puppets of blocked users may <u>not</u> contribute. The article is ''far'' from FA, and no few lines will fix that, don't attempt to curry favour or offer false hopes. Don't push your luck either, I have no worries in requesting each IP you use be temp-blocked, per ], as you're circumventing a block. Go get your main account unblocked, if the Wiki ] are willing. Until then, you're still socking against ] and therefore no one is required to comment respond or play with you. I '''oppose''' all your suggestions. Toodles, '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 06:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{archivebottom}} | |||
== MarcusBritish - Page leader - Duke of Wellington - 1 May 2012. == | |||
{{archivetop | status=Closed | result=The chances of me taking role as page leader for {{u|George SJ XXI|someone}} to come mess up again because I refuse to meet their agenda, lies somewhere between nought and zero. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>'''}} | |||
Matters have been resolved. The article now needs incremental improvement to a strategic plan, in order to move forward towards "featured article status". This requires leadership. It is considered that this leadership is best undertaken by MarcusBritish. Others will follow his plan. ] (]) 06:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)(AKA:- George SJ XXI) | |||
:What, what?? Ooh no, I don't do FA-class – reviewers are much too awkward to deal with at that level. A-class coupled with GA are my limit. And as far as this article goes, it doesn't need improving, it needs a 100% rewrite – it has become far too sloppy and contains so much trivial stuff that the prose is terrible to read in places, events are all over the place (i.e. not very well written, chronologically speaking) and it isn't very encyclopedic any more. No wonder it was delisted and no one wants to promote it, which is a shame given that this man was a true British hero. In contrast ]'s page is well written, has better focus, and is clearly of a higher standard. If I were to rewrite this, I'd literally spend months starting from scratch in sandbox and simply replace the lot when done. I don't think "leadership" is required, too ]ish. Simply needs someone to be ] and redo the whole page objectively, from birth to death, without all the off-side commentary that currently plagues the page. Unfortunately, I'm tied down writing an extensive article on Napoleon's entire military career, and I'm only up to 1796 after months of reading – long way to go yet.. so even if I were to consider rewriting this, it wouldn't be until sometime next year, at the earliest, once this other article has been through the process of several long-winded PR/A/GA reviews, first. | |||
:I have no idea what "1 May 2012" means in the heading? His 243rd birthday? '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 09:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{archivebottom}} | |||
== Closed Discussion above == | |||
Having recently returned to the UK from a month out of the country I note that ] has entered my name in the listings above, without first obtaining my opinion and without my knowledge, which I find offensive. This implies a form of manipulation of the consensus figures (Note that there was a 'Holiday template on my talkpage). Would an admin therefore please move my name from the 'Don't now / no preference' group to the 'Anglo / Irish group' and alter the figures accordingly (whilst your at it I also suggest the spelling of the word 'now' be changed to 'Know')? With regard to the continued ] by the permanently blocked disruptive editor ], via multiple socks, whose identity is now easily recognisable. Note that not only is he permanently blocked from editing, and no longer welcome on Misplaced Pages, his own talkpage has been blocked from his access, which is an exceptionally strong indication of his unwelcome input. His continuing messages are simply 'disruptive entries' and therefore technically ], as such they can be deleted from the talkpages by any editor. Note that after checking the Anon edits in the discussions above that they are all from George SJ. ] (]) 10:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Copy editing comments== | |||
:Don't need an admin to change '''your''' vote - I just "archived" them as each became tedious to maintain. Still editable, though. I suspected you might be on the "Anglo-Irish" side, but as you were away didn't raise the point. I'm not sure that 1 vote makes much difference though either way, consensus-wise. Yes, George is still around. Seems to have had a "change of heart" since the article was edited by Mophon. Can't see why he didn't act like that from the outlook, he might have got better results, more support and no block. Cheers, '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 13:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
I was asked to clean up the citations a bit. I didn't do the nicknames section. Except when I've had to find a source, I've done very little cite-source integrity checking, I just reformatted the existing information, and looked up a few minimal sources. | |||
::It is almost certsin that Wellington was born in Ireland (there is a story that he was born on the packet-boat to Dublin, but that should count, and is not particularly likely). Whether this makes him Irish is a question of modern opinion; but I have no objection to anybody who draws that conclusion. In the language of his own time, ''Anglo-Irish'' was a class, not an ethnicity; but since it has been widely misunderstood above, it may be just as well to convert it into an express clas statement. ] <small>]</small> 04:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
:My objection to ''Irish-born'' is straightforward: it's ambiguous. It can mean that he was born to a family which had long since immigrated to Ireland (true), that he was born in Ireland (probably true), that Irish Gaelic was his native language (false), that he was descended from Milesius in the male line (false). If the first two are meant, let's say so. If they won't do, why not? ] <small>]</small> 20:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
::The guy reverting your edits is {{u|George SJ XXI}} using IP socks. He's a bit of a nut-case, and has a one-track definition of "Irish". If he keeps reverting your edits, anon, all you can do is take it to SPI or AN/I. They hesitate to range block his IPs though as they are used by many editors. They may protect the article for a week or so, at best, but only if the reverts are disruptive. Sorry, can't advise more than that. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 20:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
:If I get support, or favorable comments (yes, I am not a native of the Northern European Archipelago), I'll do that. ] <small>]</small> 20:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
I found a bit of an issue with his funeral, and removed some text pending a better citation: {{xt|At his funeral, there was little space to stand due to the number of attendees, and the praise given him in Tennyson's "Ode on the Death of the Duke of Wellington" attests to his reputation at the time of his death. He was buried in a sarcophagus of luxulyanite in St Paul's Cathedral, next to Lord Nelson}} but left it here if it can be put back in. | |||
See resolution by MarcusBritsh on the 21 October 2011. "to refer him as "Irish-born British soldier and statesman." ] (]) 23:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
I removed it because the citations given, and do not support the text. Neither mentions the sarcophagus of luxulyanite. Sinclair just mentions the monument, which is away from the tomb, saying a point made by the Victoria and Albert Website. I've deleted the Sinclair for now, and expanded the page number for Holmes to keep what is left: the burial in St. Pauls and the crowds. Also, the point about being buried next to Nelson is not in Holmes. Holmes merely states that he was buried "with Nelson" (e.g., at St. Paul's). The tombs are adjacent in the crypt so I'm sure an actual source could be found. I think all of the above could be restored if an appropriate ] source could be found. ] (]) 03:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
:Only the discussion was closed/resolved by me, the changes were made by {{u|Mr. D. E. Mophon}} here: . Also note ] applies here – consensus can change. IPs can also be blocked through page protection to prevent disruption. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 23:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
I also deleted a couple of points where the source was incorrect (e.g., using a cite showing a 1850s poster to make the claim about Wellington's bed still being on exhibition, and a citation referencing an archivist. Though I did do a search through the archives themselves. Again, maybe a dedicated editor can find a reliable source and add the points back in.) ] (]) 07:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
