Jump to content

Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

New files

Recently the files below were uploaded and they appear to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think they would be a useful addition, please feel free to include any of them.

I've already replaced the lead picture by the last one, which is a higher-resolution version of it. Dcoetzee 05:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added another image to the gallery – a photograph of Wellington. I can't see where it could be fitted in the article at the moment but it may be of use if the article is expanded. BarretBonden (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


I think that the lead portrait of the Duke ought to be replaced by the one by Goya, located midway down the page. Not only is it a vastly superior portrait, it is by a much more well-known artist... or perhaps someone could explain to me why the current portrait has been choosen.

Which reminds me...is that the ONLY photograph of the Iron Duke to ever be taken? He surivived another eight years after it was taken.98.14.183.112 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional Image

This file is now available if of use. It shows Wellington on Copenhagen in Wyatt's statue - strictly speaking the horse is not Copenhagen as a different horse was used to model the the statue which caused a minor outcry at the time!! WyrdLight (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Mathew Wyatt's Memorial Statue of Wellington on Round Hill Aldershot

Wellington Island, Kochi

The article states "Wellington Island in Kochi, Kerala, India: The island where the Cochin port is situated is named after him." However, I have looked into this with confusing results. There is a "Wellington Island" in Kochi on Google Maps but there appears to be some discrepancy over its name. See: Willingdon_Island named after Lord Widdington.

If you review this site Your Guide to India you can see a map of the same island from Google Maps, except calling it "Willingdon Island". To add further confusion there is a paragraph headed "Willingdon Island" but half way through the paragraph it changes the name, observe:

WILLINGDON ISLAND
A man-made island created from the material dredged while deepening Kochi Port. Situated between the main land Erunakulam and the old town Mattancherry and separated by the backwaters. Wellington Island is an important part of Kochi. The Govt. of India Tourist Office, the Southern Naval Command Headquarters, the Seaport, Naval Airport, Railway terminus, Customs House, Kochi Port Office etc are all located in this island.

As there is no citation for the particular claim that the island is named after Lord Wellington, I recommend it either be removed or further research into the history of the island and its naming be done to determine if it has a dual name, to honour both Wellington and Willingdon, to clear up this matter.

Given that the island was artificially made, created in 1936 long after Wellington's death, but 5 years before Willington's death and that he was the main engineer who conceived and implemented the creation of the island, I cannot see why it is attributed to Wellington.

I have done a little research, but came to no firm conclusions. Any further information would be helpful.

MarcusBritish (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done further research into this matter and see no evidence anywhere to support that this island has any relation to Lord Wellington, or that it was named after him. Some sites can't even agree on it's name. This site www.cochin.org.uk refers to it as Willingdon, Wellingdon, Wellington and Wellingdon Island all in one page - hardly conventional using 4 variations. As a result, I'm going to remove the claim in the article, as is seems inappropriate to ask for a citation when there appears to be nothing to support one. If I'm wrong, someone can re-enter it with suitable proof if needs be.
MarcusBritish (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle Record

60 battles?? I don't mean to be sceptical, but this doesn't sound at all right. I made a quick count of the actions he fought in and I counted a little over 30, skirmishes included. Guard Chasseur (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that you add [citation needed] but the claim is already cited and the external site says exactly 60. If you disagree with this, you might need to find stronger sources before changing anything. A site which lists all his military actions by date and location would be stronger evidence, I think, and quite interesting. This one lists 29: All the Battles of Arthur Wellesley but we also need to be sure that it is accurate and with no omissions, as it has no citations of its own to support the battles listed. It's a bit iffy, but I think if it could be supported, a similar table on this Article listing his battles, their location, date and combatants would be a nice addition, and would strengthen it a lot.
MarcusBritish (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In 'The Waterloo Companion' Mark Adkin lists 24 battles and sieges prior to Waterloo. Perhaps we could cite this source?? Guard Chasseur (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I have that book (and "Gettysburg") - it's excellent, but it's huge! Can you perchance tell me what page you noticed that on? I think a breakdown of his battles would be worth listing in detail rather than just "he fought in X number battles", as I mentioned previously, but would like to research thoroughly first to avoid any strong opposition or inaccuracy. Thanks in advance! (Has Richard Holmes not mentioned anything about Wellington's military career and given totals in "The Iron Iron Duke" series? Although I do respect his vast historical knowledge I find Holmes tediously boring in his delivery so I don't have the Iron Duke book or documentary at hand.)
MarcusBritish (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It was on page 92, which gives a brief biography of Wellington. Adkin gives 24 battles and sieges prior to Waterloo, but I don't think this adds up, and therefore I'd be happy to include a list of Wellington's battles. Guard Chasseur (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish to present the following table, which I have painstakingly put together. Rather than say "Wellington fought in X-number battles" which leaves the page open to doubt, debate, vandalism, and edit wars by those who disagree with a fixed total I think it best to place a list, such as this on the article, or as a sub-article. Each battle I have listed here links to a matching page on Wiki, which sort of strengthens each entry and leads to their own citations and references rather than a ton more on this page. It would be very simple for anyone who finds evidence of other actions he directly fought in, not ordered others to commit to through dispatches, to include them in the list and keep it neat and tidy. I think the remark that he fought in "60 battles" is somewhat over-stated. Perhaps he was involved in giving orders to other commanders which led him to having indirect involvement in 60 actions, but it seems most authors tend to give a figure or list between 20 and 30 actions that he was directly involved in. IMO, the article should have the "...ultimately participating in some 60 battles throughout his military career" sentence removed, or brought down to a modest estimate, such as stating "...ultimately participating in at least 20 battles...". I also looked at the BBC source cited for the 60, but remain sceptical, as he has not listed them can we take it as a well researched fact? Thoughts?
Moved Table to -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MarcusBritish/Sandbox for easier development.
MarcusBritish (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Have added a "Result" column to the proposed table. This highlights that Wellington was not undefeated, as is often suggested - he did suffer a small number of defeats and indecisive battles throughout his military career. The links to the battle articles on Wiki can be viewed to help readers determine more from each listed battle - reducing the need to cite each entry in this table, because each battle page is self-containing.
MarcusBritish (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a very good table and I have a few points: first, and I've mentioned this previously, Wellington was defeated at the battle of Quatre Bras. It was a strategic victory for Ney who prevented Wellington from giving support to the Prussians at Ligny. The allies retreated from the field with higher casualties. Second, in Wellington's first battle the French seized Boxtel, ambushed and repulsed a British counterattack, and therefore it should be considered a defeat or indecisive at the very least. Wish I could sound a bit more impartial but the facts can't be denied.

Second, I think Wellington attacked Badajoz twice, the first siege ending in a failure (it could be another British general, I could be wrong). There was some controversy over the outcome of the battle of Toulouse, so I like the fact that it's listed as 'indecisive'.

Finally, there are several battles missing here, but they were very small ones, if not skirmishes. There was the battle of Foz d'Aronce, El Boden and Villa Muriel. It may be worth including El Boden (an action which relieved Wellington's blockade of Ciudad Rodrigo, I believe). All this aside, I think the table is excellent.

