Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Hofschröer

This line: '"German historian Peter Hofschröer went so far as to describe Waterloo a "German Victory"'....
He does indeed, but he does so while "Brit bashing", attacking the British contribution. He acts like the bearer of some hidden facts, when he is in fact merely using spin and conjecture. The book cited here is a solid work on the Prussian army but is also a contrived attempted hatchet job on Wellington. He completely ignores Wellington's post battle dispatches praising the Prussians,

"The Prussian army maintained their position with their usual gallantry and perseverance"

.

"I should not do justice to my own feelings, or to Marshal Blücher and the Prussian army, if I did not attribute the successful result of this arduous day to the cordial and timely assistance I received from them. The operation of General Bülow upon the enemy's flank was a most decisive one; and, even if I had not found myself in a situation to make the attack which produced the final result, it would have forced the enemy to retire if his attacks should have failed, and would have prevented him from taking advantage of them if they should unfortunately have succeeded"

.

Link: http://www.wtj.com/archives/wellington/1815_06f.htm

Just to repeat that, he wrote this book, and two others solely dedicated to attacking Wellington, without even reading Wellington's Waterloo dispatch. Quite. bloody. appalling.

He decries British jingoism, while shoving full on German jingoism. Trumpets the German contribution while minimising the British.

It is a damn shame as he could write a solid history book if he wasn't so hell bent on attempting to stir controversy to sell his book. His utter lack of professionalism is displayed in the fact that he was banned from popular war gaming website TheMiniaturesPage.com for making alt's to support his own arguments and then making more alt's to attack other posters. Quite embarrassing.

While this book could be referenced on the Waterloo page it should not be included here. Hofschröer is not a unbiased historian, he is anti-Wellington and including his "German victory" line here is to lend far too much weight to a sensationalist voice in the wilderness. Wellington's comments on the Prussians should be here instead. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

All very interesting, but it is important that you do not remove references/citations just because one historian's views clash with the generally accepted British opinion - that leads to bias, and POV-pushing in favour of Wellington - not by introducing material that is pro-Wellington, but by removing material that is slightly anti-Wellington. Waterloo is one of those battles where the outcome is highly disputed, especially in terms of the role of the Prussians, and whether the British simply "held" the French, whilst the Prussians actually defeated them will be argued for years to come. That's not to say I agree with Peter Hofschröer, because I do not. I have, however, looked at his article and there is a link there, a book review by none other than David Chandler. Chandler is a very popular Napoleonic historian, yet many consider him as "disliking Napoleon, loving Wellington" if you read enough reviews, whilst some do not feel he is overly biased only cautious not to raise Napoleon too high and that he dislikes pro-Napoleon authors. Yet Chandler himself, in the book review, states: "The author has a good case. Let us hope he does not spoil it in his future efforts. Yes, the Anglo-American viewpoint on this famous battle has certainly been overplayed for ... dozens of sycophantic British historians (as noted by Andrew Roberts). We need some fresh air. Peter Hofschröer has achieved this." Controversy is something historians must learn to accept, and deal with - and on Wiki we cannot judge the authors behaviour - his actions on TMP, whilst inappropriate from what I've read, is not a "reliable source", you're simply going from the claims made by those who blocked him, and a thread about the situation - rather one-sided really. Regardless, his behaviour has nothing to do with his publications, he could call Napoleon a dick on a forum, and a hero in his book - but you can't cite forums, per WP:RS, and given the number of books he has written, you can't dismiss his research altogether - he is a scholar, regardless of his bias. I'm sure there are plenty of French authors who dislike Wellington, and us Brits are not renowned for giving Napoleon a huge amount of credit. All that can be done, is to carefully phrase controversies, from an academic POV rather than a national one. If you want to weigh the balance, then your last sentence should read - "Wellington's comments... should he here also", not instead. Maintain a NPOV, but don't force one or discredit one based on a national interest alone - there are so many books about the French or British involvement alone, that once a Prussian-sided one comes along, it is all too easy to criticise it and its author. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 20:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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^Talk 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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. — 203.206.52.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 01:25, 18 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.