Marcus British. You are acting contrary to your "RESOLVED: Article has been updated to mutual agreement." entry above. ] (]) 02:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Due to your own tenacious editing I changed my mind. I have a right to change my mind, there is no contract in the resolution, a new editor brought new sources to the article, you reverted it. As such I changed it to include both ideas. Again you reverted it. You're war editing, I'm not. The resolution has ended by your own myopic understanding of the difference between nationality (Irish/British) and ethnicity or heritage (Anglo-Irish). You don't seem to want both, which is neutral, just your own pro-Irish POV, as usual. Your block requires you to piss off, you are acting contrary to that. I wonder who is in the greater wrong. I could quite easily get the article protected again. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 02:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Main image in the infobox== | |||
Note that access for ] to even edit his own ] has been withdrawn, due to his persistent inappropriate use of it while blocked. He is 99.99% unlikely to ever be allowed to edit on Misplaced Pages again by the ] due to him, as ] states on GSJ’s talkpage, ''“not being ] to edit in a collaborative environment like Misplaced Pages”'', when he revoked his talkpage access. His only recourse is to be disruptive using ]. His edits on this DoW talkpage are a continuation of his disruptive behaviour and therefore considered to be vandalism. As vandalism they can be deleted on sight, which will help restrict his attempts at continued disruption. So in future just delete them on sight with an edit summary of ‘deleting edit by sockpuppet of ]’. ] (]) 11:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
An IP keeps trying to change the image in the infobox without consensus. In my opinion, the portrait by Thomas Lawrence labelled "File:Sir Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington.png" is the most suitable because it gives a close up perspective. Views welcome. ] (]) 17:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, the Lawrence portrait is (in my opinion) best suited for the infobox. Coridally, ] (]) 18:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
::Agreed, Lawrence portrait is most suitable. ] (]) 21:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::Agreed. Lead/Infobox images should let us see what the subject looks like. The Lawrence portrait does that, the replacement image doesn't. (] ]) 22:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
==Did you know nomination== | |||
Marcus British. Please restore the article to the agreed version. Please post your proposed changes and reasons for same on this page for discussion. ] (]) 09:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington}} | |||
:Lol! No. We don't discuss changes with indef blocked users. Nor do we propose them to you, because you have no say in the matter. It's called ] editing. Pip pip, '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 09:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Furthermore, Welly has now been described as being of Irish nationality, with British allegiance, and Anglo-Irish heritage. You can't get any more neutral, unbiased and even than that. What is there to restore, other than a version with a POV which was objected to? New reference has been cited to allow these changes, Georgey, the matter was discussed and changes made. You have no place to argue, your editing ability was revoked because you have a one-track mind. We can't leave articles the same forever;historians research and write new books all the time, which we can't ignore just to suit your prejudices. We can leave disruptive editors blocked forever though, and ignore their socks. Tally-ho! '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 09:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Nationality == | |||
His nationality should be Anglo-Irish which is the accepted term for people of English descent born in Ireland around this time. See for example Lord Castlereagh who was also born in Dublin in the same year with a similar background. ] (]) 23:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
"a British soldier and statesman, a native of Ireland, from the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy"... Whoever came up with that sentence needs a medal, or at least a barnstar. I've watched the whole 'Irish but not Irish but British but not British but Anglo-Irish but...etc' get battered back and forth for several years now and it is a miracle that all that was needed all that time was the above simple sentence. (this is not sarcasm btw, I mean it). | |||
Bravo, ye who is not known, ye have done a great service to the wiki of pedia.] (]) 17:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Mostly collab-effort between myself and {{u|Pmanderson}} and a lot of patience. Give neutral reasoning a barnstar, lol! '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 17:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
:] is an ethnic group, not a nationality. ‑‑] (] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ]) 19:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Nationality in infobox == | |||
::Well that's not exclusively true, it may be of groups like Irish Travellers however many people would have their nationality as Ulster Scots and Irish such as James Orr and Anglo-Irish like Dean Swift. ] (]) 20:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
::That's also like saying the Cornish or the Kurds or the Silesians are an ethnic group not a Nationality even though many people would exclusively proudly identify as any of the above. ] (]) 20:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Most of Wellington's "English" ancestors had been in Ireland since the 12th Century -names like Fitzgerald, Cusack, Plunkitt are all over his family tree. On his mother's side he has lines that trace deep into Ireland's ancient past, including an O'Brien lineage that goes right to Brian Boru. If Wellington were a Catholic, we wouldn't be having this discussion -the lead would say "Irish". | |||
:If the majority of reliable sources use the ridiculous and anachronistic term "Anglo-Irish" -then by all means cite them and change the description which currently reads "British." But beware that no one living at that time, in or out of Ireland, would've had any idea what this term means. There is good evidence that Wellington was understood as an Irishman by the British press, and a similar case could be made for Edmund Burke. Social and ethnic identities are far more complex than where someone was born, where they died and who their ancestors were, especially for Irishmen like Wellington in the 18th/19th Century. ] (]) 05:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
::His nationality was undoubtly British to a degree (legally speaking) as he was a British PM and battle commander. My own ancestors referred to themselves as both British -and- Irish, being of mixed descent, and Protestant. Ironically I am Catholic. How did Wellington view himself? Perhaps this could give us a clue: (an article original posted here by ] --] (]) 23:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Re: Irish Philosophy - no firm conclusions are drawn by the author there. Dead men tell no (new) tails, and Wellington certainly left things ambigious. Clearly, being a part of the British political establishment meant more to him than solidarity with his fellow Irishmen and women. It is impossible for one to draw conclusions, but I reflect on his main claims to fame - as a PM and military commander, and in both those areas he served Great Britain, not Ireland per se. This seems to suit a lot of Irish people just fine, especially so when we consider how 100 years in the past revolutionaries burned the homes of Wellington's ancestors and drove the remaining Protestants into exile, or political and religious oblivion in the newly independant Irish nation.