By the way, did Wellington or Erskine command the allied forces at Sabugal? Guard Chasseur (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, it has been on great help. I'll refer to each of your points and hopefully this satisfies any concerns you have.
Boxtel: I've changed this to "indecisive", as it appears to have been a rearguard action rather than a pitched battle, and seeing as the British got away, but were already on the retreat the French didn't really gain anything. I think I hastily put Victory because the British escaped capture, but I see your point and hopefully others will.
Badajoz: There was an earlier attempt led by Beresford, under Wellington's orders, but only the 2nd siege led directly by Wellington was victorious. Wellington visited Badajoz only briefly to inspect the area and give orders, he didn't remain for the 1st siege so it doesn't seem necessary to include it as a battle he participated in.
Sabugal: I think both Wellington and Erskine were present. Erskine seems to have been in command of the Light Division only, but Wellington is quoted as saying "one of the most glorious British troops have ever been engaged in", so it seems he was present to report on the battle. I think the article on the battle needs updating to include him, but as this table refers to battles he "participated" in rather than just commanded, it seems fair to include it.
Foz d'Aronce: (15 Mar 1811) I can't find any references to Wellington at this battle, only Erskine again. Do you have any sources to support Wellingtons presence in this battle?
Villa Muriel: (25 Oct 1812) Also can't find anything here either. No mentions of Wellington, but to an Oswald. Any sources to support this one too?
El Bodón: Added this, no Wiki Article yet exists, however. Source to cite: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/combat_el_bodon.html
Aldea da Ponte: Combat action 2 days after El Bodón, also added. Source: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/combat_aldea_da_ponte.html
Guarda: Not sure if it's entirely fair to include this one I just found as it was a "bloodless victory" because no one fired a shot, but given that there was a sense of victory, and prisoners were taken, it does at least make an interesting inclusion in his military career, and good reading for those who want to learn as much as they can. Source: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/combat_guada.html
Castrillo: (18 Jul 1812) Just found references to this action, but can't find a great deal of data on it. Probably a skirmish given the lack of info, but his name appears to be attributed to it. See: http://www.pns1814.co.uk/Pyrenees.htm and http://www.georgianindex.net/peninsularWar/battleTimeline.html #144, and http://www.brianstimelines.co.uk/SharpieB.html page 2. Always lacks details however.
Casa de Salinas: Added, source: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/combat_casa_de_salinas.html
Battle of St. Pierre: Despite being considered a part of the Battle of Nive by some historians I have separated it from the main event to expand the table, nomenclature is unimportant when counting the actions Wellington participated in.
Table above has been updated, rather than adding another to this page and causing a mess. Have linked all the battles, so that those without a Wiki article are show in Red for clarity. Perhaps people will start them and help expand the Napoleonic section.
Battle of Garcia Hernandez: Trying to find any evidence whether Wellington was present at this action. I doubt it, given that it was a KLG cavalry skirmish and the day after Salamanca I expect he was busy with reports rather than travelling. But worth investigating.
There is a comprehensive timeline here that I found a few scraps on, if you ignore the "Sharpe" bits: http://www.brianstimelines.co.uk/SharpieA.html
Given that we have a lot of good information here which may not be far from a final draft, how do you think it would be best displayed - In the article, or as a sub-article linked from this one? Any further comments, suggestions, ideas, etc appreciated.
MarcusBritish (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Table can now be found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MarcusBritish/Sandbox so that it can be developed and styled prior to publication in an article.
MarcusBritish (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
A few points: The French broke Wellington's initial siege of San Sebastián in July 1813, which ought to be listed as a separate engagement and, naturally, a defeat. Quatre Bras, I should reiterate, is awfully close to a defeat. The claim for an outright victory at Talavera is also a little hard to swallow given the rather precipitate retreat (as Gates, for example, describes). A column specifying the type of engagement (pitched battle, skirmish, siege, etc.) might be in order. Albrecht (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Albrecht. I agree a "Type of Action" column might be necessary, but it should be a very general description - battle, skirmish, siege - seem to be basic enough descriptions. I don't think we need to over-complicate this table with the full course of the battle, as that is the purpose of the separate articles. It should be an "at a glance" overview of the battles Wellington was in, when, where and the result.
I personally don't feel the "Result" should be expanded further, in that column. Again, each article does that, but the results of battles analysed today have the advantage of looking at the campaign as a whole, and the battles immediately before and after - which gives us the ability to determine Tactical AND Strategic outcome. What I really think we need to do is consider what the outcome appeared to be, say after the last shot was fired. So whilst Quatre Bras may appear a Defeat if you look at the entire Waterloo Campaign, in itself before the Battle of Waterloo is achieved very little for both sides - it and the battle at Ligny by Napoleon stopped the Prussians joining up with Wellington, but Wellington was able to slow the French advance without losing his army, and gained time to secure the slopes at Waterloo. Which makes it pretty indecisive in itself. That is what should be considered - how each battle resulted "in itself", whilst the battle articles can go into the contemporary opinions of Tactical gain, Strategic gains, merits, casualties, etc. Basically, if you were to ask Wellington 5 mins after Quatre Bras "did you win?" he'd probably say "no, but we held them" - it only looks like a defeat if you consider as a small factor of the whole campaign. I hope that makes sense?
As for San Sebastian. That looks complex - we really need to know if Wellington abandoned San Sebastian after the 1st siege, then returned to try again, or if he just delayed a 2nd siege whilst preparing the attack. If his army never left the location, then it's really just a prolonged event with two attempts, rather than 2 separate battles like, Manassass (Bull Run) in the American Civil War was 2 separate battles on the same field. The article isn't too clear. Although it appears to me that the Siege of San Sebastian was an extension of Wellington's line, that he personally moved about to command various battles at key points on his front, whilst his army retained its positions, split into Corps - it says in the Conclusion of Battle of the Pyrenees that "Soult failed to relieve the siege at San Sebastian", suggesting to me that there was never a "break" in the siege, just 2 attempts to attack. I think it comes down to the wording really. A siege involves 2 things - engineers trying to breach the walls, which can take weeks, and attack of the breach by infantry. I think "siege 1" which failed and "siege 2" which succeeded are the infantry attacks, but that there was one prolonged "siege" - nomenclature confuses the event. Feel free to correct me, in detail, if I'm wrong but it seems like 1 siege with 2 distinct attacks to me, the overall result being Wellington won.
Talavera is another battle with the advantage of contemporary Tactical/Strategic analysis. But at the time was considered a victory, the French suffered greatly, and Wellington was made a Viscount. Hard to see how he might consider that a "defeat". Gates has the advantage of seeing the big picture in hindsight, but in terms of Wellington's Career, which this table intends to cover without too much complication, it is generally seen as a Victory by most. The article for the battle itself is designed to deal with the small details that make it less victorious. The retreat you mention was to stop Wellington being cut off from Portugal and destroyed in an isolated place - but he won at Talavera, the retreat was not a result OF Talavera, but in response to the French threatening to cut him off. If they hadn't have done that, he'd STILL have won Talavera. If they had succeeded, again he'd have still won at Talavera and possibly defeated in a totally separate battle altogether. If we try to cram too much detail like that into the table though, it becomes messy, open to attack, and will never gain credit, so a few broad but cautious Results have to be added, with the expectation that readers will look to the articles for detailed info. Just like an Encyclopaedia. :P
MarcusBritish (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I admit I've read very little on the battle of Boxtel, but the article on wikipedia says that the French captured Boxtel and repulsed a counterattack. The fact that the British were already on the retreat doesn't affect the tactical outcome of the battle. It only means that the battle had little strategic consequences. I'm honestly not fussed about the outcome of this action. Now, I don't want to get bogged down in another debate on the result of Wellington's battles, but the allies did lose at Quatre Bras, at least strategically. The battle of Quatre Bras did not prevent Napoleon from destroying Wellington's exposed army. Approximately 30,000 allies were checked by 18,000 Frenchmen, suffering heavier casualties as well as lost colours, and were prevented from linking up with the Prussians at Ligny and thus saving Blucher from defeat. Quatre Bras did not prevent Napoleon from totally destroying Blucher at Ligny, for d'Erlon's corps was still at hand and it was only communication problems that prevented it's involvement on either field. In the first act of the Waterloo Campaign Napoleon's primary aim was to destroy the Prussian army, whilst Ney's main task was to keep the Anglo-allies at bay. Therefore I wouldn't complain if the extent of any victory/defeat (decisive, strategic, tactical, marginal, etc) were to be included in the the result's column. Hence Quatre Bras would be listed as a 'Strategic defeat' at the very least. The battle of Fuentes d'Onoro, which has been listed in this table as indecisive, should be considered a 'Strategic victory' because it did not relieve the blockade of Almeida. Talavera was definetely a tactical victory for Wellington, although it was marginal and close fought.