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)— 203.59.53.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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 Wikipedia editors think he should be referred in the introduction as Irish, Anglo-Irish or British:

• He is Irish, de facto finito (5): User:George SJ XXI, User:Micielo, User:Mr. D. E. Mophon, User:Sioraf, User:Stanley c jenkins.
• He is Anglo-Irish (5): User:BritishWatcher, User:GoodDay, User:LordHarris, User:MarcusBritish, User:Richard Harvey.
• He is British (1): User:SomersetDevon.
• He is Irish Britton (1): User:Yorkshirian.
• Irish and Anglo-Irish/British (4): User:BarretBonden, User:Bjenks, User:Dunnettreader, User:Mabuska.
• Don’t know / no preference (4): User:Anglius, User:Arvidius, User:Britannicus, User:John K.

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^Talk 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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^Talk 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 08:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Righty-ho. Hard to see who you were replying owing to the edit conflicts. JonC^Talk 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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[1] – 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) {— 203.206.85.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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.

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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 Wikipedia, 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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: [1]. Also note WP:CCC applies here – consensus can change. IPs can also be blocked through page protection to prevent disruption. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia”, 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 [2] and Pmanderson [3] and a lot of patience. Give neutral reasoning a barnstar, lol! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 17:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nationality in infobox

I have reverted self, but thought the agreement was [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|British]] --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, just re-read what it says again, nationality should be [[Kingdom of Ireland|Irish]] --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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 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 ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Discussion here.

Continuous removal of category

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.

---

Correct me if I am wrong here, but an editor removed the category category of Irish soldiers, I reverted his edit as there was no consensus for this removal, however Johnbod reverted it back, saying that the removal is "clearly more correct" and "more detailed".

I disagree with this removal, first because it is without consensus, and if this is truly an encyclopedia this category should be kept, if a reader is reading this article and it arouses their curiosity in Irish soldiers, then that category should be there for their benefit.

Is there consensus to remove this category?, because the continuous removal seems pointy, unconstructive and needlessly provocative. WinterIsComingOdran (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's just a matter of you learning to read summaries. The edit summary in question clearly reads "removed Category:Irish soldiers; added Category:Irish officers in the British Army". So it was a one-for-one swap, from a weak category to a stronger one. "Irish soldiers" is a bit vague, "Irish officers in the British Army" describes Wellington perfectly. Your reverts seem more pointy, because you're not paying attention to the fact that a better category has been selected, and not just one removed. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Being opposed to its removal with the reasons I outlined above is not pointy, I do support the inclusion of Category:Irish officers in the British Army because it is historically accurate and relevant but I oppose the exclusion of Category:Irish soldiers for the same reaons and reasons above. WinterIsComingOdran (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:Categorization#Categorizing pages, specifically the item where it says "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." I agree with Marcus that there is no need to include the weak category, when we have a much stronger one. Favonian (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case and wiki policy then I have no problem, I'm still new enough to the project. WinterIsComingOdran (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Also note that Category:Irish officers in the British Army is a sub category of Category:Irish soldiers in the British Army, which itself is a sub category of Category:Irish soldiers. Therefore your original addition of the category was effectively a circular duplication link back to itself. Richard Harvey (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not an original addition of mine. WinterIsComingOdran (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see. So you just reverted the removal of the category, by an experienced editor, without first ascertaining the reason for the removal, on the basis that you thought it was "pointy, unconstructive and needlessly provocative". When in fact it was correct, constructive and provocation did not even enter into the reason for it being done! It will be a sad day, for Wikipedia, when editors refrain from constructively improving articles and remove incorrect editing, on the grounds that their edits may appear to be done purely to provoke other editors. Richard Harvey (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't be so pedantic, I suggest you refrain from your borderline incivility and disingenuous assertions Richard, if you have nothing positive to say don't say anything at all. WinterIsComingOdran (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Had I wanted to be pedantic I would have also mentioned that I suspect you are actually Sheodred and using [[User:AndThenTheWindsOfWinterShallHowl|WinterIsComingOdran]] for block evasion, as an indef banned editor, due to the similarity of the double user name editing as:- [[User:Sheodred|TheFortunateSon]], used on:- Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Solution_to_the_issues_surrounding_Irish_nationality_and_the_use_of_Anglo-Irish. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're done here. For the record my edit summary was "(rvt - replacing with more detailed cat is clearly correct)". Johnbod (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes we are I believe, I had no problem with it once it was clarified to me as a new editor but a certain someone had to have a go at me, and now I am being accused of being a blocked editor by the same editor what is your problem Richard? (PS I am a fan of Game of Thrones, the name is in reference to House Stark's family motto)WinterIsComingOdran (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2012 (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.