--] (]) 00:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::To contest the last sentence or two of your answer: Many big houses and aristocratic protestant families still exist in my part of Ireland, and after the War of Independence, they just continued their affluent social and political lives as usual under a different government and they still remain part of the social fabric of our part of the country today. A story goes around in our parish about how the local IRA branch (which included relatives of mine) wouldn't burn any of the Anglo-Irish houses around here because they were a well respected part of our community, they provided employment, housing, and were a talking point for the area. So they weren't exactly pushed into "exile" whatever that means in your mind. De Valera and his extremist government may have tried to do something along those lines in many parts of the country and it may have worked in some, but many places respected the Anglo-Irish because many were good to the poor when times were hard. Despite there being many a heartless landlord who even my own family would've suffered at the hands of, a very prominent amount of Protestant families were philanthropists who built churches, halls and houses in our villages. But I digress, protestant numbers may have gone down significantly because many moved away out of fear they would lose their culture and roles at the hands of a republican government but at the same time, half the Irish peerage was sitting in the Dáil at the time so I wouldn't say it exactly suited many Irish people to see their friends, neighbours and employers being forced away from their ancestral homes after 100s of years of coexistence with one another regardless of political beliefs. Maybe dig a little deeper into the local history of the counties and localities and you'll see that most Irish people and rebels weren't cold monsters who wanted to hoist families from their homes, and believe me, the ones that did force people out had their reasons and needed to make a statement at a depressing and hard time in Irish history for every man woman and child involved . I know this doesn't have much to do with the Duke himself but I feel this point is worth making in the context of the fate of the Protestant Ascendancy. ] (]) 00:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::And believe me, I live in an area that borders several counties and this applies to all of them ] (]) 00:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Lastly, when the Black and Tans raided and burnt down our village, the money to rebuild it mainly came from our local peers who were all Anglican and Unionist (The Taylors, The Mortimers, The Bailies, and The Saundersons;actual names altered) and members of the Anglican Clergy who said they would help their neighbours in any way they could. So believe me many Irish people realise the good many of these families did, but we also don't forget what the bad ones did and who they wronged. ] (]) 01:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Did I say anything about the author drawing a "firm conclusion"? The point was that this subject is far more complicated than the usual blurting about Wellington having been an "Englishman born in Ireland." Wellington's family had little connection with England and his latest English ancestor arrived in Ireland well before the Reformation. Wellington did not have "New English" ancestry as is often implied. | |||
::::The source from the philosopher speculates (quite reasonably) that the cartoonist portrayed Wellington as an Irish chieftain because this would've made sense to the British public -otherwise, why else? And while we cannot conduct original research on here, I'd offer this interesting little tidbit for additional context: | |||
::::In ''Travels in Ireland,'' 1844, Johann Georg Kohlm has the following passage in chapter 29 regarding the accents of Irish aristocrats (in bold), | |||
::::''"Although O'Connell's language is very clear and precise, still he does not speak so fluently as his son: he sometimes hesitates, thinks, and repeats himself; but all this ceases when he becomes warm and enthusiastic. What struck me most, was that he possessed so much of the Irish brogue. He did not, it is true, say repale, like Tom Steele, and some others who were present; but he pronounced the English th almost like d, as, for example, de wishes, with some other Irish peculiarities of accent. '''This brogue is so difficult to be lost, that the most refined Irishmen always retain a portion of it, which is very unpleasant to English ears; and it is said that even the Duke of Wellington cannot wholly divest himself of it."''''' | |||
::::What's more, the Irish and London press had a war of words in the wake of Wellington's death, as both attempted to claim him as their own (this source is more appropriate for Misplaced Pages). | |||
::::It is utterly irrelevant who burned the homes of whom some 50 -60 years later. Nor does the question depend much on how Wellington saw himself. To quote Barack Obama when asked about why he never talks about his mother's white ancestry: "I soon learned you are how people see you." So how did people see Wellington? He was seen as both Irish and English, depending on the author's biases and the point being made. When Wellington had a political opponent in Daniel O'Connell, it made sense for the press to portray them both as Irish chieftains, to spice up the rivalry. But when Wellington died, both the Irish and English press fought over his identity to the extent that his corpse became a "racialized object" (see Sinnema in link 3). You cannot erase this aspect of his life and legacy with the word "British" -politically speaking, everyone in Ireland was "British" when Wellington died, but not when he was born. ] (]) 21:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Nobody was accusing you of trying to 'shoehorn' anything in here regarding how the subject of this article should be described in the lead, which is what we are trying to figure out here. Honestly, the present lead is perhaps left as it is. If people want to learn about his ancestry, they can do so later in the article. The only thing I would object to is describing him as Irish alone in the lead. I'd rather it left blank if it came to that - no serious scholar would refer to the subject as a "flawed, contextual Irishman, definitely not British thou" today. From his birth, mind you, he would have been a British subject. And no one is trying to erase anything.--] (]) 23:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::And the lead section is supposed to ''summarise'' who the individual was and where their notability is derived from. Wellington's notability derived from him being a prime minister and general. We cannot describe him as an "Irish prime minister and field marshal" in the lead, that would be absurd. He wasn't Lafayette, who came over to another country to "lend a hand" and got into the spirit of things in a way which went above ethnic pettiness - Wellington was a dyed-in-the-wool British imperialist and coloniser, firmly a part of the British establishment. The views of the likes of Kohl, who originated from Germany - a place that at the time was not even a unified nation - is opinion. I do value his opinion to a degree, but god damn it the context ''matters.'' My daughter is mixed race - like literally in the modern day sense - and depending on who you ask, you will get different responses. Some are more innocent i.e "ancestry does not dictate nationality, and the latter is what matters", others will be more open - "self-iD and how you were raised matters" - and others will be, for use of a better term, hold racist views that will dictate their response. 200 years ago, such as when the Duke of Wellington was around, the responses would have been different again. Context matters. I am not suggesting he wasn't Irish. No one here would seriously argue that he wasn't to some degree.--] (]) 00:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{outdent}} | |||
Similar nationality/ethnicity discussions can be found on every one of this article's archived Talkpages. They have all involved the expenditure of a great deal of virtual ink. None have reached a consensus for change, and neither will this. There must surely be more productive ways to improve the article, than another fruitless discussion. ] (]) 08:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I agree let's keep the discussion civil, and do our best to improve the article rather than acting out of turn. ] (]) 11:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
I have reverted self, but thought the agreement was <nowiki>]</nowiki> --] (]) 17:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Fair enough, but be aware that when we talk about "Irishness" in the early to mid 19th Century, we are talking about one of the four main ethnic groups of the United Kingdom. Irish people served the British government, the British military, and could travel freely back and forth from Ireland and England, and many lived in England yet were still perceived as "Irish" for the rest of their lives, especially if they had ethnic traits like a brogue, which some sources imply Wellington had (one source even claimed he got mocked for his Irish heritage at Eton). Again, this question is complicated and ironically not unlike the identity of his rival Napoleon (was Napoleon Corsican, Italian, French or some hyphenated label?) ] (]) 04:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Nope, just re-read what it says again, nationality should be <nowiki>]</nowiki> --] (]) 17:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Sorry, just to follow this up real quick (completely forgot about this) -in the lead and "early life" section it's mentioned that Wellington was born into the ] in Ireland, and links to an article that describes this class as: | |||