I've consulted Tony Jacques' Dictionary of Battles and Sieges, and it claims that Wellington was present at Casa de Salinas (a minute skirmish from what I've read) and Castrillo, but it doesn't mention Wellington as the commander of allied forces at Sabugal. It suggests Wellington was at El Boden, stating that Wellington commanded the army but that French cavalry crashed into units commanded by Sir Thomas Picton. Jacques lists the battle as a defensive allied victory, but considering that the allied squares were driven off by French artillery and pressured by cavalry, and Wellington had to retreat from a strategic point, I'd say that tactically this battle was indecisive. Strategically, it relieved the allied blockade of Ciudad Rodrigo, exposing Wellington to a stinging defeat (which failed to materialise, given the hesitation of French commanders). Any comments? Guard Chasseur (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I can only reiterate what I said in my last comments. If the table starts to go to the degree of explaining the extent of Wellington's wins and losses, it complicates the point of having a general overview of his military career and too many eggs in one basket can lead to an awful mess. We're going to reach a point in the future where the table becomes too big to manage - 30+ actions will that much information no longer becomes concise, or consistent. As a said before, we need to have a way to put the general opinion of the outcome of the battle "as is" not "as was" looking at each battle as a stand-alone event rather than in hindsight as part of a campaign or war. Concerning ourselves with how each battle affected the then current theatre of war should be left to individual battle articles who can give more detailed accounts. It's like if you had a fight with someone and he ended up unconscious in hospital for months and you just got a broken wrist you could go so far as saying Tactically you won, but Strategically it was indecisive because your arm was in a cast for months. Or you could just say you won, that future consequences bear no relevance on the outcome. Battles can be that simple IMHO - a big fight, if one side is destroyed outright its a clear victory. Otherwise both armies go away to clean their wounds - in which case we ask who was hurt the most or so badly they came off worse. Tactical/Strategic analysis is all well and good, but it is often done years after a battle when the big picture is looked at in retrospect by historians and strategists. But for those fighting at the time during the war, a quicker judgement of who won/lost must have been made - and it is that result, Wellington's opinion of the result not the overall tactical and strategic outlook that I think should be listed to keep this table a simple list of battles, with a fine tuned Result. After the last bullet is shot in a battle, who has won there and then - not who appears to have won based on how that battle affected future events. I think for people who simply want to know how many battles Wellington fought in and a rough idea of whether HE won or not is important, rather than the fine details regarding the armies and people involved. This article is about, in essence, a heroic commander - saying he fought in 30+ battles in all well and good. Indicating that he may have won 25 lost/drew 8, for example, satisfies most people who wish to understand how well he did seems good as a quick "overview". The historical facts are more subjective to the battles themselves, than to Wellington's "score". I've never been interested in the tactical/strategic opinions when researching this table - some of them are subject to debate. To me it's a matter of like asking Wellington himself after the last shot, "Did you win?" Anything other than Win, Lose, Draw, just becomes too over-analysed, for this type of summary table.
MarcusBritish (talk 16:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Have been reading tactical victory, strategic victory and decisive victory descriptions - just want to stress that it is the Tactical Result, the lowest level "per battle" result that I should like to see listed on this table - this would keep the table simple, free of mixed results and minimises content.
MarcusBritish (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I see your point. Discarding the strategic level of each battle, Talavera should be a victory, Fuentes d'Onoro a draw, Toulouse a draw, Boxtel a defeat. Though I still feel that Wellington won at Fuentes d'Onoro and lost a Quatre Bras, overall both battles were pretty indecisive. However considering that we are taking into account the tactical level, Boxtel should be listed as a defeat. I think (and I may well be wrong) that there were two sieges of San Sebastian. Wellington was forced to call off the first siege in order to defend against Soult's offensive at Sorauren (and was the Iron Duke involved in the first siege???). I want to be certain about Wellington's involvement at first allied siege of Badajoz. Jaques says here that the action was 'a costly Anglo-Portuguese siege under Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington'. Are there any references which state that he was only present at the 2nd siege?

Now, on the topic of other engagements: The allies won at Castrillo, but again I'm not sure if Wellington participated in this battle. Wellington lost at El Boden, because he was driven out of a strategic position and forced to retreat. Villa Muriel was a skirmish during the allied retreat from Burgos. To quote Jaques: 'his (Wellington's) rear-guard was defeated at Venta del Pozo then two days later on the Carrion at Villa Muriel...Wellington hastened back and retook Villa Muriel, but the position was turned and he resumed his withdrawal'. It's a bit vague and I'm not sure if there was a clear cut result to this battle. Honestly I wonder if it's worth including these tiny, unknown and indecisive skirmishes in the table (Guarda, Casa de Salinas, Villa Muriel, etc.). Guard Chasseur (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please bear in mind, I don't have full knowledge of all Wellington's battles - in most cases I've simply stated what the article says. Even if I disagreed, I would not give my opinion without good reason, as the table must be seen to agree with the articles it links too, or it would create controversial issues, mainly regarding Wiki's aim to be accurate, and not subject to personal opinions. Hench why I prefer to stick with the Tactical outcome as the Result in this case - as most of the time a battle always has a clear winner, loser or draw. Drawing on the strategic outcome often requires an overview of the campaign, and due to the way different historians assess army manoeuvres and political situations to determine that a battle was a Strategic Defeat, is sometimes based on opinions that people oppose. Quatre Bras is one of those fine examples - clearly a tactical draw, as no army was destroyed and nothing gained - the bigger picture is the strategic outcome, and was probably more in Napoleon's favour in terms of the battle itself, but some people such as myself see the advantages Wellington gained by holding the French for a time while securing the field at Waterloo. To avoid the table being rewritten over and over, in edit wars, once published I think it is a "safer" bet to use Tactical result only, due to these being based more on actions than opinion. There should be little problem with this, as Wiki allows footnotes, citations and the separate articles contain full details of the battles. As I keep stressing, this table is not intended to focus on his wins/losses primarily, but to answer your very first opening sentence in this topic: "60 battles?? I don't mean to be sceptical, but this doesn't sound at all right. I made a quick count of the actions he fought in and I counted a little over 30, skirmishes included." This table lists as many as possible, and because it is intended to be as accurate as possible in terms of the number of battles he fought in, I think small skirmishes count also. Technically each 1 battle, 1 siege, 1 skirmish, is still 1 event that counts towards his military career. I'm sure it will always remain inexhaustible, and that we will never know the true number due to a few unrecorded minor scraps in the Peninsular that have been forgotten and lost in the paperwork - but the more we find, the better it looks as a breakdown of his career. There is a lovely website that I once printed which includes every single battle, skirmish, etc fought in the American Civil War, all recorded, plotted on maps, detailed, with names and figures of number involved and casualties. Whilst I'm sure we can never get data to that degree, it does not hurt to log as many possible - sadly the world has a bad habit of losing and forgetting places of importance where men fought and died, and Europe is one big-ass battlefield over the last few millennia. Napoleonic War is only 200 years ago though, records should be easier to find in order to keep this table up to date in an agreeable and unbiased manner. I think reviewing anything beyond each battles tactical outcome only starts to push into opinion and theory, rather than fact, and that we should be careful and plan it well.
MarcusBritish (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that the battles should take into account the tactical level. The table is clear, impartial and gives us a good overview of all the actions he fought him. The issue I see here is that Wellington's role some of these battles (Sabugal, 2nd Badajoz, San Sebastian) is not clear and needs to be referenced. Based on the battle of Sabugal article on wikipedia, it appears that Erskine commanded the allied forces. And then there's St Pierre d'Irube...from what I understand Rowland Hill was in charge here and eventually relieved by Wellington's reinforcements. If the minor engagements are to be listed here then they should be referenced, because these aren't mentioned in any wikipedia article. Tony Jaques is good, as he gives a very brief overview of all the battles Wellington fought in. Guard Chasseur (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree (with the article) - Sabagul article has a section titled "Erskine's strange role" which only suggests he led the Light Div. poorly. But more to the point, if you look at the articles source http://napoleon-series.org/military/virtual/c_sabugal.html there is a strategic map - top right, a star showing "Wellington's Post of command", plus the article makes it clear that Wellington has to present because he was making decisions, wrote reports, etc. Some of the skirmishes will need referencing, yes, due to lack of Wiki articles - but IMO the Sabagul article is either inaccurate or incomplete and should have Wellington's name as commander of the British forces, not Erskine. I think someone has misread that Erskine commanded the Light Div. when not only the Light Div was present. Someone had to be in overall command. Given that Wellington reported on the battle, how could he not have been there? I think I'll amend it later, given the evidence. Wiki isn't always right, unfortunately.
MarcusBritish (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense since the Light Division, commanded by Erskine, wasn't the only division at Sabugal. That just leaves St Pierre, the sieges of Badajoz and San Sebastian...I'll check any source I have. Guard Chasseur (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Badajoz
While Beresford was clearing the French out of Estremadura, Wellington made a flying visit to the area. He arrived at Elvas on 20 April, visited Badajoz to examine the defences on 22 April (and was nearly captured by the French while doing so), dictated orders for Beresford on 23 April, and then left to return to the north on 25 April. Wellesley’s orders accurately predicted the course of the upcoming campaign. Beresford was to besiege Badajoz as soon as the guns were ready. This would almost certainly bring Soult back into Estremadura to break the siege.
Source: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/siege_badajoz_1st.html
Conclusion: Not present in the first siege, 6-12 May 1811, only left orders for another officer to handle the siege, whilst he was at Fuentes de Oñoro.
MarcusBritish (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MarcusBritish/Sandbox and the Edit History for info, several non-Wiki links added, in draft quality not proper cite method at the moment. Please feel free to note any other known battles etc. Will not be adding Garcia Hernandez, which I mentioned before - Jaques books seems to imply that Wellington only sent cavalry resulting in this battle, and it is unlikely that he would have been apart of a cavalry engagement. I think this is a good history of Wellington so far. I can't find anything to confirm that San Sebastian was 2 events rather than 1 prolonged siege with 2 attacks (technically 1 event). There appear to be a few sites that note the discrepancy in the date the battle took place - but given that Wellington's exact birthdate is not even known, it may not be too important. I think it is safer to just keep the one entry for now, which in itself is correct. Proof of any other siege can always be added later, if necessary, and to avoid disputes. I consider it important to know if the British Army, and Wellington, went to San Sebastian and began a siege then left, and returned a little later to attack again. To me, only that constitutes 2 events and 2 battles. If the Army stayed the whole time and simply launched 2 attacks, firing cannons at the walls in the interim, then it is one long event and they should not be listed as desperate battles. So far though, I can't find anything to show precisely what happened or movements during this action.
MarcusBritish (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't yet found any source stating that there were two sieges of San Sebastian, but Jaques says that Rowland Hill commanded the allied forces at St Pierre. It appears that the approach of Wellington's force compelled Soult to retreat. There is no source I'm aware of that states that Wellington was involved in this action. Guard Chasseur (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Duke of Wellington" move