A note

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.

---

If new editors such as myself who are only trying to help out are going to be spoken to incivilly and accused of being blocked users, then you can keep this article, I am having no part in this, I had an interest in getting more involved in Napoleonic topics, not just sociology, but Richard has convinced me otherwise, thanks a lot. WinterIsComingOdran (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that I am not being uncivil, just acting in good faith for the project. Nor am I the only one who suspects you of sock puppeting as an indef banned disruptive editor. See:- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheodred. If I am wrong I will apologise. However you have the opportunity on the given link to comment on concerns expressed there. The requested CU investigation will hopefully resolve the situation. I will reserve further interaction until the investigation is complete. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes... can we remove this thread now? It bears zero relevance to Wellington, and is purely disruptive. CU was confirmed. Time to close this further example of disruptive behaviour. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 00:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I note my suspicion has been confirmed. Marcus I suggest we leave it here, as it is will act as a reminder should Sheodred continue his disruptive behaviour and return with another Sock puppet account, which with his history I suspect he will do. Richard Harvey (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2012 (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.

Proposed solution to nationality debate

This whole [was he Irish/was he British/was he Anglo-Irish/are these terms even understood to mean the same thing now as they did then] 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[1] – 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 ^[chat] 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 AKA: Banned editor:- George SJ XXI (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

George, instead of arsing everyone about, have you even bothered contacting Wikipedia: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 ^[chat] 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 AKA: Banned editor:- George SJ XXI (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 ^[chat] 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 ^[chat] 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 wikipedia 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 ^[chat] 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 ^[chat] 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)

Getting rather sidetracked here, but Article VI of both Acts of Union 1800 said "That it be the sixth article of union, that his Majesty's subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall, from and after the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and one, be entitled to the same privileges, and be on the same footing, as to encouragements and bounties on the like articles being the growth, produce, or manufacture of either country respectively, and generally in respect of trade and navigation in all ports and places in the united kingdom and its dependencies; and that in all treaties made by his Majesty, his heirs and successors, with any foreign power, his Majesty's subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges, and be on the same footing as his Majesty's subjects of Great Britain". One could take this to mean that in terms of nationality (as opposed to heritage) "Irish" did not exist after 1800. Opera hat (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Then I dare you to go to WikiProject Ireland and tell them no one born before 1800 was "Irish", but all were "British" and see the response. All Hell would break loose. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 20:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What I was trying to say was that as a result of the Acts of Union, everyone who was a national of the Kingdom of Ireland on 31 December 1800 became a national of the United Kingdom on 1 January 1801. Whether that made them "British" or not is a whole other issue, and one I think outside the scope of the infobox on this article, as I've said before. Opera hat (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I know what you're trying to say, I think you're missing my point: A lot of Irish people believe that as long as someone is born anywhere on the island called Ireland, regardless of it being Kingdom, Commonwealth, Union, Northern, Eire, or any other status, at any time in history, they are Irish. And many British feel they are British during certain periods. This is harder to determine in the past when the law is relatively unknown. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 00:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly why I made this suggestion in the first place. Wikipedia should not attempt to arbitrate between what "a lot of Irish people believe" and what "many British feel", especially as it "is harder to determine [...] when the law is relatively unknown". I think that in any case where the Irish/British identity of an individual is in dispute, it is better for the avoidance of controversy to confine statements in wikipedia articles to citable facts like place of birth. This seems to have worked quite well at Edward Carson's article, and I had hoped it would do here as well. Opera hat (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's try something. I can only think of one example though.. the "planet" Pluto was re-classified to "dwarf planet" in 2006. Wiki acknowledges it as a "dwarf planet" despite many people, including scientists, refuting this classification. So the article is based on what..? The most authoritative source..? So what would be the most "authoritative source" we could use to support Wellington's nationality? Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 01:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well first we would all have to agree what we mean by nationality, wouldn't we? I don't see the issue as one on authority but of complexity, and infoboxes are always a disaster when anything complex is involved. So leave it out of the infobox. Maybe he had no clear nationality, maybe he had two. No-one seems sure. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 9 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 ^[chat] 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)