:{{ec}} He was 3 things: | |||
:::''"Unsuccessful revolts against English rule in 1595–1603 and 1641–53 and then the 1689–91 Williamite Wars resulted in much Irish land confiscated by the Crown, and then sold to people who were thought loyal, most of whom were '''English and Protestant'''. ''English soldiers and traders became the new ruling class, as its richer members were elevated to the Irish House of Lords and eventually controlled the Irish House of Commons (see Plantations of Ireland). This class became collectively known as the Anglo-Irish."'''''' | |||
:*Irish ''nationality''. | |||
:::Is this accurate? If so it should be mentioned almost none of Wellington's English ancestors were Protestant English colonists -they all arrived as Catholics pre-Reformation, and were targeted along with Gaelic landowners during the 16th and 17th Century plantations. Some of these older noble families rebelled and lost all land and titles, while others converted to the established church to retain their privileges. Wellington's family belonged to the latter group. ] (]) 04:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
:*British ''career'' (soldier and Prime Minister). | |||
:*Anglo-Irish ''heritage''. | |||
:By using those 3 terms we present unequivocal neutrality, and represent all the right sentiments. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 17:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I was unaware of, or had forgotten, the inconclusive discussions above, but it is hard to reconcile this with either the normal practice of historians, Wellington's notorious reaction when someone suggested he was Irish, or ] (my bold): "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, '''the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable'''." Not to mention the Easter egg link. ] (]) 19:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::That being the case, can you suggest ''when'' Wellington "became notable"? Wellington is not a ''modern-day'' case, he was born in the 18th century under a very different political social infrastructure between Britain and Ireland to what we have now. What Easter egg link? '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 19:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::Ok, I was mixed-up with another page on the Easter egg. In military terms in 1801, but I see he was an MP in the Irish Parliament before that. Also I see the quote is doubtful as being from Wellington, but a variant is firmly attributable to no less a figure than ]: "No, he is not an Irishman. He was born in Ireland; but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse." ] during a speech (16 October 1843), as quoted in . It is clearly absurd to have his nationality just as Irish, yet another demonstration of how infoboxes always become misleading when faced with anything complex. ] (]) 20:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::The speech has been quoted often. Question is, why would a ''political'' speech be considered a valid reason to not consider him Irish? Did O'Connell cite his sources or was it simply a rousing speech? Hitler said a lot of things about the Jews.. that they were not true Germans, despite >6 million being born in Germany.. was he right too (rhetorical question). Wellington was born in the ] pre-Acts of Union. It had an English monarch, but it was still "Ireland" ''per se''. Why should we not consider him Irish, based on this? Wellington did not deny that he was Irish, nor did he assert that he was British.. he simply acted and lived like an Englishman. Doesn't make him English. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 20:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::Do you have ] on that? And why does the lead describe him as "British ... born in Ireland" - obviously far better. ] (]) 14:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I have no need for a RS, it's you who wants to change his nationality to British despite support for the current version which has remained stable for a good while. So you need to provide a RS. Bearing in mind one source does not necessarily override another, and many authors have described Wellington as Irish and as Anglo-Irish. Few, if any, as British nationality. "Born in Ireland" is just nit-picking, pointed, and looking to provoke war-edits, when, again, there is no need.. what you feel it "obviously better" may not be agreed upon by others. As I've said, the article lead has been stable for ages, apart from one idiot who has been banned for months so his views don't have any influence here and his IP reverts are what result in semi-protection, which I welcome. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 14:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Oh, sorry, "a native of Ireland", a fine piece of 19th-century usage! Your very careful wording above is noted - of course you have loads of RS giving him Irish "nationality", I'm sure. ] (]) 15:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Being born in the ] is not a matter of RS.. it's common sense. '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 15:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Discussion . | |||
== AI-generated tag == | |||
== Proposed solution to nationality debate == | |||
I have added a tag to a section that was added recently and may contain ChatGPT text. A particular problem is references that have been automatically generated and have in some cases nothing to do with the text. See in particular refs 203 and 205. 203 is a three-page book review of a book about Neo-Liberalism in ''Twentieth Century British History''. As for 205 - just click on it. Neither has anything to do with the Duke of Wellington or early 19th century domestic policy. ] (]) 00:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
This whole argument got tiresome some time ago. Whatever happens (even laborious catch-all statements like he "was a British soldier and statesman, a native of Ireland, from the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy") will never please everyone, as can be seen from the absurd amount of space taken up by the issue on this talk page and its archives. So here's a solution... '''don't include a nationality in the lead section or the infobox at all'''. Just say he was born in the (Kingdom of) Ireland and let readers project whatever prejudices they want onto that statement of indisputable fact. If the nationality debate merits a mention in the article, it can be included further down somewhere. ] (]) 00:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I would support this. I think the current first sentence should be expanded into two: "Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, KG, GCB, GCH, PC, FRS (1 May 1769 – 14 September 1852), was a soldier and statesman, who was born in Ireland. He was the leading British commander in the ] before becoming ], and was one of the leading military and political figures of the 19th century." You should not have to go down into later paras to get the information added. ] (]) 00:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::That sounds like a good proposal to me and ]'s suggestion above is both factual and neutral, so I would also support that change as well. ] (]) 01:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