I have requested that "Duke of Wellington" be made a redirect to this article. Vote here. Kauffner (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It already does. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, moved May 20.[1] Still being contested, though. Kauffner (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

NATIONALITY

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.

To call Arthur Wellesley 'Irish' is absurd and it illustrates a gross misunderstanding of the political and social situation in Ireland during the years of his birth and subsequent life. He was born to a detached Anglo-Irish family isolated from the Irish peasantry who would have utterly despised his existence. He is quoted as saying that "Being born in a stable does not make one a horse" and completely resented the assumption that he was Irish, which was hammered down by his actions in India. For all intents and purposes, he was an archetypal Briton. For the sake of this argument, I do hope that the people who argue FOR his Irishness are north of border because I don't think I would be able to stomach their rather nationalistic arguments if they came from the south of it. Claiming someone as your own who stands against everything your own nation was founded on begs to ask the question as to whether or not you're grasping at straws some what. I was born in Wales, but I certainly do not consider myself Welsh, indeed, Christian Bale was born in Wales but has time and time again referred to himself as English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.76.116 (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Wellesley family may or may not have been despised by the local peasantry has no relevance to his identity. Thankfully, who the Irish peasantry respected or despised was and is not a defining characteristic of Irishness. There is no conflict between his norman heritage and being Irish. You refer to wellington as stating “Being born in a stable does not make one a horse” and that he “completely resented the assumption that he was Irish, which was hammered down by his actions in India.” Please provide quotes and references for these assertions. If you had bothered reading the discussion below you would see that the “stable/horse" quote has been misattributed. The quote is actually from Daniel O´Connell (one of Wellington’s Irish rivals) and is dated 1843. If your assertion is correct you will presumably be able to provide a quote for Wellington which predates 1843? As for the India reference, please enlighten us! What relevance does his career in India have with his Irishness?

The personal information about your welshness/enlishness or whatever is not very interesting nor is it enlightening. Wellington certainly would not have been a supporter of Wolfe Tone’s republican brand of politics, but how can you support your claim that Wellington was against the irish nation. Further quotes or references will suffice, as opposed to POVs.

And finally, your statement about preferring the current argument to come from northern irish contributors underlines a political motivation for your uninformative contribution to this discussion. You would simply prefer Wellington to conform to your rather simple understanding of the “archetypal Briton”. The fact is that he does not. Micielo (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, touched a few nerves clearly. For all intents and purposes he was British... even down to his family name (which comes from Somerset). My original argument was against calling him 'Irish'; because he was not. 'Anglo-Irish' is far more fitting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.108.173 (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Whilst this is a very late response he can be called Irish no problems at all. The fact he was born in Ireland makes him Irish. Prefixes such as Anglo-Irish, Hiberno-Norman, Cambro-Irish, Scots-Irish etc. are all just terms that define the main (usually paternal) ancestry/descent of people - none of them detract from the fact they are all equally Irish if they are born on the island. Arthur may be of Anglo-Irish descent but he was Irish as he was born on the Ireland. Just because someone denies their nationality/identity doesn't mean that they don't belong to that nationality/identity. However for this article the use of Anglo-Irish is more than qualified as it shows his main descent. Mabuska (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Does that mean the nationalists of Northern Ireland are British despite denying this and calling themselves Irish?--Britannicus (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Can't someone be both British and Irish? I don't see how these are mutually exclusive categories. john k (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that someone can be both if they choose to be but not according to Mabuska's authoritarian doctrine, who evidently thinks that because Wellington was born in Ireland that makes him Irish even if he does not identify himself as such. If Wellington called himself Irish he should be labelled as such but if he did not call himself Irish then he should not be called an Irishman. If he called himself an Englishman, then he should be described as English. I do not know what nationality he labelled himself but when we see what he said himself, that is the best guide to his nationality.--Britannicus (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In May 2011 Her Majesty The Queen Elizabeth II confirmed in a speech in Dublin Castle that there are two nations, Irish and British. "the people of our two nations, the spirit of partnership that we now enjoy, and the lasting rapport between us. No-one here this evening could doubt that heartfelt desire of our two nations."

Arthur Wellesley was born in Ireland, not Britain, that makes him an Irish man. May we take the Queen's opinion as to the distinction as authoritative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.156.200 (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No, we damn well may not. This was 242 years years ago, and the Queen's comments are part of some peace process, nothing to do with Wellington, we don't need to change his nationaity because you want to be a Royalist sycophant. Wellington himself didn't consider himself just Irish, because of his background. If the Queen wants to suggest otherwise, tell her to register. Why don't you, for that matter instead of war editing with some anon IP. The facts stand for themselves. History doesn't change just because some Royal fart makes a speech, and for that matter neither goes geography, politics or family bloodlines. Keep changing his article against the wishes of people who have discussed the matter properly based on historical facts not Royal hoo-har and I'll request an Admin block you. If the Queens speech was that important - why hasn't N.Ireland been rejoined with the main, rather than still waving the - HER - UK flag? Do tell.
Ma®©usBritish (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Wellesley was born in Ireland. Arthur Wellesley was not born in Britain. That is a historical fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.29.101 (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you lack understanding of what geography is, let alone history or "fact". "Britain" refers to the mainland countries only - England, Scotland and Wales. Only "UK" includes Ireland. Changing all terms from "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom and Great Britain and Ireland" is equal to saying "United Kingdom and United Kingdom" - i.e. stupidity. If you wish to persist in disruptive war editing, cite a source under wiki policy WP:VERIFY, else leave alone. Given that ample sources quote Wellington as calling himself "Anglo-Irish" you are in breach of WP:UNSOURCED and I challenge your edits (WP:CHALLENGE) and until you prove your claims are greater against Wellington's own words. NB: Admin also requested to block refrain you from war editing via Semi-Protecting this page.
Ma®©usBritish (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The historical fact is verifiable in the first instance by reading the Act of the Parliament of Great Britain and the Act of Parliament of Ireland in 1800, which created the union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.190.186 (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wellesley's birth pre-dates the Act, making your point irrelevant. His cited choice of nationality also overrides your opinion in the matter, regardless of any Act. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You appear to miss the fact that he was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.190.186 (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You appear to miss the point that the United Kingdom WAS and IS Great Britain+Ireland. By editing the order tag you are removing wikilinks or creating wikilinks to an article that does.not.exist. UK is as good as anything, it includes the THEN GB+Ireland. If you were a true historian you would understand that in reading history you put your mind in the period being read, not modern UK terms. The UK in 1800 was GB+Ireland, just as the USA in 1777 was only a few states, not 50 - it was still the USA. Get with it. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Regardless, article is now Semi-Protected. So you can either register or lay off the disruptive edits. And that goes for any other article regarding Wellesley. If you want to continue to push your point, get some verifiable sources, cite them, and present a WP:NPOV argument HERE in talk before going against the majority. Otherwise, you're just wasting your, and everyone else's time war editing. There are rules, I suggest you go read them: WP:RULES. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless ? Those this mean disregard the veracity of the statement by a personal attack ? So if some one does not agree, do not discuss or examine the issue, simply remove the person from the club. The fact is that he was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.The historical fact is verifiable in the first instance by reading the Act of the Parliament of Great Britain and the Act of Parliament of Ireland in 1800, which created the union. Please address this historical fact and verifiable source. Have you read the relevant acts ? What did his actual appointment documents say ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.190.186 (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Silence. The silence speaks for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.190.186 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, you want to play, let's play. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland reads "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the formal name of the United Kingdom from 1 January 1801 until 12 April 1927". Key words "formal name", so short informal name: "United Kingdom". Later it reads "The current British state is a direct continuation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland....