Given the subject matter, I also believe the best solution is to keep it simple (as per the suggestions above). He was born in Ireland. He is most famous for being a British soldier. He can certainly be accurately described as having Anglo-Irish parentage but this is probably more appropriate in the "Early life" section. I would argue that his "nationality" was Irish, as this is the standard "nationality" of the time. I would expect MarcusBritish to know the 88th were described as "Irish" - and not British - as the soldiers were all from Ireland. If there's no problems describing the 88th as Irish.... --HighKing (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes the principle is much the same, the 88th, who were known fondly as the "Connaught Rangers", were an Irish regiment in the British army, just as Wellington was an Irish soldier/officer in the British army. If the soldiers in the 88th are understood as being Irish, being born in Ireland, then I see no reason why Welly, being born in Irish, should be identified as British. That would seem to be contradictory, otherwise. The Anglo-Irish is notable, in the lead, as without strong family ties to Britain, would the outcome of his career have been the same, or would he have not been "enabled" to reach such a high status. He wasn't that experienced when given his first command of the army, so his social status, as an Anglo-Irish peer, must have been influential, and is thus worth mentioning. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 15:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If a mention of his potentially influential Anglo-Irish descendants is deemed relevant to highlight his swift rise to command, then it properly belongs in the "Military Career" section, not the lede. --HighKing (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Then you clearly don't understand that the purpose of the WP:LEAD, which is to provide a synopsis of the article, including notable points. Some readers don't come to look through lengthy prose, but stay lone enough to read the lead, just to get the jist of an article. If there is need for massive debate over his Anglo-Irishness then that speaks for itself on its importance. Most historians mention it too, because it is a notable fact that he was an Anglo-Irish peer. And is not related to his nationality, but his background. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 17:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what policies I understand or not, or what you believe readers want to see or read. The only person I can see making a "massive debate" over this is you while everyone else here seems to be agreeing to drop unnecessary clutter in the lede, with most agreeing to drop the Anglo-Irish bit. I don't doubt it should be mentioned in the article, but I question why you seem to be the only editor demanding it is in the lede, and attacking anyone who disagrees. If "most historians" mention it too, do they mention it in their equivalent in the lede? Have you some citations? Less attacking and opinionated personal comments, more facts please. Perhaps a poll to test consensus would provide a swifter and less contentious resolution. --HighKing (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of that I believe readers want to read, it's a matter of what WP:LEAD indicates should be in the lead, creating a uniformity to Wiki articles. If you had read the 2nd paragraph of that page, you'd be more clear on that, before challenging my comments as being my own personal beliefs. As for their equivalent of a lead, you're asking a pointless question.. books have limited space for a synopsis on the rear, whilst leads can be lengthier, and books can be excessively long which would exceed WP:TOOLONG here, so opposites are reversed in print. Nor are sysposis' something anyone cites. The mention of his Anglo-Irishness by practically every author who discusses his background and career, i.e. the frequency, is important. If 1 author in every 10 said Wellington had size 10 feet, I wouldn't consider it notable, but if as many as 7 or more said that, I would. In this case, his Anglo-Irishness is mentioned by virtually all authors that I've read.. Longford, Holmes, Sinnema,* Corrigan,* Roberts, Uffindell – all in my personal library (seen via my userpage) although some are ebooks* and not listed, but still citable. Given that this is just a sample of 6 from my own shelf, and just the ones I've bothered to quickly check in 10 minutes, I think it would be easy enough to make a strong case for the notability of Anglo-Irish, but that could be seen as pointy if over referenced. I'll just leave it to you to realise that I, as an impartial reader of Napoleonic history, as I don't favour Wellington over Napoleon in terms of military greatness, like many Brits do.. and equally don't favour British over Irish in terms of Wellington's nationality, as many Brits do also. Therefore it is unreasonable to assume that I have a biased opinion in any respect. The debate over Wellington's nationality is more a matter or circumstance, in my case, than national interest: I value this article as a historian of the Napoleonic Wars, not as a biographer with British interests. I have, however, put a great deal of effort into improving this article, copy-editing and referencing a lot of uncited points, as well as expanding on vague details, if you were to check the version immediately before I began contributing in Feb 2011 linked here, and compare it with the current version, although I cannot take credit for everything, naturally, and don't intend to, as top contributor I helped shape the article positively by making many changes and tweaks. For reasons I can't explain, the article fell from its GA status right down to C-class at project level long ago, before my time. I expect it's about a B+ now.. and is on my "to do" list for a major rewrite. I feel it deserves GA status once again (FA would be better, but I don't do these). But I also feel that in doing so, mention of his Anglo-Irish roots in a neutral lead regarding his nationality, ethnicity and career, is of importance. To be honest, I'm too busy working on Napoleon at the moment to have thought this one through, yet, in depth. Be aware though, I do have a lot of books on the subject and man himself (mostly military history, some biographical) and am not prone to insensitive or biased opinions. If you think otherwise, do check out my in-dev sandbox article on Napoleon, and you will be assured that I am neutral, thorough and a good judge of references. The problem with this article is it's being edited atop existing flaws, which can cause issues with some editors who want to preserve their edits. Of course, any major rewrite I offer will be in the unforeseeable future, sandboxed initially and once published, open to further contribs and edits from others. But a return to GA is my goal, I assure you. What you see as an "attack" is wrong, you're simply mistaking my desire to see this article returned to high-class, steered away from edit wars, and not subject to these mindless and circular disputes over his nationality or ethnicity. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, little early to be discussing stuff like this? I've been following this debate a little bit, and reading a lot of what Marcus (Sorry if that's not your name) has been stating. First though, I don't think HighKing was accusing you of having some pro-British/Pro English/Pro Anglo-Irish agenda. I think he/she was more referring to what he/she may of thought was your own personal belief - as to what should be included in the lead or not - I'm just guessing, assuming/making a general observation - don't take it too seriously, I don't want any conflict. I don't think you have any nationalist agenda Marcus, systematic bias yes! Everyone is guilty of that to some degree, however small. Again, don't take that too seriously! If I may, I'm going to be a good lass and just break down the lead a little. "British soldier" - this covers his main notability and such - who he fought for when he won those battles - a native of Ireland - this covers his background, his birthplace of course too. The Anglo-Irish part, this is tricky. Do we really need it alongside the British/Irish parts in the lede? IDK. I don't think it's right or wrong - but a question for what's best for the article in general. This is such a tiny little thing mind you, so don't spend too much time on it, get it over with quickly and direct energies elsewhere. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, isn't it? --Nutthida (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The problem isn't the lead. It's the article. As you say in your last sentence, the lead summarises the article. Because the article does not give adequate coverage regarding anything but his career, his nationality and heritage seem trivial. More space invested in his background would sufficiently expand on these points, and if well referenced and cited, should give reason for the lead to include them. As it stands, the lead attempts to explain away things that the article lacks. That's probably one reason it lost its GA status, leads aren't supposed to give details that don't appear to be mentioned in the article. Yes, his role as a soldier is his most notable point, however, it was his background that gave him a "foot in the door", as an Anglo-Irish peer he had social status from birth that your average Irishman wasn't granted, and I doubt he'd ever have become a great general without such influence. What made Wellington notable? Primarily: his role as a general. How did he become notable? Through influence. He didn't just march into Horse Guards and gain that position. Without his roots, it is unlikely he would have been commissioned to a high command. And his being Irish is a purely biographical point, rather than a historically notable one. I named about 6 authors earlier, who mention his Anglo-Irish roots. A couple of these just give it a brief mention in a couple of sentences. The rest go into great detail regarding the matter, over several pages. Were the point unimportant, they wouldn't need to do this. This article also needs to expand on some of the points they make regarding his family background, with clearer prose, and good sources. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 12:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, obviously my proposal to remove the nationality from the infobox hasn't gained consensus support in the discussions above. I, Johnbod and Richard Harvey back removing any definite statement, while MarcusBritish, an unregistered user and HighKing support keeping as it is, with "Irish" as the nationality. I'm sorry if I'm being dense but I can't pin down whether the comments from Kauffner and Nutthida support one side or the other. Nevertheless, at present the contentious statement in the infobox that Wellington was Irish has no citation and is unsupported by any citation in the body of the article. I'm tagging it as unsourced accordingly. Opera hat (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The unregistered user's comment is irrelevant and should be ignored, as a sockpuppet account of the indef banned disruptive editor George SJ XXI, as MarcusBritish| noted in his reply to him. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Revisited

Although there was no consensus above to remove the nationality from the infobox, it has now had a "citation needed" tag on it for over a month without anybody adding a source. I am therefore removing it, and anyone who wants to replace it will need to provide a reliable citation. See WP:BURDEN. Opera hat (talk) 13:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

A citation tag was not required because is is trivial knowledge that he was born, raised and educated in Ireland. It was inappropiate for you to make that recent edit, you only edit this article when it comes to nationality occasionally and nothing more so it is obvious you have no real interest in improving this article or any interest in a great historical figure such as Wellington. You are only interested in trying to rubber-stamp your views under the pretence of removing nationality without consensus because there were no citations provided for the citation tag, a tag which you added which was surprisingly not removed until now. I suggest you RfC if you want to keep flogging a dead horse. 109.78.240.51 (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I smell a WP:SOCK. Only two pretentious prats I know waffle on exhaustively like this, and both are blocked indef, and both love raising the "Irish" flag. Given that this is not an Aussie IP, that rules one out... leaving a WP:DUCK. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 16:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Pretentious prat? That is hypcritical of you Mrs Marcus. Flag raising my arse go sit down have a waffle a cup of tea and some crumpets like a good fellow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.70.152 (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it, I'm stating it as Gospel-given fact. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 12:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Garbled passage

Something has gone wrong in "Early Life" - there is a passage about when he was born that makes no sense. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What passage do you mean? I've read that section and concluded it's a little confusing - Ironic because it's the very section about the confusion over his exact birth place in Dublin too! (Wonderful city, by the way)!! --Nutthida (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"His mother, Anne, Countess of Mornington, recalled in 1815, that he had been born at 6 Merrion Street, Dublin;[11] his father had asserted that he was born in Mornington House; the house next door which is no longer there; the Dublin packet boat; and the family estate of Athy, as the Duke apparently put on his 1851 census return, which perished in the fires of 1916." - gibberish frankly at the end, & 2 semi-colons. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's garbled. I'd recommend hiding it with <!-- --> tags, for now. The way it's garbled, it's not even possible to correct because there appears to be context missing. But the [11] means there is a ref, so someone might be able to use it later to verify, correct, reword and unhide the passage. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 14:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Last September 23rd it read: Wellington was born "The Honourable Arthur Wesley", the fourth son - third of five surviving sons - to Garret Wesley, 1st Earl of Mornington, and Anne, the eldest daughter of Arthur Hill, Viscount Dungannon. He was most likely born at their townhouse, 24 Upper Merrion Street, Dublin, now the "Merrion Hotel". His biographers mostly follow the contemporary newspaper evidence in saying he was born 1 May 1769, the day he was baptised. Other places have been put forward as the location of his birth: Mornington House, Dublin—as his father claimed; the house next door which is no longer there; the Dublin packet boat; and the family estate of Athy, as the Duke apparently put on his 1851 census return, which is now burnt.

- where the text all makes sense but nb the house numbers are different etc. I won't try to untangle this. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement and supporting reference:- "His mother, Anne, Countess of Mornington, recalled in 1815, that he had been born at 6 Merrion Street, Dublin;[11]" is from page 16 of Lady Jane Wellesley's book on the history of her own family. I would suggest that letters and diaries available to her are far more accurate and reliable sources than any other, particularly when it comes to newspapers. I also believe a mother would be more aware of where she gave birth to her children than others. For those who have not read the book the section of the page referred to as reference [11] (ie: page 16) can be read, with the preceding two pages here (page 14), here (page 15) and here (page 16. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to de-garble it a bit. The English now follows the 23 September version. Dormskirk (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

more BBC television trivia

On 11 March 2012 BBC’s Antiques Roadshow featured a Coutts Bank cash cheque, written by Wellington, dated 12 March 1823 (verified by the bank as genuine) for a sum of £195. The expert at hand, Clive Stewart-Lockhart, claimed that, using an "average earnings index", the cheque was worth £100,000. But this seems wrong by a factor of 10 - the wikipedia inflation conversion template gives £20,000. Stewart-Lockhart also speculated, however, that the purpose of such a large amount of cash might have been (a) to buy the silence of a mistress, or (b) to buy an army commission for his son. Having rushed over to this article to check it all out, I was surprised to see that son Arthur was not mentioned, nor even the year of 1823. But Arthur’s article does indeed say that he ".. became an ensign in the 81st Regiment of Foot in 1823.. " Any ideas? I realise it's rather trivial, but it is quite intriguing. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Regrettably, it seems that the early 1820s are not really covered at all here. This source [4] tells us that "In 1822 he had had an operation to improve the hearing of the left ear, with the result that he became permanently deaf on that side, and was never quite well afterwards." This could usefully be added to the article, I suggest. Also that he was heaviy involved in Franco-Spanish diplomacy in this period. The famous "published and be damned" incident was in 1824 (and that publisher must have had suspicions that Wellington was open to offering a bribe?) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes

Some problems with the footnotes:

• FN 134 Siborne (1990) - Not in references
• FN 135 Summerville (2007) - Not in references
• FN 139 page needed
• FN 140 Chesney (1907) - Not in references
• FN 141 Parry (1900) - Not in references

I've moved all the books which are not apparently being referenced into the Further Reading. At a glance, several are being used, but because the citation templates are not consistently used, it is not easy to tell which one. Recommend replacing all the footnotes with the templates, so they are all in a consistent format, and which book is referred to is known. Also, the web references need access dates. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now resolved the problems with the footnotes and have inserted access dates for all web references. I am not familiar with the Harvard style templates so am struggling with that. I hope this is OK. Dormskirk (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from using the US-centric "Retrieved 2012-03-10" style dates, they don't make any sense in the long-term: is that supposed to mean 3rd October or 10th March to the rest of us? All dates, including retrieved/access dates should be using a full DMY format style, i.e. 10 March 2012 or 3 October 2012, which anyone in the world can make sense of, especially for a primarily British themed ENGVAR article. Also, page ranges need an ndash between them, not a hyphen, as was the practice previously. Please maintain consistence with referencing, and styling. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 23:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now applied the Harvard templates and will also look at converting the US style dates. Dormskirk (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I might add that this date format is always assumed to be ISO 8601 ie never US date. But I agree with Marcus. Still some bodgey footnotes:

• FN 3. Add this to the bibliography.
• FN 16. Use the template and remove the ISBN.
• FN 17. I think this should be Wellesley (2008)
• FN 158. Add this to the bibliography

Anyhowm that is good enough for me. Re-rating as a B now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

One has to be aware of the various ISO standards in order to assume them.. easier to assume that the format is always based on the articles closest related ENGVAR. Personally, I don't know or trust in ISO standards, and given the US spellings of "standardization organization" am not sure I would. Not that I don't like US spellings per se, just that I don't appreciate Draconian foreign bodies setting standards for other countries altogether, except for commercial reasons. Sounds like the EU, and we all know what complete arseholes they are in trying to influence everything. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 02:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 and MarcusBritish - Thanks for all your guidance. I have now dealt with FNs 3, 16, 17 and 158 and applied British dates and ndashes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Grey - Not Peel - succeeded as PM

In 1830, Earl Grey succeeded the Duke as Prime Minister. You have Peel shown. Also, this error is repeated at the page for Peel. And maybe other places. Grey was PM from Nov 1830 through July 1834. Also the succession to Malbourne - sp? - may be mixed up in all this. John Servais (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC) John Servais

Wellington was Prime Minister on 2 occasions. The first time he was succeeded by Grey in 1830. The second time he was succeeded by Peel in 1834. I think it is reported correctly in the article but I will be happy to check again if you can point out the paragraph with the error. Road Wizard (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I was in error. Missed the double service. After posting above, I went back looking carefully. My apology for that. And my other items are also errors flowing from the first one. John Servais (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

On Wellington's Personality

Should there be no mentioning of Wellington's rather peculiar relationship to Siborne who was commissioned to work a model of the Battle of Waterloo as Mr. Hofschroer desribed it in "Wellington's Smallest Victory"? I thought this amounted to truly important revelations regarding Wellington's personality! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.192.11 (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Date of birth

Arthur’s date of birth is stated as either the 29th of April or the 1st of May. Should it not have been the 30th of April? Can anyone explain this to me?

2013-08-16 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.154.30 (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

His date of birth is discussed in Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington#Early life and education, and is mainly debated due to lack of surviving records; the date was either never official recorded or was lost in a fire, if I recall. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 17:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)