*'''Strongly Oppose''' – this is ''an encyclopedia'', we write articles to relay factual information, not to expect people make their own mind up. If this becomes another wiki article where the facts are hidden or fixed on some consensus rather than sources, it becomes trash, where editors consider their views higher than those historians and biographers who make a living out of writing books after years of dedicated research; it sets back another wiki article and makes a mockery of the five pillars. Consensus only makes sense if the proposal has merit. Given that even man, woman and child born on this planet has a nationality, excluding it here is about as stupid as denying they have a gender, age or primary language. Wiki isn't just about "the editors" who make it, especially not the ones who want to hack up details based on prejudice.. it is written for an audience, for research, for provision of details. What good does it serve to not have a nationality? How smart does wiki look when it can't even come up with a single word to determine a man's origins? It's as bad as if we were to put "9/11 was caused by some men" because we couldn't agree whether to use "terrorists" or "martyrs" as a description because of varied POVs. We don't write articles worded to settle editor disputes.. that's not writing an encyclopedia.. it's "agree to differ" nonsense, with non-factual data added, or factual data removed to suit a minority that won't bring sources to the table. And the thought occurs that if 15 words are considered "laborious", why would anyone want to read anything beyond a stub or "Wellington was some bloke who beat Napoleon in 1815." Don't be facetious, that sentence is written for a competent audience and is perfectly unambiguous. The article is also stable, and has been for a fair while. I see leaving out nationality as ''creating'' a loophole for editors to try to "fill the gap" and slip in "Irish" or "British" and introduce a whole new level of disruption.. if it ain't broken, don't fix it. It isn't broken. Don't invite trouble either.. we can't be expected to police this article in a "no nationality" state and keep reverting when anyone adds a nationality.. which they will.. that would create more time and history revisions than determining a nationality! '''] <sup>[]]</sup>''' 01:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:: |
:I agree: I have removed those paragraphs: please feel free to cull any more suspect material. ] (]) 08:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
::The added text certainly had an odd "ring"; I didn't check the sources - thanks for doing so - but I wondered if it was copied from somewhere. As suggested, Chat is perhaps a more likely possibility. ] (]) 08:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::George, instead of ''arsing'' everyone about, have you even bothered contacting ]? End of the day, being ''de facto'' banned means your IP edits can and will be removed per policy, which means you're wasting your time supporting/opposing anything. '''] <sup>[]]</sup>''' 01:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::I have removed it all now. I don't think there was anything significant that needed keeping. It seemed to concern topics already covered in the article, there was for example a section on Catholic emancipation. ] (]) 10:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Marcus: "Wellington is Irish". The task is finished. The entity "George SJ XXI", having completed its task, is disbanded. De facto finito. ] (]) 03:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::"Is"? Isn't he dead? Maybe we should ask him... Anyway, I like how it reads atm. Which is granting that he ''was'' Irish, plus some extra details covering his ''notable'' British career, and ''influential'' Anglo-Irish status. Something a lot of so-called "Anglo-Irish" people lack.. they might be Anglo-Irish of birth, but it's not always notable. In this case, it is. Totally neutral perspective. '''] <sup>[]]</sup>''' 03:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::The good it serves not to include a nationality is because at the moment the statement in the infobox that he was Irish is unsourced and not supported elsewhere in the article - in fact the article states that there was contemporary argument over whether he was Irish or English. Without getting into the history of British and Irish nationality law, all that could really be said is that he was born a subject of King George III. Omitting any definite statement one way or the other avoids ]. And it would be easy to prevent future editors adding a nationality by putting a note in ] saying to bring up the issue on the talk page before amending this section. ] (]) 13:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::I'd like to see the non-Royalist, non-British-biased WP:RS that indicates being born subject of some English monarch determines nationality, and suggests that every man, woman and child born in the Kingdom of Ireland between 1542 and 1800 must therefore have been British or English. I'm sure the Irish would have ''a lot'' to say about that! Also, editors determined to put their own contribs, especially when it comes to such things as nationality, don't care about hidden text, they delete it and add their entry anyway. George certainly would. The matter of Wellington's nationality can produce reliable historians claiming he was Irish, and just as many claiming he was British, and a smaller number calling him English.. which is ], and if you ever find a book stating that – bin it! Regardless, the fact still remains that he was born on the island of Ireland pre-Acts of Union, was educated and raised there, worked there, and only left to join the British army. These facts are not OR, and if historians cannot agree, then perhaps nationality law is the best way to resolve the matter, because Wikipedians' certainly lack the mentality to settle it any other way without seemingly endless debate and ''faux'' consenus' based material. '''] <sup>[]]</sup>''' 14:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::Er, George III was King of Ireland as well as King of Great Britain at the time of Wellington's birth. Of course it's not OR to say he was born in Ireland, educated there, etc. What is OR is for[REDACTED] to decide whether he was Irish or British when historians disagree over this very issue. Given that there is this dispute, the infobox should say Irish/British or, as I've suggested, leave it out altogether. At present the infobox gives undue weight to one side with no citation whatsoever. (I personally think being born in Ireland of Irish descent makes him Irish, but it's not about what we think, it's about what reputable sources have already published.) ] (]) 14:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::Trust me, I understand the position of Wiki, and don't have personal POVs here, being British yet favouring "Irish" based on similar beliefs to yourself, I don't like bias or supporting nationalistic pride, I just refute that excluding information is "encyclopedic". Even the worst encyclopedia will at least state one or the other based on plausible sources and reasonable assertions. They make a judgement call after weighing up known facts. So, what about these Kingdom of Ireland nationality laws.. given their age.. still accessible anywhere? I'm just as happy to use "British" if the law of the time says so, but I'd need hard evidence to be convinced. Atm my beliefs are based on his native upbringing. If Napoleon was clearly Corsican not French, and Hitler was Austrian not German, why is Wellington so damned hard to tag? Answer: people like making it difficult. '''] <sup>[]]</sup>''' 15:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::The debate is difficult because of your wholly eccentric opinion, expressed elsewhere, that citizenship and nationality are two different things, and that if ctizenship changes nationality does not. Would you agree that if the infobox parameter was called "citizenship", "British" would be a more appropriate one word answer? ] (]) 15:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Citizenship is not in the infobox though, so that makes your argument a straw man. If it doesn't exist, it's not a valid point. And if you can't accept that nationality and citizenship are separate issues, that hardly makes me "eccentric", it makes you prone to discrimination, and trying to merit it by using the terms interchangeably, which is a fallacy. '''] <sup>[]]</sup>''' 16:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::No, it makes me someone who uses a dictionary, and reads the notes on official forms. ] (]) 17:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
Wellington is hardly the only notable person born and raised in Ireland of English ancestry. But ], ], ], ] and the rest are just "Irish." "Anglo-Irish" seems to be a one-person nationality, or "a protestant with a horse" as the joke goes. "British soldier and statesman, born in Ireland," is fine. ] (]) 15:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Anglo-Irish isn't a nationality.. never was.. it's a heritage and social-class. '''] <sup>[]]</sup>''' 16:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::According to one of the guidelines, I forget which, it is an ethnicity, which is certainly silly. This section is mainly about the "nationality" line in the infobox, which currently says "Irish". 17:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)] (]) |
Latest revision as of 19:56, 31 December 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Copy editing comments
I was asked to clean up the citations a bit. I didn't do the nicknames section. Except when I've had to find a source, I've done very little cite-source integrity checking, I just reformatted the existing information, and looked up a few minimal sources.
