Misplaced Pages

Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnbod (talk | contribs) at 17:11, 8 January 2012 (→Proposed solution to nationality debate: replies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:11, 8 January 2012 by Johnbod (talk | contribs) (→Proposed solution to nationality debate: replies)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Former featured article candidateArthur 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 28, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 30, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 5, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Former featured article candidate
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: British / European / Spanish
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
Spanish military history task force
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUniversity of Oxford Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIreland Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLondon Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
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.

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.

Wellington was an Irishman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.169.201 (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC) 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. Ma®©usBritish  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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.169.201 (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC) — 58.7.169.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Then quite simply put, you aren't reading them hard enough.. George. 26 September = reverts. The edit summary explains, discussion not needed. Ma®©usBritish  04:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Question: does a citizen from Northern Ireland have the British nationality? And if the Duke of Welligton was born in England, would he be referred as "English" or "British"? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But they are also entitled to Irish citizenship. See: Northern Ireland#Citizenship and identity. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish  06:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) He would probably still be referred to as Anglo-Irish. 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".
Ma®©usBritish  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. JonC 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 "Anglo-Irish" 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. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 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 Anglo-Irish 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 Anglo-Irish, 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. Ma®©usBritish  08:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
PS: If you read Anglo-Irish you'll see Welly mentioned several times, with details surrounding his background. Ma®©usBritish  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. Ma®©usBritish  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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.181.163 (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC) — 124.169.181.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That'll be boring George's record stuck again. The Wizard of Aus didn't give him life. Ignore him. He's blocked because he's a dick. Ma®©usBritish  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" — 124.168.247.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC).

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. This template must be substituted.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wellington was an Irishman: An unsolved problem.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Now we have an unsolved problem. How and when does an Irishman, born in 1769, cease to be an Irishman ? 203.59.53.82 (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

User:George SJ XXI, you are blocked indefinitely, your sockpuppets and sock IPs, oh and User:GSJ XX1 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 get over it!

– Case closed.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment

RESOLVED Article has been updated to mutual agreement.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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:

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. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I support the status quo: Anglo-Irish in the lead, British in the infobox. JonC 05:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 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. Ma®©usBritish  05:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
When there is no consensus, the page has to be reverted before the edit that he is Anglo-Irish, and if I'm correct this is "British soldier". This until the matter is solved. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 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. Ma®©usBritish  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? JonC 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. Ma®©usBritish  08:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Righty-ho. Hard to see who you were replying owing to the edit conflicts. JonC 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. Ma®©usBritish  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 User:Jonchapple 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"). Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 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? Ma®©usBritish  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. 203.206.85.136 (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC) { This template must be substituted.

Comment – sock puppets of blocked users may not 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 WP:EVADE, as you're circumventing a block. Go get your main account unblocked, if the Wiki Arbitration Committee are willing. Until then, you're still socking against wiki policy and therefore no one is required to comment respond or play with you. I oppose all your suggestions. Toodles, Ma®©usBritish  06:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MarcusBritish - Page leader - Duke of Wellington - 1 May 2012.

CLOSED The chances of me taking role as page leader for someone to come mess up again because I refuse to meet their agenda, lies somewhere between nought and zero. Ma®©usBritish 

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. 124.169.182.129 (talk) 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 Napoleon'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 WP:OWNish. Simply needs someone to be WP:BOLD 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? Ma®©usBritish  09:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed Discussion above

Having recently returned to the UK from a month out of the country I note that Mr. D. E. Mophon 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 Tendentious editing by the permanently blocked disruptive editor George SJ XXI, 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 vandalism, 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. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

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, Ma®©usBritish  13:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 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? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The guy reverting your edits is 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. Ma®©usBritish  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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

See resolution by MarcusBritsh on the 21 October 2011. "to refer him as "Irish-born British soldier and statesman." 203.206.57.160 (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Only the discussion was closed/resolved by me, the changes were made by Mr. D. E. Mophon here: . Also note WP:CCC applies here – consensus can change. IPs can also be blocked through page protection to prevent disruption. Ma®©usBritish  23:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Marcus British. You are acting contrary to your "RESOLVED: Article has been updated to mutual agreement." entry above. 203.206.57.160 (talk) 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. Ma®©usBritish  02:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that access for George SJ XXI to even edit his own talkpage 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 Arbitration Committee due to him, as Beeblebrox states on GSJ’s talkpage, “not being competent to edit in a collaborative environment like Misplaced Pages”, when he revoked his talkpage access. His only recourse is to be disruptive using sockpuppets. 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 George SJ XXI’. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Marcus British. Please restore the article to the agreed version. Please post your proposed changes and reasons for same on this page for discussion. 124.148.252.117 (talk) 09:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

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 WP:BOLD editing. Pip pip, Ma®©usBritish  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! Ma®©usBritish  09:31, 15 December 2011 (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.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Mostly collab-effort between myself and Pmanderson and a lot of patience. Give neutral reasoning a barnstar, lol! Ma®©usBritish  17:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nationality in infobox

I have reverted self, but thought the agreement was ] --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, just re-read what it says again, nationality should be ] --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) He was 3 things:
  • Irish nationality.
  • British career (soldier and Prime Minister).
  • Anglo-Irish heritage.
By using those 3 terms we present unequivocal neutrality, and represent all the right sentiments. Ma®©usBritish  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 MOS:BIO (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. Johnbod (talk) 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? Ma®©usBritish  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 Daniel O'Connor: "No, he is not an Irishman. He was born in Ireland; but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse." Daniel O'Connell during a speech (16 October 1843), as quoted in Reports of State Trials: New Series Volume V, 1843 to 1844 (1893) "The Queen Against O'Connell and Others", p. 206. 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. Johnbod (talk) 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 Kingdom of Ireland 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. Ma®©usBritish  20:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you have WP:RS on that? And why does the lead describe him as "British ... born in Ireland" - obviously far better. Johnbod (talk) 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. Ma®©usBritish  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. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Being born in the Kingdom of Ireland is not a matter of RS.. it's common sense. Ma®©usBritish  15:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed solution to nationality debate

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. Opera hat (talk) 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 Napoleonic Wars before becoming Prime Minister, 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. Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like a good proposal to me and Johnbod's suggestion above is both factual and neutral, so I would also support that change as well. Richard Harvey (talk) 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! Ma®©usBritish  01:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
George SJ XXI is in broad agreement with MarcusBritish's comments, above, regarding the display of Wellington's origins. 124.169.237.89 (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
George, instead of arsing everyone about, have you even bothered contacting Misplaced Pages:ARBCOM#BASC? 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. Ma®©usBritish  01:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Marcus: "Wellington is Irish". The task is finished. The entity "George SJ XXI", having completed its task, is disbanded. De facto finito. 124.169.237.89 (talk) 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. Ma®©usBritish  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 WP:NOR. And it would be easy to prevent future editors adding a nationality by putting a note in hidden text saying to bring up the issue on the talk page before amending this section. Opera hat (talk) 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 WP:BALLS, 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. Ma®©usBritish  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.) Opera hat (talk) 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. Ma®©usBritish  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? Johnbod (talk) 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. Ma®©usBritish  16:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
No, it makes me someone who uses a dictionary, and reads the notes on official forms. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wellington is hardly the only notable person born and raised in Ireland of English ancestry. But Jonathon Swift, Oscar Wilde, W. B. Yeats, George Bernard Shaw 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. Kauffner (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish isn't a nationality.. never was.. it's a heritage and social-class. Ma®©usBritish  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)Johnbod (talk)
Categories:
Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington Add topic