As for silence - it's called "I'm busy". If you want to make yourself known and issue challenges, register. Otherwise remain anonymous - with your Adelaide IP. You couldn't be further from Anglo-Irish territory if you tried. Each article you continue to disrupt I am requesting Semi-Protection on, and will shortly request a block on your IP for continued abuse of behaviour policies. Enjoy. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Per all your "not a recognised term" edits, lets try Anglo-Irish - "Anglo-Irish was a term used soon after the 1800 Acts of Union" - the exact same Act which you feel works in your favour, also works in mine - so don't try be a hypocrite. Thank you and good night. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The state was named “the united Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” by Acts of two Parliaments.

The Fortieth Year of George III 

C H A P.  XXXVIII.
An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland.

That it be the first article of the union of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January which shall be in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after, be united into one kingdom, by the name of “the united Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”;

Anno Regni GEORGII III. tricesimo nono & quadragesimo. An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland. That it be the first Article of the Union of the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first Day of January which shall be in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom, by the Name of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland;

It is clear that for the period 1800 to 1927 that the united Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the name of the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.190.186 (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. Regardless of its name, its the same place. The only problem with the older name is the lack of wiki articles to link to and support the main article. And your lack of verifiable sources. When it comes to "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", the term "United Kingdom" is the primary topic to cite/wikilink - hence its use. See WP:PRIMARY for more on this policy. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

One cannot disregard its verified name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.238.114 (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

One can, many have - ambiguity pays off in this case - "United Kingdom" is a more popular term, even then it is unlikey anyone used the full term "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", because it's a mouthful and simply because "UK" is the same thing. And probably the reason why Wiki only maintain articles for monarchs/prime ministers/etc of the UK in one article, not spread across 2 or 3 just because of some trivial naming convention, is because its easier to manage and maintain, and easier to reference and read. Over complicating the matter helps no one. Hence why there are WP:PRIMARYTOPIC policies which serve articles like this well. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

David Cameron is described as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the article on Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. This is correct. Can not the same correctness be applied to The Duke of Wellington, as Prime Minister of Great Britain and Ireland. Should one be concerned with links, this is a separate matter and easily rectified. The name of a state at a particular time should not be ambiguous, popular or easy when the correct form is known and verifiable. Wikipedia is, in the first instance, an encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.238.114 (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As you point out, it says so in the article. Articles don't link back to themselves. In his own article, David Cameron hs only described as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Exactly the same way as Wellesley is currently described. Describing him as Prime Minister of Great Britain and Ireland is no different except we now get no link to that material, as you can see. The UK was/is GB+Ireland, therefore the order is correct. There's no point is continuing this circular debate - so far you have only argued that the name is important - semantics. You have not argued that the UK and GB+Ireland were any different, and that geographically it requires unique recognition. Because it does not. When we read about the UK in the 1800's we know it means all of Ireland. We don't need to blather with names. Should we also call Europe, "Europe, Prussia, and Czechoslovakia" whenever they existed just so no one misses out? How about "Australia - British Colonial Lands". Sounds to me like you stand more for political correctness than historical accuracy. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The article regarding the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland exists. The correct office held by The Duke of Wellington, as Prime Minister of Great Britain and Ireland, may be linked to this article. Wikipedia has articles regarding Great Britain, Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain. Is may be important that our readers in the America's and East Asia to have the correct information. It is noted that there is only one person arguing that we should not use the correct description of the office in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.213.136 (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Moot point - this one person is registered because it has its benefits. Join the club or quit crying.
  • This one person did not disrupt a dozen articles with disruptive edits.
  • This one person follows Wiki policies.
  • This one person didn't force article protection, he requested it.
  • This one person couldn't careless about the America's and East Asia.
  • This one person is 2nd top contributor to the article and knows what he's talking about.
  • This one person accepts the term Anglo-Irish.
  • This one person seems to wasting a lot of time discussing your one edit.

So you see, there is a consensus, and it is unanimous that all British PMs are referred to simply as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Making my argument to retain title this for Wellington valid and sustainable - even if you were registered or more of you.

Stop wasting your time, unless you wish to change every Prime Minister's article between 1800–1927, and provide a valid article to support such a large scale effort, you haven't a leg to stand on.

Ma®©usBritish (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Which of the following statements is correct ? The Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or The Duke of Wellington was not Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.104.239 (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Who cares, this isn't a game of "pick the odd one out". Every PM is referred to the same way, regardless of the years they stood. Live with it and stop being petty, on one else is whining, including British/Irish - so why should an Aussie care. Grow up and stop being a dick. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The millions of people who use wikipedia "care" whether the content is correct or not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.104.239 (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again. a) Wellington's article is not viewed by "millions of people", it gets around views 1.5k a day - not all necessarily unique - at that rate it will take 55.6 years to even get to one million views. Do the maths, before talking nonsense. b) Dozens of people have contributed to this Wellington article, and there are presently 151 "watchers" of this article and none of them "care" about this - proved by my being the only one person wasting time on you - none of them have changed the name to that long-winded pomp either. And that's probably because I'm spending a LOT of time editing this article daily to achieve A/Good/FA class standards, without the need for your disruptive/unverified edits to inhibit that process. c) There are about 50 other Prime Minister articles - obvious those "millions" don't care that half of them are also "incorrect" according to you. d) If you really "care" you'd be complaining about ALL those incorrect PM articles. You're not. Conclusion: You're trolling. Either make a wider display of your disapproval - somewhere else - to cover all the PMs of "GB and Ireland" beween 1800 and 1927, or take your bias elsewhere. Clearly you've failed to make any progress here to push your point.
Ma®©usBritish (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement "The Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" stands as correct and verified. May it be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.104.239 (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


Just to point out there are no countries called - Great Britain, United Kingdom but there are ones called England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Northern Ireland. Note the last two have Ireland in the title - that is because anyone who is born in either North or South is Irish !!! Does not matter about Acts of Union, etc the countries name has not changed.

To quote Mohammed Ali - when asked did he consider himself African-American - he asked where is the country Africa-America !!! I am American — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadamod (talk • contribs) 16:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Gadamod, I'm not sure I see your point. Morgan Freeman, doesn't like to be identified as a "black man" - but fact remains, he is a black man. Or an African-America, as some say. Just as there are Asian-Americans, and Russian-Americans. They're all a means of identification, and Wellington himself, identified himself as Anglo-Irish. If he was happy to tag himself that, it is not for us to rewrite history and call him Irish or British. Regards, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 16:35, 22 July 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.