I found a bit of an issue with his funeral, and removed some text pending a better citation: At his funeral, there was little space to stand due to the number of attendees, and the praise given him in Tennyson's "Ode on the Death of the Duke of Wellington" attests to his reputation at the time of his death. He was buried in a sarcophagus of luxulyanite in St Paul's Cathedral, next to Lord Nelson but left it here if it can be put back in. I removed it because the citations given, Sinclair and Holmes do not support the text. Neither mentions the sarcophagus of luxulyanite. Sinclair just mentions the monument, which is away from the tomb, saying a point made by the Victoria and Albert Website. I've deleted the Sinclair for now, and expanded the page number for Holmes to keep what is left: the burial in St. Pauls and the crowds. Also, the point about being buried next to Nelson is not in Holmes. Holmes merely states that he was buried "with Nelson" (e.g., at St. Paul's). The tombs are adjacent in the crypt so I'm sure an actual source could be found. I think all of the above could be restored if an appropriate WP:RS source could be found. Wtfiv (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I also deleted a couple of points where the source was incorrect (e.g., using a cite showing a 1850s poster to make the claim about Wellington's bed still being on exhibition, and a citation referencing an archivist. Though I did do a search through the archives themselves. Again, maybe a dedicated editor can find a reliable source and add the points back in.) Wtfiv (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Main image in the infobox
An IP keeps trying to change the image in the infobox without consensus. In my opinion, the portrait by Thomas Lawrence labelled "File:Sir Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington.png" is the most suitable because it gives a close up perspective. Views welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the Lawrence portrait is (in my opinion) best suited for the infobox. Coridally, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, Lawrence portrait is most suitable. Chariotsacha (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Lead/Infobox images should let us see what the subject looks like. The Lawrence portrait does that, the replacement image doesn't. (Hohum ) 22:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, Lawrence portrait is most suitable. Chariotsacha (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by BorgQueen (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
( )
- ... that Duke Wellington was the British officer to confirm the death of Tipu Sultan in the Battle of Seringapatam (1799)? Source: "After hearing news of the death of the Tipu Sultan, Wellesley was the first at the scene to confirm his death, checking his pulse." - Holmes (2002), p. 60.
- Reviewed:
Created by WikiSabih (talk). Self-nominated at 00:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- welcome to dyk, WikiSabih! i am not sure if you are already aware, but this project focuses on showcasing new articles and recently improved articles, as explained at wp:dyk. the guidelines at wp:dyknew explain that a nominated article should have been, within the last seven days, either created in article space, expanded at least fivefold, or promoted to good article status.unfortunately, this article does not appear to currently be eligible for an appearance at dyk, as it was first created in 2001, and the only edit to the article in the last week is a modification to the configuration of a navigation template. i do not believe it is feasible to expand the article fivefold, considering the current length of the article, though if you think you can successfully nominate it for good article status, that may be a way to feature this article at dyk in the future.apologies for being the bearer of bad news. if you have any questions about the dyk process, please let me know. dying (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Nationality
His nationality should be Anglo-Irish which is the accepted term for people of English descent born in Ireland around this time. See for example Lord Castlereagh who was also born in Dublin in the same year with a similar background. 176.61.123.52 (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Anglo-Irish is an ethnic group, not a nationality. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well that's not exclusively true, it may be of groups like Irish Travellers however many people would have their nationality as Ulster Scots and Irish such as James Orr and Anglo-Irish like Dean Swift. 78.16.137.92 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's also like saying the Cornish or the Kurds or the Silesians are an ethnic group not a Nationality even though many people would exclusively proudly identify as any of the above. 78.16.137.92 (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Most of Wellington's "English" ancestors had been in Ireland since the 12th Century -names like Fitzgerald, Cusack, Plunkitt are all over his family tree. On his mother's side he has lines that trace deep into Ireland's ancient past, including an O'Brien lineage that goes right to Brian Boru. If Wellington were a Catholic, we wouldn't be having this discussion -the lead would say "Irish".
- If the majority of reliable sources use the ridiculous and anachronistic term "Anglo-Irish" -then by all means cite them and change the description which currently reads "British." But beware that no one living at that time, in or out of Ireland, would've had any idea what this term means. There is good evidence that Wellington was understood as an Irishman by the British press, and a similar case could be made for Edmund Burke. Social and ethnic identities are far more complex than where someone was born, where they died and who their ancestors were, especially for Irishmen like Wellington in the 18th/19th Century. Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- His nationality was undoubtly British to a degree (legally speaking) as he was a British PM and battle commander. My own ancestors referred to themselves as both British -and- Irish, being of mixed descent, and Protestant. Ironically I am Catholic. How did Wellington view himself? Perhaps this could give us a clue: (an article original posted here by User:Fergananim --SinoDevonian (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Re: Irish Philosophy - no firm conclusions are drawn by the author there. Dead men tell no (new) tails, and Wellington certainly left things ambigious. Clearly, being a part of the British political establishment meant more to him than solidarity with his fellow Irishmen and women. It is impossible for one to draw conclusions, but I reflect on his main claims to fame - as a PM and military commander, and in both those areas he served Great Britain, not Ireland per se. This seems to suit a lot of Irish people just fine, especially so when we consider how 100 years in the past revolutionaries burned the homes of Wellington's ancestors and drove the remaining Protestants into exile, or political and religious oblivion in the newly independant Irish nation.--SinoDevonian (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- To contest the last sentence or two of your answer: Many big houses and aristocratic protestant families still exist in my part of Ireland, and after the War of Independence, they just continued their affluent social and political lives as usual under a different government and they still remain part of the social fabric of our part of the country today. A story goes around in our parish about how the local IRA branch (which included relatives of mine) wouldn't burn any of the Anglo-Irish houses around here because they were a well respected part of our community, they provided employment, housing, and were a talking point for the area. So they weren't exactly pushed into "exile" whatever that means in your mind. De Valera and his extremist government may have tried to do something along those lines in many parts of the country and it may have worked in some, but many places respected the Anglo-Irish because many were good to the poor when times were hard. Despite there being many a heartless landlord who even my own family would've suffered at the hands of, a very prominent amount of Protestant families were philanthropists who built churches, halls and houses in our villages. But I digress, protestant numbers may have gone down significantly because many moved away out of fear they would lose their culture and roles at the hands of a republican government but at the same time, half the Irish peerage was sitting in the Dáil at the time so I wouldn't say it exactly suited many Irish people to see their friends, neighbours and employers being forced away from their ancestral homes after 100s of years of coexistence with one another regardless of political beliefs. Maybe dig a little deeper into the local history of the counties and localities and you'll see that most Irish people and rebels weren't cold monsters who wanted to hoist families from their homes, and believe me, the ones that did force people out had their reasons and needed to make a statement at a depressing and hard time in Irish history for every man woman and child involved . I know this doesn't have much to do with the Duke himself but I feel this point is worth making in the context of the fate of the Protestant Ascendancy. 78.16.137.92 (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- And believe me, I live in an area that borders several counties and this applies to all of them 78.16.137.92 (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Lastly, when the Black and Tans raided and burnt down our village, the money to rebuild it mainly came from our local peers who were all Anglican and Unionist (The Taylors, The Mortimers, The Bailies, and The Saundersons;actual names altered) and members of the Anglican Clergy who said they would help their neighbours in any way they could. So believe me many Irish people realise the good many of these families did, but we also don't forget what the bad ones did and who they wronged. 78.16.137.92 (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Did I say anything about the author drawing a "firm conclusion"? The point was that this subject is far more complicated than the usual blurting about Wellington having been an "Englishman born in Ireland." Wellington's family had little connection with England and his latest English ancestor arrived in Ireland well before the Reformation. Wellington did not have "New English" ancestry as is often implied.
- The source from the philosopher speculates (quite reasonably) that the cartoonist portrayed Wellington as an Irish chieftain because this would've made sense to the British public -otherwise, why else? And while we cannot conduct original research on here, I'd offer this interesting little tidbit for additional context:
- In Travels in Ireland, 1844, Johann Georg Kohlm has the following passage in chapter 29 regarding the accents of Irish aristocrats (in bold),
- "Although O'Connell's language is very clear and precise, still he does not speak so fluently as his son: he sometimes hesitates, thinks, and repeats himself; but all this ceases when he becomes warm and enthusiastic. What struck me most, was that he possessed so much of the Irish brogue. He did not, it is true, say repale, like Tom Steele, and some others who were present; but he pronounced the English th almost like d, as, for example, de wishes, with some other Irish peculiarities of accent. This brogue is so difficult to be lost, that the most refined Irishmen always retain a portion of it, which is very unpleasant to English ears; and it is said that even the Duke of Wellington cannot wholly divest himself of it."
- What's more, the Irish and London press had a war of words in the wake of Wellington's death, as both attempted to claim him as their own (this source is more appropriate for Misplaced Pages).
- It is utterly irrelevant who burned the homes of whom some 50 -60 years later. Nor does the question depend much on how Wellington saw himself. To quote Barack Obama when asked about why he never talks about his mother's white ancestry: "I soon learned you are how people see you." So how did people see Wellington? He was seen as both Irish and English, depending on the author's biases and the point being made. When Wellington had a political opponent in Daniel O'Connell, it made sense for the press to portray them both as Irish chieftains, to spice up the rivalry. But when Wellington died, both the Irish and English press fought over his identity to the extent that his corpse became a "racialized object" (see Sinnema in link 3). You cannot erase this aspect of his life and legacy with the word "British" -politically speaking, everyone in Ireland was "British" when Wellington died, but not when he was born. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody was accusing you of trying to 'shoehorn' anything in here regarding how the subject of this article should be described in the lead, which is what we are trying to figure out here. Honestly, the present lead is perhaps left as it is. If people want to learn about his ancestry, they can do so later in the article. The only thing I would object to is describing him as Irish alone in the lead. I'd rather it left blank if it came to that - no serious scholar would refer to the subject as a "flawed, contextual Irishman, definitely not British thou" today. From his birth, mind you, he would have been a British subject. And no one is trying to erase anything.--SinoDevonian (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- And the lead section is supposed to summarise who the individual was and where their notability is derived from. Wellington's notability derived from him being a prime minister and general. We cannot describe him as an "Irish prime minister and field marshal" in the lead, that would be absurd. He wasn't Lafayette, who came over to another country to "lend a hand" and got into the spirit of things in a way which went above ethnic pettiness - Wellington was a dyed-in-the-wool British imperialist and coloniser, firmly a part of the British establishment. The views of the likes of Kohl, who originated from Germany - a place that at the time was not even a unified nation - is opinion. I do value his opinion to a degree, but god damn it the context matters. My daughter is mixed race - like literally in the modern day sense - and depending on who you ask, you will get different responses. Some are more innocent i.e "ancestry does not dictate nationality, and the latter is what matters", others will be more open - "self-iD and how you were raised matters" - and others will be, for use of a better term, hold racist views that will dictate their response. 200 years ago, such as when the Duke of Wellington was around, the responses would have been different again. Context matters. I am not suggesting he wasn't Irish. No one here would seriously argue that he wasn't to some degree.--SinoDevonian (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody was accusing you of trying to 'shoehorn' anything in here regarding how the subject of this article should be described in the lead, which is what we are trying to figure out here. Honestly, the present lead is perhaps left as it is. If people want to learn about his ancestry, they can do so later in the article. The only thing I would object to is describing him as Irish alone in the lead. I'd rather it left blank if it came to that - no serious scholar would refer to the subject as a "flawed, contextual Irishman, definitely not British thou" today. From his birth, mind you, he would have been a British subject. And no one is trying to erase anything.--SinoDevonian (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- To contest the last sentence or two of your answer: Many big houses and aristocratic protestant families still exist in my part of Ireland, and after the War of Independence, they just continued their affluent social and political lives as usual under a different government and they still remain part of the social fabric of our part of the country today. A story goes around in our parish about how the local IRA branch (which included relatives of mine) wouldn't burn any of the Anglo-Irish houses around here because they were a well respected part of our community, they provided employment, housing, and were a talking point for the area. So they weren't exactly pushed into "exile" whatever that means in your mind. De Valera and his extremist government may have tried to do something along those lines in many parts of the country and it may have worked in some, but many places respected the Anglo-Irish because many were good to the poor when times were hard. Despite there being many a heartless landlord who even my own family would've suffered at the hands of, a very prominent amount of Protestant families were philanthropists who built churches, halls and houses in our villages. But I digress, protestant numbers may have gone down significantly because many moved away out of fear they would lose their culture and roles at the hands of a republican government but at the same time, half the Irish peerage was sitting in the Dáil at the time so I wouldn't say it exactly suited many Irish people to see their friends, neighbours and employers being forced away from their ancestral homes after 100s of years of coexistence with one another regardless of political beliefs. Maybe dig a little deeper into the local history of the counties and localities and you'll see that most Irish people and rebels weren't cold monsters who wanted to hoist families from their homes, and believe me, the ones that did force people out had their reasons and needed to make a statement at a depressing and hard time in Irish history for every man woman and child involved . I know this doesn't have much to do with the Duke himself but I feel this point is worth making in the context of the fate of the Protestant Ascendancy. 