Origin of nickname "Iron Duke"

www.historyhouse.co.uk/articles/the_iron_duke.html makes a good case that the nickname "Iron Duke" does not refer physical iron shutters, but is instead a metaphor for the strength of Wellington's opposition to the Reform movement. The earliest citation for "Iron Duke" is dated 14 June 1830. The rioting and broken windows at Apsley House was in 27 April 1831. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says that the origin of the nickname is obscure, so the iron shutters explanation should not be given as fact. Kauffner (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Holmes only touches on the nickname for a moment, suggesting "His nickname, the Iron Duke, probably coined by Punch in 1845 - although Carlyle had termed him 'the cast-metal man' in 1832 - was entirely fitting." (Holmes, p. 302–303). The problem here, is for your one or two "obscure" sources, it's easy to cite dozens of other sources that refer to the Apsley House shutters as "fact". Personally I think this is one of those historical things that we take for granted because nicknames are not something you often find recorded, and whose origin is not easily pinpointed. Take Napoleon, for instance, many say he died of stomach cancer - supported by his surgeon and autopsy - whilst many still go with the claims he was poisoned - despite analysis of his remains suggesting otherwise. I don't think changing the article to argue the origin of his nickname would make much difference, especially as article you linked clearly suggests that "Iron Duke" was a nickname used by the media before the public. It is easy for "Iron Duke" to have originally been a positive nickname used only by the papers in passing, but to then become widely misused by the public after the shutter incident which stuck. It might be better to simply expand the article to allow the shutter origin to remain the most popular theory, and add something like "although he was referred to as the 'iron Duke' by the papers in earlier years this appears to relate to his firm stand, or iron will, in politics". Tough call, as I don't think Wellington fans will like anything that opposes the popular story too strongly.
Ma®©usBritish (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
My research into this shows that there is only one website online that concerns itself with fringe theories, relating to references, regarding the "Iron Duke" origin. I find the use of a Notes section to quote Freeman's Journal and Daily Commercial Advertiser articles whilst the remainder of the Wellington article sticks to the use of citations as POV Pushing. Furthermore, from Googling the quotes from the journal in question (which also appears to be the only paper that used the nick, it wasn't widespread), I find that there is still only this website (historyhouse.co.uk) which concerns itself with those quotes. As this website is blacklisted, due to previously spamming wiki with links to itself, I believe it fair to consider it a Questionable source; the website is highly Ad-content based, but more due to the fact that the Journal they use is unverifiable due to requiring registration and payment to view the contents on British Library's British Newspapers 1800-1900 website - WP:SOURCEACCESS. Once again this makes those citations unreliable, and I see few people wanting to pay to confirm a minor theory. I recommend the Notes be removed, and toned down to less intrusive minimal referencing. This article is about the life of Arthur Wellesley - content regarding alternate theories as to his nickname is out of context and I propose this be handled from a Neutral POV rather than the method being pursued, which leaves implications that are unnecessary in a biographical article. Or, to be frank, let's just say no one gives a sh*t what a bunch of Irish nationalist papers said, the iron shutters theory has become the most socially accepted one. It is likely that all 3 events: Irish papers, 'Punch' magazine and the iron shutters contributed to the nickname at various degrees, but I still see this overuse of historyhouses' claim as a rant more than factual and relevant. Awaiting replies, but expect me to remove/reword and properly reference this information myself shortly if there is little opposition to my concerns. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
several British libraries provide free access to online archives of old British newspapers. Mine does What's the exact newspaper and date required? I can at least check if it's in there. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Quick look results. Infotrac has Freemans ("The Freeman's Journal played a central part in British nineteenth-century politics and the Irish movement for Home Rule. Until the late 1830s the Journal was a mouthpiece of rule from London, receiving subsidies for the publication of proclamations and containing very little Irish news.") from 1820 to 1900. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
However there is no issue listed for the 14th June 1830, or the 7th, 21st or 28th....GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If you search for the exact phrase on the British Library's site, the corresponding citation pops up. For example, I searched for, "If the Irish Question be lost, Ireland has her Representatives to accuse for it still more than the iron Duke and his worthy Chancellor". This yields a citation for the "Odious imposts" article of June 14, 1830. You can also search for the phrase "Iron Duke" and get a full list of citations. If you don't like Freeman's Journal, there is Poor Man's Guardian (June 23, 1832) and The Morning Chronicle (December 2, 1834, January 31, 1835, and February 6, 1835) (Both of these are London papers). There is also Caledonian Mercury (December 22, 1834) in Edinburgh. The site gives a total of 189 pre-1845 citations. So the 1845 Punch article was quite late to the party. Kauffner (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks GraemeLeggett - I don't go to the library myself these days, but I would not be surprised if many don't get free access to some newspaper sites. Seems you've identified the dates/articles in question. I see you are an Editor. Perhaps you could voice your opinion on my proposition to restructure the "Iron Duke" parts in the article to be more NPOV and referenced as inline citations rather than Notes which I still consider POV-pushing given that the origin remains a theory, and that these quotes follow a lesser supported theory - even Holmes, Wellington's biographer, did not give it any mention in his book. I don't consider this a controversial subject, given that its just a nickname in question - nothing like the 'he was Irish/British?' fiasco - but I feel that there is still a line between common acceptance (i.e. the iron shutters theory, Punch references) and lesser known usage (Freeman's Journal), and by both citing and quoting the latter results in a less Neutral tone, and highlights my POV pushing dispute.
Please take no offence towards yourself Kauffner, I think it is a good find and has merit, Wellington was politically hard minded - I just dispute the way it is being presented as a stronger fact than the other two theories and simply needs to be toned down. Where the nickname originated can never be proven, all 3 sources are likely to have contributed - I expect that starting with the Freeman's political iron will, then the iron shutters incident which is material and common knowledge and the No.1 favourite origin, and finally Punch which is more academically cited (historians/biographers) but rather dull compared with having his windows put through by mobs. To me it seems this was a nickname whose use escalated rather than became popular overnight - that's just my opinion, but it remains quite neutral too, neither favouring one source for another. And the way the article should be too. Easily adjusted, but the articles you've found would be best cited if they were on open access sites. Bearing in mind historyhouse.co.uk is blacklisted and therefore cannot be cited, period - and I did try, and had to investigate the reason for their blacklisting, and given their spamming don't propose lifting the block anytime soon.
Thanks. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of Birth

How could he have been born either the 29th of April or the 1st of May? Should it not be the 30th of May? Anyone who can explain this to me?

2010-06-02 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

No records exists to confirm his DOB. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 04:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Jane Wellesley, daughter of Arthur Valerian Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington, wrote, on page 16 of her book 'WELLINGTON - A Journey Through My Family' (ISBN: 978 0 297 852315), the following regarding the birth of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington:- "Arthur, born in 1769, was their sixth child. Such was the inconsequence of his birth that confusion has always surrounded both its date and place. Claims include 6 March and 3, 29 and 30 April - at Dangan, on the road between Dangan and Dublin, and at sea. But in 1815, when her son's fame was at its zenith, Anne Mornington insisted she remembered the details: 1 May 1769 at 6 Merrion Street, Dublin - an elegant new townhouse round the corner from St Stephens Green, the largest public square in Europe." Richard Harvey (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Holmes says the same and that Wellington celebrated his birthday on 1 May. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 08:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Page Duke of Wellington gone!

Help, I want to know more about the peerage title Duke of Wellington, but now when I click on that title (as placed on several other pages) I get again and again a stupid redirect back to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. I'm not interested in Arthur Wellesley, since he was not the only duke, but I'm interested in the title! I know a separate page about the title existed, but were did it go? Who removed that page and why??? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Here: Duke of Wellington (title) - the title was redirected under consensus for Duke of Wellington and Marlborough too, I think - based on the search results and Primary Topic policies. See: Talk:Duke of Wellington (title)#Requested move .28--.3E Dukedom of Wellington.29 for full info. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 07:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I thought so - I recalled this was moved too: Talk:Duke of Marlborough (title)#Requested move to .22Duke of Marlborough .28title.29.22 Ma®©usBritish [talk]

Gosh, now are many links not working properly anymore! And for what? An unnecessary move, for which I fail to see a consensus for that. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I suppose it's the responsibility of whoever moves an article to correct any links and redirects, to prevent red links and orphans. I guess whoever moved these 2 got lazy, as there is bound to be a lot of wikilinks to them. Consensus reason were discussed in the links I gave.. it was only decided a month or two ago, but I doubt anyone will be willing to set it back as it was this soon. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 08:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
That's rather strange..., there was indeed a requested move, but the conclusion was that there was no consensus for that. So who did change it anyway to Duke of Wellington (title)???? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Here's the move edit: [2] Ma®©usBritish [talk] 09:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, which was not done on basis of a proper consensus (10 support vs. 6 oppose is hardly/not really a consensus). Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
True, but as I'm beginning to realise, what Wikipedians sometimes want, and what they sometimes get are 2 very different things. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 10:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm surprised by your statement "I know a separate page about the title existed, but were did it go?" when there is a link for the information you want stated on the first line at the top of the article page. IE:-
    "Duke of Wellington" and "The Iron Duke" redirect here. For subsequent dukes, see Duke of Wellington (title). For the film, see The Iron Duke (film).
    . Richard Harvey (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

George SJ XXI's contraversial edits

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.

Comments
George SJ XXI (talk · contribs) has been making repeated disruptive edits lately, also by using his dynamic IP as sock puppets (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of George SJ XXI) to make edits, thus he has been blocked as a result of reverting edits. At his request, this is a discussion of his edits.

Basically he has 2 sources, from which he is deriving his own interpretations and contributing unconstructive edits.

  • Page 93 of "The Wake of Wellington" by Peter Sinnema, reads:
"The war of words that took place between the English and Irish presses during the sixty-five days that Wellington’s body awaited burial was not so much an anomalous contest engendered by the unique circumstance of the duke’s death as it was a subplot in a continuing struggle between margin and center that received a pronounced charge from this circumstance and long outlived it. In this sense, the “resolution” that was Wellington’s death ceremony—its function as a “collective expression of a culture’s imagination”¹—encouraged a working through of national conflict in language rather than in actuality, however unbalanced and ineffective that process proved to be. A better understanding of this process requires a brief step back in history to consider Wellington’s own attitudes toward the country of his birth.
In the spring of 1809,Arthur Wellesley (he did not become the Duke of Wellington until 1814) made what was to be his final visit to Ireland. He had temporarily removed himself from London the previous October to return to Ireland, a decision taken on the advice of the Duke of Richmond..."

He sums this up as: "After his death "the fact that Wellington was an Irishman" became an item of public discourse."
I challenged this as Original Research.

I sum it (and the remainder of the chapter) up as: "After his death Irish and English newspapers disputed whether Wellington had been born an Irishman or Englishman." Plus I added "During his life he had openly disliked being referred to as an 'Irishman'", taken from E.Longford's book The Years of the Sword, to support the argument from when he was alive, rather than rely on media bickering which is hardly "the fact" as George SJ XXI claims.
My edit maintains WP:NPOV and does not draw conclusions from the source. Despite this, George SJ XXI has continued posting his own conclusion, in an inappropriate section of the article, I might add, which is not helpful.

  • Page 166 (part) of "The Celtic Revolution" by Peter Berresford Ellis, reads:
"While James Callaghan, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 1976-79, could claim Irish descent, the Duke of Wellington has been the only Irish-born United Kingdom Prime Minister (1828-30). However, Wellington was quick to echo an old Irish saying 'An té a rugadh i stábla ní capal é!' (Everything born in a stable is not a horse!)."

He cited this as: "Wellington was the first Irishman to be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

Note George's changes: Irish-born -> Irishman, and United Kingdom -> United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Also no mention of the "stable...horse" quote, thus the citation has been taken out of context, which is a form of synthesis or point-pushing, as it s addition contradicts George. Despite the fact this comes from his own sourced material, he has reverted [3] the correction to his own questionable wording. Proof enough of point-pushing?

In addition, George refuses to maintain the Referencing style applied to the article at present, and revert to his own adopted version. For example, he used "Page 93 onwards" as a citation. [4] This does not help keep the article clear and consistent. Again, he reverted corrections to his referencing.

Feel free to support or oppose these edits which George SJ XXI has "threatened" to reapply once his block expires. User_talk:George_SJ_XXI#August_2011

Ma®©usBritish [talk] 00:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


  • Comment - Note that George SJ XXI has used several anon IPs in addition to his newly created login as follows:-
He also used some of those IP's (124.169.190.186) to edit several articles with Anglo-Irish Vs Irish POV changes. He used a combination of sock puppets to alter the Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington on 4 June 2011 to change the wording "leading British military and political figures" first with 203.173.29.101 to:- "leading British and Irish military and political figures" then you logged out and back in with the second IP 124.169.190.186 to further change the wording to read:- "leading Irish military and political figures", totally omitting the 'British' phrasing, which is purely vandalism. He has also used another anon IP 124.148.238.114 to make comments on this talk page, as though to appear as another person, though has not used it to edit the article with. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


Reply by George SJ XXI

George SJ XXI never hid his identity, he moved from being an unregistered user to being a registered user.

The actions by MarcusBritish silenced George SJ XXI from mentioning two items in Wellington's article. That he was an Irishman. That he was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. George SJ XXI (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


  • Comment - Changing from editing as an Anon IP to editing as a registered user is one thing; However:- As user 203.59.101.44 at 08:32 on 7 August 2011 you placed this edit:- Wellington was the first Irishman to be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.‪The Celtic revolution: a study in anti-imperialism‬ By Peter Berresford Ellis: 1993. Then logged out and immediately signed in again as George SJ XXI and deleted the edit you placed as an Anon IP. Then three minutes later replaced it again. On 8 August you repetitively signed in and out as both 203.59.101.44 and George SJ XXI to edit the article, with non neutral POV editing and incorrect refs, despite your edits being corrected by MarcusBritish] to an NPOV state. To me that set of editing seems like an attempt to appear as one editor supporting another editor and therefore hide your identity. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


Response to Georgey
  • a) You did not address the comments above you simply made accusations, without substantiation. You're not winning anyone over by doing so.
  • b) Yet whilst you were a "registered used" you logged out to make reverts, edits and disruptive behaviour. That IS hiding your identity. If you go look at WP:SOCKS, there's a list - your actions cover most of them. No point denying it, admins have recognised and acted upon it already - that's like denying a gun with your fingerprints on it was ever held by you. Again, no one befriends a blatant liar.
  • c) No one "silenced" you whatsoever:
    • i) The decision to list Wellington as an Anglo-Irishman has been decided by others, using this page as discussion. Sorry to say you're too late to the party, the decision was made before you, and even I, came along to edit this article. Live with it, or try starting a new discussion. Chances are high that the same people who spoke in favour of the Anglo-Irish usage will do so again.
    • ii) Your source says Wellington was Irish-born, not an Irishman. If want to enter references into the article, do so, but live by them also. Do not reword authors text to alter the meaning, or truth of their book, to suit your own claims - it is against Wiki policy. You can only blame yourself for that.
    • iii) Wellington himself disliked being called an Irishman. You also neglected to mention that from your references. The very next sentence said it, using his own words. By removing it, your contribution was out of context, therefore you were not "silenced" you were stood corrected. Again, such misuse of references is against Wiki policy, and again, it was you who introduced the title. I only read it correctly - you read it and quoted it with your own motives in mind. POV pushing is against Wiki policy, and is permitted to be "silenced" it's called making it a Neutral POV. It's also one of Wiki's fundamental rules - articles must maintain neutrality. See WP:FIVEPILLARS. Also note that just because one author you find might call him "Irish" doesn't mean all authors to - and does not make your claim notable. Conflicts of Interest are a matter to be handled in discussion, not through war editing and using your one hard-searched reference to override the rest. You will find use of things like Anglo-Irish are used to maintain neutrality also, half truths, because it suits the majority. By changing it you only offend those who originally opposed and those who agreed to differ - creating an unbalanced article. The article becomes semi-protected due to his instability and the provoker of this action, i.e. you in the past two cases, can quickly become unpopular.
  • d) Wellington may have been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - but there are a whole series of articles on UK PM's on Wiki, and every PM between 1801–1922 is labelled as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. See:
...Melbourne · Peel · Russell · Derby · Aberdeen · Palmerston · Derby · Palmerston · Russell · Derby · Disraeli · Gladstone · Beaconsfield (Disraeli) · Gladstone · Salisbury · Gladstone · Salisbury · Gladstone · Rosebery · Salisbury · Balfour · Campbell-Bannerman · Asquith...
The fact of the matter is, you're only determined to change this one article, which to me suggests you just want to wind everyone up. If you were really dedicated to your "Irishness" you would find an appropriate place on Wiki to approach the community and propose to change EVERY single one of these articles to support your "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" interest. That would not only be acceptable, but irreversible, because you would have consensus if - and I only say "if" - if you get enough support. And if you do that, instead of messing everyone round with your antics, I may support you - because it will put a LOT of articles in agreement, rather than having this one stick out like a sore thumb and leave opportunity for people to start whining and war editing - so I suggest you go prove yourself to the community, do the hard work, and get the support needed and maybe a lot of articles will benefit the decision. Bearing in mind you also need to find references for every Prime Minister named above, and cite them in every article updated to support the change - can't just go changing them based on consensus alone - you'd be making a historical claim for each, that needs supporting - there are Who's Who books and such might aid you there. Call it a "personal project" - to suit your "pro-Irishness" on wider scale. I'm sure you're capable. Just be aware that if there is opposition you can't deal with it by logging out and making the changes anyway, anonymously, as you have done in the past - you'll have to accept opposition. But at least we'll all know where you stand.
  • e) Finally, please stop referring to yourself in the third person, you're not Royalty, and although you claim it's to prevent "personal affront" we both know if someone's going to call you a dick, they'll do it regardless of whether you refer to yourself in first, third or as Saint George.. so get with the prose used by everyone else and use normal replies. As far as I'm concerned most of your comments are laden with innuendo anyway, and the third-party thing is just a way of making it more subtle. Sorry George, doesn't work. Quit it, it's ridiculous.
  • f) Good luck, because that's the only compromise I'm offering from me, at this stage.

Ma®©usBritish [talk] 02:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Cronin, page 249 (not page 255):

"The Duke of Wellington
Famous as a war-time general, his victories over Napoleon and the invention of a boot, the future Duke of Wellington was born as Arthur Wellesley in Ireland. Very much of the upper class, and from a land-owning family, Wellington did little in his political career to advance the cause of Irish Catholics. But when it mattered, as it did in 1829, he knew enough about the dynamics of Ireland to make concessions. Wellington was permanently remembered by his countrymen shortly after his death. In Dublin’s Phoenix Park an obelisk was built – the second tallest in the world – that cele- brated his military victories."

Says he was "born as Arthur Wellesley in Ireland" - not "Wellington was an Irishman".

Also, Mike Cronin is Irish, thus presenting a Conflict of Interest - more reliable sources consider him Anglo-Irish, including his biographers, who rate higher in terms of referencing.. "for Dummies" books are not particularly scholarly vs biographies - many "for Dummies" books state opinions over fact, and "Irish History for Dummies" does not include a Bibliography to support Cronin's assertions - making his later comment on page 249 "The Prime Minster, the Duke of Wellington (an Irishman), decided that compromise was the best bet" more a passing remark than a fact. Again, coming from an Irish author, bias is clear probable here - and as the only mention in the book, it's not really strong enough to override authors like Richard Holmes or Elizabeth Longford, who dedicated entire works to him.

Plus, the edit contradicts the Lead section, making it impractical - articles should not conflict themselves.

Weak reference - citing 1 or 2 bracketed words from a 410 page book on Ireland is more POV-pushing than actual research.

Ma®©usBritish [talk] 01:19, 17 August 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.

British English notice

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.

An editor MarcusBritish has made a change to the talk page by inserting a notice above regarding the use of British English in the article.

There has been no discussion on the exclusive use of British English on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.56.80 (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks George SJ XXI (talk · contribs), there does not have to be a discussion - Arthur Wellesley is from a primarily British-English speaking nation, but his fame attracts many readers and editors, including Americans and other English speaking countries. Therefore it is a British-English language article per se. Read MOS:ENGVAR before complaining about things that you clearly don't intend to understand.
PS: This IP also added to your Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of George SJ XXI.
Ma®©usBritish [talk] 02:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The use of British-English for the biography of an Irishman is not appropriate. George SJ XXI (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. If you say so. Thanks for your opinion. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 11:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment Note the comments on the Hiberno-English article which states that "Hiberno-English (also known as Irish English) is the dialect of English written and spoken in Ireland" and also "Ireland does not have its own spelling rules and "British English" spelling is used throughout the island." If you feel unable to edit the article in British-English, as per consensus, then do not edit it. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:43, 17 August 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.

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.

Please discuss. George SJ XXI (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If you expect a discussion, open the ball - where is your proof, evidence, references and what is your argument for the claim? Wikipedians won't discuss open remarks such as that, they'll ignore it until you put in the effort first - i.e. not a 2 word sentence - this isn't a forum. If you cannot present any evidence, them your claim is nothing more than a personal opinion and this discussion can be closed. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 21:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not edit the contribution without prior discussion and prior consensus. George SJ XXI (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no 'new' consensus required to delete your POV edit. It has been removed previously and you have been advised by multiple editors to stop POV editing, plus you seem to have forgotten that you have already been blocked for edit warring on the issue. Discussions to this effect are both given above and on your talk Page. If you start edit warring on the issue again you will most likely end up being blocked for an indefinite period. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Consensus has already been agreed that Wellington was, or should be referred to as, Anglo-Irish, therefore your "contribution" is considered controversial and contrary to the nationality agreed by the community. Your claim should be made before attempting to alter the article's POV - Wikipedia works through collaboration, discussion, and compromise, not by individual editors aggressively trying to push their own preferred versions through - attempts to do so may be reverted if they fail to meet this process to the satisfaction of other editors. See comment above regarding "what is your argument, where is your proof?" before making unsupported edits that aim to bypass earlier discussions, currently available in this talk page archives.
In addition, you have been advised by an uninvolved admin that "Ireland for Dummies" is not really an appropriate reference to support your claim, [5] especially not to override the likes of Richard Holmes and Elizabeth Longford, whose material is of a greater standard and are supported with a bibliography - "Ireland for Dummies" lacks citations and references, therefore it can be challenged. Also the author is pro-Irish, presenting certain COI issues; many of his works represent the "Irish national identity". [6] In reality, your source, which is nothing more than 1 trivial sentence, or 2 words therein, from a 410-page book, carries very little weight in light of the fact Wellington denied being an "Irishman" himself. Do you have anything stronger than his own words? Ma®©usBritish [talk] 21:23, 22 August 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.

Ancestry

The section on Wellington's early life currently cites Longford p. 7 in saying that "'Wesley' was inherited from the childless wealthy husband of an aunt when, in 1728, Wellington's patrilineal grandfather Garret Colley, a landlord who lived at Rahin near Carbury, County Kildare, changed his surname to Wesley." This seems incorrect. Wellington's paternal grandfather was Richard Wesley, 1st Baron Mornington, born Richard Colley. The self-published site thepeerage.com cites the authoritative Complete Peerage in saying that Richard Colley assumed the name of Wesley in 1728 on inheriting Dangan and Mornington (both in co. Meath) from Garret Wesley, his first cousin, and this is supported by the online Cracroft's Peerage which I would have thought would be an allowable source. Before I go ahead and amend the article, could someone with access to Wellington: The Years of the Sword please check to see exactly what she did write? Thanks. Opera hat (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 100% what point you're wanting to support, so here's a paragraph from page 7 regarding the surnames you mention:
"Sir Harry's heir, the second Sir Henry Colley or Cowley, was another 'good Englishe possessioner' whose great-grandson Richard took his M.A. at Trinity in 1714 under the name of Cowly. Richard Cowly, Cooley or Colley never had to decide which way to spell his name, for in 1728 he was to change it to Wesley by adoption, and in 1746 to Mornington by ennoblement. Here in Richard Wesley, an Irish Georgian gentleman born about 1690, civilized and eccentric, was the Duke of Wellington's grandfather."
Copied word for word, sic. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 14:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that. I'm afraid I completely forgot I'd questioned this so didn't go back and change the article, but now the section has been amended by another. Thank you User:Chrisdoyleorwell. Opera hat (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington/Archive_4&oldid=1151013911"