78.16.137.92 (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Re: Irish Philosophy - no firm conclusions are drawn by the author there. Dead men tell no (new) tails, and Wellington certainly left things ambigious. Clearly, being a part of the British political establishment meant more to him than solidarity with his fellow Irishmen and women. It is impossible for one to draw conclusions, but I reflect on his main claims to fame - as a PM and military commander, and in both those areas he served Great Britain, not Ireland per se. This seems to suit a lot of Irish people just fine, especially so when we consider how 100 years in the past revolutionaries burned the homes of Wellington's ancestors and drove the remaining Protestants into exile, or political and religious oblivion in the newly independant Irish nation.--SinoDevonian (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- His nationality was undoubtly British to a degree (legally speaking) as he was a British PM and battle commander. My own ancestors referred to themselves as both British -and- Irish, being of mixed descent, and Protestant. Ironically I am Catholic. How did Wellington view himself? Perhaps this could give us a clue: (an article original posted here by User:Fergananim --SinoDevonian (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Similar nationality/ethnicity discussions can be found on every one of this article's archived Talkpages. They have all involved the expenditure of a great deal of virtual ink. None have reached a consensus for change, and neither will this. There must surely be more productive ways to improve the article, than another fruitless discussion. KJP1 (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree let's keep the discussion civil, and do our best to improve the article rather than acting out of turn. 109.78.207.110 (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but be aware that when we talk about "Irishness" in the early to mid 19th Century, we are talking about one of the four main ethnic groups of the United Kingdom. Irish people served the British government, the British military, and could travel freely back and forth from Ireland and England, and many lived in England yet were still perceived as "Irish" for the rest of their lives, especially if they had ethnic traits like a brogue, which some sources imply Wellington had (one source even claimed he got mocked for his Irish heritage at Eton). Again, this question is complicated and ironically not unlike the identity of his rival Napoleon (was Napoleon Corsican, Italian, French or some hyphenated label?) Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, just to follow this up real quick (completely forgot about this) -in the lead and "early life" section it's mentioned that Wellington was born into the Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland, and links to an article that describes this class as:
- "Unsuccessful revolts against English rule in 1595–1603 and 1641–53 and then the 1689–91 Williamite Wars resulted in much Irish land confiscated by the Crown, and then sold to people who were thought loyal, most of whom were English and Protestant'. English soldiers and traders became the new ruling class, as its richer members were elevated to the Irish House of Lords and eventually controlled the Irish House of Commons (see Plantations of Ireland). This class became collectively known as the Anglo-Irish."'
- Is this accurate? If so it should be mentioned almost none of Wellington's English ancestors were Protestant English colonists -they all arrived as Catholics pre-Reformation, and were targeted along with Gaelic landowners during the 16th and 17th Century plantations. Some of these older noble families rebelled and lost all land and titles, while others converted to the established church to retain their privileges. Wellington's family belonged to the latter group. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but be aware that when we talk about "Irishness" in the early to mid 19th Century, we are talking about one of the four main ethnic groups of the United Kingdom. Irish people served the British government, the British military, and could travel freely back and forth from Ireland and England, and many lived in England yet were still perceived as "Irish" for the rest of their lives, especially if they had ethnic traits like a brogue, which some sources imply Wellington had (one source even claimed he got mocked for his Irish heritage at Eton). Again, this question is complicated and ironically not unlike the identity of his rival Napoleon (was Napoleon Corsican, Italian, French or some hyphenated label?) Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
AI-generated tag
I have added a tag to a section that was added recently and may contain ChatGPT text. A particular problem is references that have been automatically generated and have in some cases nothing to do with the text. See in particular refs 203 and 205. 203 is a three-page book review of a book about Neo-Liberalism in Twentieth Century British History. As for 205 - just click on it. Neither has anything to do with the Duke of Wellington or early 19th century domestic policy. Southdevonian (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree: I have removed those paragraphs: please feel free to cull any more suspect material. Dormskirk (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- The added text certainly had an odd "ring"; I didn't check the sources - thanks for doing so - but I wondered if it was copied from somewhere. As suggested, Chat is perhaps a more likely possibility. KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed it all now. I don't think there was anything significant that needed keeping. It seemed to concern topics already covered in the article, there was for example a section on Catholic emancipation. Southdevonian (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- The added text certainly had an odd "ring"; I didn't check the sources - thanks for doing so - but I wondered if it was copied from somewhere. As suggested, Chat is perhaps a more likely possibility. KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (military) articles
- Top-importance biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- B-Class biography (peerage) articles
- High-importance biography (peerage) articles
- Peerage and Baronetage work group articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- B-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- B-Class South Asian military history articles
- South Asian military history task force articles
- B-Class Spanish military history articles
- Spanish military history task force articles
- B-Class Early Modern warfare articles
- Early Modern warfare task force articles
- B-Class Napoleonic era articles
- Napoleonic era task force articles
- B-Class University of Oxford articles
- Low-importance University of Oxford articles
- B-Class University of Oxford (colleges) articles
- WikiProject University of Oxford articles
- B-Class Ireland articles
- Mid-importance Ireland articles
- B-Class Ireland articles of Mid-importance
- All WikiProject Ireland pages
- B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Top-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- B-Class London-related articles
- Mid-importance London-related articles
- B-Class India articles
- Low-importance India articles
- B-Class India articles of Low-importance
- B-Class Maharashtra articles
- Low-importance Maharashtra articles
- B-Class Maharashtra articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject Maharashtra articles
- WikiProject India articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles