Talk:Ernest Shackleton/Archive 3

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lysh.mich, BDCalvin22, Jonah Robson, Erin.s.hall, ESutt, Toni Ervin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc

Shackleton's mother (Gavan) was a mixture of Cork and Kerry stock, for centuries. To describe her as a result of the "Anglo-Norman invasion" of Ireland (this occurring in the 12th century) whilst likely, seems so tenuous a connection across the centuries as to be dust. Beyond yet another, tedious attempt to distance Shackleton from Ireland (where he was born), how relevant is this? I share a variation of this surname, and yes, my family acknowledges the Anglo-Norman connection (almost a millennium ago). We are descended from the Norman family, Gauvain; the name was anglicised after the invasion of 1171. I can find no evidence that Shackleton's mother ever advertised such a fact, nor did Shackleton; any more than John Smith from Lancaster might insist that he is descended from Visigoths, or Romans. Or Adam. Is this in any way relevant? Mike Galvin (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the cited source:

“

... His mother Henrietta was descended from the Fitzmaurices, a family which had been in Kerry since the Norman times in the 13th century.

”

It would seem the current article doesn't reflect what the source actually said. I'd be happy to see it changed. W C M_email 13:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Given the intermarriage between Norman and (presumably) Celtic stock in twelfth century Ireland, it is likely that a large percentage of modern Irish have at least a drop or two from the Norman gene pool. Misquotation of the source aside, I still see no relevance in the observation. Mike Galvin (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Alexandra Shackleton/Caird quote

A well sourced addition to the piece (James Caird Society, of which Alexandra Shackleton is President) has been arbitrarily deleted. It simply quotes the source that Shackleton took lifelong pride in his Irish roots, and frequently declared himself "an Irishman". I do not think this in any way neutralises his Anglo-Irishness, but since it was Shackleton's own sentiment, is there any reason it should not be included? Mike Galvin (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been removed. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in an edit summary when I moved it, the lead shouldn't contain things not in the article body: see WP:LEAD. DrKay (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. Apologies. Mike Galvin (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2019

This edit request to Ernest Shackleton has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Correction and clarification on some information relating to the discovery of Shackleton's whisky under ice. This is something that has been incorrectly reported on recently by news outlets, so we'd like to clarify this as there seems to be confusion around how the whisky was discovered, as well as the whisky that was later produced.

Please update the final paragraph under "Nimrod Expedition" to:

In January 2010, New Zealand Antarctic Heritage trust conservators found five crates of alcohol encased in ice under Shackleton’s 1908 Antarctic base – three contained Mackinlay’s Rare Old Highland Malt whisky and two contained brandy. The three whisky crates were excavated, and three of the bottles were flown to Scotland for analysis by the Mackinlay’s brand owner, Whyte and Mackay. A revival of the vintage—and since lost—formula of Mackinlay’s Whisky has since been offered for sale with a portion of the proceeds benefiting the New Zealand Antarctic Heritage Trust.

Please also update under "Legacy, Later" the following:

In 2011, three bottles of the whisky discovered from the Nimrod expedition in 2010 were flown to Scotland and analysed by Whyte and Mackay at the Invergordon Spirit Laboratory. In 2011 a limited-edition recreation of Mackinlay’s Rare Old Highland Malt was later released for sale to the public, followed by a second release in 2012. In 2016, Whyte and Mackay released a permanent expression based on the recipe from the Mackinlay’s Rare Old Highland Malt discovered in 2010 eponymously named Shackleton Whisky.

185.7.228.125 (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You've provided none (e.g. flown to Scotland, name of the whisky, and the three separate releases of the recreation/revival all need to be sourced. In addition, USA Today says there were five crates of whisky, not three. NiciVampireHeart 07:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - please see the following sources:

Flown to Scotland - https://scotchwhisky.com/whiskypedia/2129/mackinlay-s/ and https://whiskyanalysis.com/index.php/2018/07/16/mackinlays-shackleton-blended-malt/ Name of the Whisky - https://scotchwhisky.com/whiskypedia/2129/mackinlay-s/ Recreation/Revival - https://scotchwhisky.com/magazine/latest-news/13645/shackleton-blended-malt-inspired-by-explorer/ |ans=no Ljmacdonald92 (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Documentaries

In the Legacy > Later section, before the 2002 TV serial Shackleton (starring Kenneth Branagh) is mentioned we can also add George Butler's 2000 documentary film The Endurance: Shackleton's Legendary Antarctic Expedition (narrated by Liam Neeson), as well as its 2001 follow-up titled Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure (narrated by Kevin Spacey). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:4808:4F31:DCA7:D08D:D5C3:ADE8 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Mother descended from Fitzmaurice Family"

Does this observation have a point? I have done some research, and find that the Fitzmaurice family is no more distinguished than Fitzgibbon or Fitzgerald, or any other Irish "Fitz". I don't doubt the veracity. I just wonder as to the relevance. She was Shackleton's mother. Unless her forbearers fought with Nelson (or Brian Boru), I suggest a slimming down of superfluous detail. Hanoi Road (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Lede change.

I notice that the lede has reverted to Anglo-Irish rather than simply Irish. This contradicts the well sourced statement by Shackleton himself in the article (6). I accept that the definition might not be Shackleton's alone to make had there been ambiguity on his part regarding this, but the blunt statement "I am an Irishman" would seem to take precedence in a situation where there is debate that he was Anglo-Irish, or regarded himself as such. Furthermore, his mother was from Kerry, and Shackleton was born in Kilkea. Can we change this back? Hanoi Road (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't this been changed back? So the Irish nats burned down the homes of guys like Shackleton now they want to claim him? Lol. --2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:BD5B:4C0:8E00:783A (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a question of any party "claiming" him. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a fan club. He was born in Ireland, as were his parents. He identified as Irish. His nationality is thusly described in the lede as per Wiki guidelines. Hanoi Road (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Irish

I have reverted the unauthorized edit of 'Anglo-Irish' to Irish. Further to exhaustive debate, the former was deemed appropriate by general consensus, though was recently altered without notification or any manner of consultation. This is vandalism. A definition of nationality is core to any biographical lede in Wiki. "Anglo-Irish" is not a nationality. I would ask the individual responsible to go through normal channels should he/she wish to pursue this and have a rational counter-argument. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And pray tell where is your evidence he was Irish? Also, there was no vandalism committed here and Anglo-Irish was a lot more long-standing than you realize. This seems like popularized reclaiming of historical figures who, during the Irish revolution, were set upon as outsiders and interlopers who were guilty of oppressing the native Irish. --2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:BD5B:4C0:8E00:783A (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"And pray tell where is your evidence he was Irish?" How about the fact that he was born and raised in Ireland like his father and father before him? You seriously don't think he considered himself an Irishman? You might want to read the article because he was very proud of his Irish roots. Also his mothers family, the Fitzmaurices have been in Ireland for a very long time. They were Hiberno-Norman who as the saying goes, "became more Irish than the Irish themselves", not just culturally but from intermarriage with the Gaels. Honestly how long do your family have to live in Ireland before you're declared a "native" in your book? Lastly what Irish revolution are you referring to? The one that was led by people like Shackleton in 1798? Or are you referring to the one spawned by the Home Rule movement, once again led by people like Shackleton? Stevenbfg (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shackleton aside, as he lived really not that long ago, it is patently ridiculous to describe people born to planter families in Ireland centuries ago as being “Irish” *anything*. Anglo-Normans, despite being somewhat sidelined in the Gaelic revival, should be treated on a case-by-case basis. The Duke of Wellington for example is a prime example of how years of trolling caused the nationality of the undisputedly British general and PM to be referred to as “Irish” alone at times, which is absolutely obscene. Apparently some Irish folk wish to claim the people who were instrumental in their oppression.2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:F8CE:412E:3A3B:C718 (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing promotional content?

The below strikes me as promotional content for the mentioned historian; the single-word quote does not add meaningfully to the description, nor is the historian's authority needed to assert this claim. Would suggest removal of the quote. > He rapidly became a role model for leadership as one who, in extreme circumstances, kept his team together in a survival story described by cultural historian Stephanie Barczewski as "incredible".^[1] Davidoaye (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Barczewski, p. 295.

Revert to 'Irish'.

Anglo-Irish restored

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 reverted the unauthorized change from 'Anglo-Irish' to Irish. 'Anglo-Irish' is not a nationality, and as such, is in breach of Wiki guidelines. This issue has been exhaustively debated. The final consensus was that Shackleton, by virtue of his birth in Ireland, (not to mention his own somewhat unecessary assertion "I am an Irishman") was, of course, Irish. Vandals, please cease and desist. Hanoi Road (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody denies that her book employs that term. The point is that it is not a nationality, and as such has no place in the lede. Hanoi Road (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hanoi Road, please point to the Wiki guidelines to which you are referring. Please also point to the final consensus to which you are referring. Going back through the talkpage history, I found no such consensus, although the closest I could find was this, which supported the continued use of Anglo-Irish in the lede. Stop with the nonsense around "unauthorized changes" and calling other editors "vandals". This will be your only warning from me on that account. Grandpallama (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be following me around Wiki, for reasons I don't quite understand. His nationality was exhaustively debated and has stood as 'Irish' for some considerable time (for the obvious reason that he was Irish). I repeat that 'Anglo-Irish' is not a nationality, and has never been. It is a social group, but that is all. I'm not sure how far back you've gone in this debate, but one contributor had to be reined in with the description 'Irish, (when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom)'. That extraordinary description was struck down by an RfC. I don't know what your problems are, but there is no way you're making them mine. PS: Requesting a temporary block over that other matter was a low thing to do, btw. I repeat that Shackleton's description as Irish as stood for a year or more, uncontested and accepted by the community. Hanoi Road (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your problems are, but there is no way you're making them mine. PS: Requesting a temporary block over that other matter was a low thing to do, btw. I assume you are referring to your block over personal attacks at both an article page and on my talkpage while happily ignoring WP:3RR? That's the kind of thing that makes me look into other edits an editor makes to see if there are other problems, which is perfectly acceptable behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see the most recent discussion was that archived at Talk:Ernest_Shackleton/Archive_2#Nationality. This seems to me to support using Anglo-Irish, not least because that was what the article said when it passed FA review. DuncanHill (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reviewed the previous discussions and I note that the consensus even at FA promotion was Anglo-Irish. As such I'd support restoring it. Can someone point to this RFC that supposedly changed this long-standing consensus? W C M_email 16:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Yeah, I've had a good look at that - a walk down memory lane, if nothing else. I cannot see any clear concensus in the 'Nationality' or 'Anglo-Irish' discussions. There are several opinions and ways-of-explaining, but nothing really conclusive or convincing. Weight must certainly be given to his life and where the bulk of it was spent, but that does NOT define his nationality. Shackleton himself frequently declared "I am an Irishman" and the source for this (a relative who heads the James Caird Society) is impeccable. I would again say that Anglo-Irish is not a nationality and should not be used in the lede. The article itself makes clear that he left Ireland aged 10, and moved to London. However, on balance, one must consider the whole 'package', as it were when defining his nationality. He was born in Ireland to an Irish mother and a father whose family had been resident in Ireland for centuries. He himself regarded himself as Irish, and said so. This business of the UK claiming anyone of note pre-1922 Ireland as 'Anglo-Irish' is pretty offensive, not to mention inaccurate. If, as someone else suggested, accepting an honour is indicative of being 'Anglo-Irish', then Bob Geldof and Terry Wogan are Anglo-Irish. The guy was Irish. Why not let it (and him) rest. Hanoi Road (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the indentation of your post to make the discussion easier to follow. This isn't about "the UK claiming anyone of note pre-1922 Ireland as 'Anglo-Irish'", it is about good-faith editors trying to achieve consensus. Please don't make accusations like that again, they are counter-productive. DuncanHill (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, you and I were unable to achieve consensus on this issue in the past. It has lain low for a year or more, with the community apparently content to accept the description of Shackleton as Irish. The "pre-1922 Anglo-Irish" remark was actually taken from another editor on the talk page you sent me to, but I feel the observation has merit. Shackleton himself described himself as "an Irishman". In the absence of any other definitive description of his nationality, can we settle for that? And why drag it up now? And again? If you have fresh input, I'm all ears. Hanoi Road (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed "This issue has been exhaustively debated. The final consensus was that Shackleton, by virtue of his birth in Ireland ... was of course Irish". Please can you point to that final consensus? And given that you have since said "I cannot see any clear concensus in the 'Nationality' or 'Anglo-Irish' discussions. There are several opinions and ways-of-explaining, but nothing really conclusive or convincing" lease could you also stop accusing people who disagree with your interpretation of being "vandals", ad recognise that editors may in good faith disagree with you? Address the subject in hand and do not willy nilly accuse others of vandalism or of being somehow engaged in attempts by the UK to do anything.DuncanHill (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So to conclude Hanoi Road, there is no consensus as you claimed and you have been aggressively defending a position based on your own opinion. I'll ignore all of the bad faith accusations to ask you to provide a source to back up your assertion he regarded himself as Irish. Having looked at sources myself, the overwhelming consensus appears to me is that scholars regarded him as Anglo-Irish and so as the predominant view in the literature that is how we should describe him. If I may observe it may be helpful if you two were to allow someone else to input to this discusison? W C M_email 17:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be delighted to see more people having an input. DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis, I think it's up to others to prove that he was NOT Irish. That might be rather tricky, since that's what he claimed himself. To those who want a source that "he regarded himself as Irish", I would suggest reading the article and footnoted - completely. Quite aside from that - and again - the fact that he was born in Ireland and spent his formative years there would seem to suggest he was Irish. Plus the fact that his mother was from Kerry, his father of long-standing Irish stock, etc, etc. As to allowing others to have "input to this discusison" (sic), I haven't stopped anyone from chipping in, now have I? Hanoi Road (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? DuncanHill (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I honestly don't care. Change it if you want. If you really need him to be ANGLO-Irish, rather than just Irish, whatever..... Hanoi Road (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current standing consensus (from what I can discern) supports "Anglo-Irish" but is also almost a decade old. I also note that the original consensus wasn't to identify Shackleton's nationality in the opening sentence, but to simply call him "a polar explorer" and state in the second sentence that he came from an Anglo-Irish family. It seems pretty clear that Shackleton may have self-identified as Irish (which is covered pretty well in the body), but that academic literature about the polar explorers (of which I consumed a small amount as an undergrad) considers him Anglo-Irish (well, English, really). All that said, there has been no formal RfC around this, despite it being a contentious issue, and that might be the best way to draw more eyes and establish a more conclusive consensus. Grandpallama (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems eminently sensible, since it appears the current change was made without consensus I would propose we make a bold edit to restore the previous consensus. Before starting an RFC I would like to see the evidence he regarded himself as Irish, it has been asserted that is the case but other than vague hand waving and some rather shouty behaviour no evidence has been supplied. W C M_email 09:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is sourcing after the last sentence in the 'Childhood' section to the James Caird Society. That sourcing seems solid enough to back up claims in the body about Shackleton's pride in his Irish heritage; I'm not convinced it's enough to declare him as "Irish" in the lede, especially in light of the longstanding consensus. Grandpallama (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you've chosen to involve yourself in this discussion, other than a rather odd pursuit of me based on my correction to the 'History of Violence' piece. Furthermore, I will not tolerate 'warnings' from some Keyboard Colonel with imaginary authority (refer to your earlier post). This is an community encyclopedia, not MI-5, and you have no authority whatsoever. Clear? Good. To bring you up to speed, this Shackleton thing has gone back and forth for over a year. 'Anglo-Irish' (see Wiki entry) is/was a socio economic group, and not a nationality. As such, it is inappropriate to use in the lede to describe someone's place of origin. In addition to this, one must take into account the components which make up that group. Religion, alone, is insufficient. There were/are many Irish protestants who did not consider themselves Anglo-Irish. The group was generally associated with wealth and position, which certainly excludes the rather impoverished Shackletons. It was also associated with recent connections to Britain, which also rules out the family (they had been resident in Ireland for centuries and the paternal side were ordinary farmers, not absentee landlords or major landowners). Shackleton's mother (Letitia Gavan) was from Kerry. The ridiculous statement that she was "descended from the Fitzmaurice family" (a clan of almost of zero notability) does little to strengthen the case for Anglo-Irishness. Shackleton Snr did indeed attend Trinity (but this is a tenuous marker of Anglo-Irishness since many ordinary protestants did also). So, in fact, did I. In brief, the Shackletons were not part of the Protestant ascendancy class. They were simply Protestants who lived in Ireland. That is not enough. Furthermore, Shackleton himself stated "I am an Irishman". Had he felt remotely British, he would likely have stated that. He never did. I'll entertain any counter-arguments, but I warn you now to mind your manners and to learn your place. Hanoi Road (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hanoi Road: Please stop using this page to engage in personal attacks on and thinly-veiled threats to other editors. Your contributions here to date have been a string of half-truths and abuse. Any good points you might have made are lost in the noise. DuncanHill (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the top of the thread and read this guy. Background: I made a change to the 'A History of Violence' piece a couple of weeks ago. Our friend objected and arranged to have me 'barred' for three days. Petty, much? I modified the change somewhat and it now stands because it is correct: just as the previous content was incorrect. I then find him on this forum (obviously stalking, for what are the odds?) and clearing his throat like an MP, demanding that high standards are met. I have run into this sort of thing before and deal swiftly with it. You - I have no issue with. At least you've been involved with this topic for ages and are contributing in good faith. As am I. Hanoi Road (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are the half-truths, btw. Without blowing my trombone, I have an M.Litt in Anglo-Irish Literature from the same university Shackleton's father attended. I understand the differences between Irish Protestant, Protestant Ascendancy and Anglo-Irish. It seems that most here either conflate the differences or completely misunderstand them. Hanoi Road (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much a half-truth, but a whole untruth "This issue has been exhaustively debated. The final consensus was that Shackleton, by virtue of his birth in Ireland ... was of course Irish" - you've been asked to point us to that "final consensus" and you haven't, because it doesn't exist. You made it up. DuncanHill (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mind my manners? Learn my place? Put your battleground mentality away; any editor who inappropriately has their edits labeled as "vandalism" is well within their rights on WP to issue a warning not to do it again. Right now, what I see is a longstanding consensus for "Anglo-Irish" going back to the FAC review (continuing, thus far, in this discussion), which was replaced after some edit warring in 2013 with "polar explorer" from an "Anglo-Irish" family (footnoted and sourced) and which remained the stable version for years. This was later updated to "British polar explorer"[1], and was later sourced[2], and oscillated between "British" and "Anglo-Irish" throughout late 2018 as various IP editors tried to change it to "Irish" (which also resulted in occasional page protection). Less than a year ago, another editor removed those citations [3] as well as the line about the "Anglo-Irish" family [4], and a few months later you changed it to "Irish" in [5] with false claims about a consensus. The use of "Irish" there has never been a longstanding, or consensus version, and the text that was removed (and its citations) about a British polar explorer from an Anglo-Irish family should be restored as the obvious consensus version that was created to forestall this sort of nonsense. What I see are a lot of unsupported claims and original research on your side, and multiple editors with RS and a history of longstanding consensus supported by citations on the other. Grandpallama (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, I apologise. That was genuinely unintentional. My memory of it is some cautions that the debate was entering forbidden 'Troubles' territory. I also remember another editor tagging on "(when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom)" to his birthplace and having that struck down (and bluntly) by RfC. Not sure if you remember that episode, but I accept that is a separate issue from nationality. Not sure where to go from here. Maybe an RfC can settle it once and for all. Let all concerned make a brief case, and leave it open for a couple of weeks? That, or arbitration, or we all commit mass suicide. I'm out of ideas as to how this can be resolved with positions so entrenched (and each with merits). Hanoi Road (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Shortly after the huge success of the 1985 Live Aid concert, Thatcher (with her tongue practically down Geldof's throat) described him outside #10 as "a true Brit". So yes, I'm afraid the UK has an unfortunate tendency to claim things it doesn't own. I tend to keep an eye on that. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely irrelevant to this article, though it does give some insight into your motives for editing. DuncanHill (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wiki is a collaborative project run by human beings rather than androids, it's hardly an "irrelevant" analogy. Or are you seriously excluding The Human Factor (legendary, of course, for its unswerving objectivity and lack of bias?) One need but glance through a few of the contributions on this talk page ("Nats?") to ascertain that much. As for my "motives", they are what they have always been: a true representation of the facts. Hanoi Road (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What relevance does a comment by Margaret Thatcher about Bob Geldof have to an article about Shackleton? None. And (not for the first time) PLEASE indent properly. DuncanHill (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My questionable indentation skills aside (sorry), I'd argue that it is relevant in the wider context of a definite British weakness for misappropriation. I'm not suggesting you, specifically, but since your name is Duncan Hill (rather than Rearden Beowulf or Scooter Gonzalez) I'm guessing you're British, rather than American. You, more than most, should understand the issues here. In addition to the mutable nature of 'Anglo-Irishness' (indeed it's ENTIRELY non-specific definition) that this matter is fraught. Why, for example, is Bram Stoker (a Protestant with an English surname who went to Trinity listed simply as 'Irish' and not 'Anglo-Irish'? Why is Ernest Walton, whom I knew personally (and who would absolutely balk at being described as Anglo-Irish listed as such? He never regarded himself as anything but Irish, and indeed bequeathed his Nobel medal to an Irish university, having spent his entire life teaching there. Wilde is arguably 'Anglo-Irish' if one applies the nebulous qualifying criteria, but again, is simply listed as Irish. I could go on. The problem is that the issue is being over simplified. I go along with the RfC proposal where each editor states his case and (hopefully) concensus on this can finally (and definitively) be reached. Shackleton was NOT Anglo-Irish. Hanoi Road (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is what do reliable sources say about Shackleton. That's all, not my nationality or your assumptions about it (God forbid anyone should assume that an Irishman was trying to erase the Anglo-Irish from history, or claim as Irish someone who perhaps was not, or not wholly!), nor is it about what other articles say about other people, or what Thatcher said about Geldof, or what you say someone you say you knew would have said about himself if he were asked. Nor indeed is it about "the truth". It is about what reliable sources say. That is what is so frustrating about trying to discuss this with you - you seem incapable of sticking to the subject in hand. You might actually persuade more people if you could. Now, the instructions about RfC's are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It includes links to alternative methods of dispute resolution as well, all of which you are welcome to consider. You don't need my or anyone else's permission to start an RfC or anything else. You could, if you saw fit, open an RfC about the use of Anglo-Irish in general (not just in this article), but that would almost certainly attract the fanatics of both extremes. Whatever you choose to do, stick to the point, avoid making sweeping generalisations about the British or the UK or anything or anyone else. Cite your sources, and play the ball not the man. DuncanHill (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to the man who suggested an RfC to open that. As for requesting an RfC on what constitutes the term 'Anglo-Irish', after you. And brace yourself for an interesting month. Hanoi Road (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last thoughts. The most 'reliable source' as to what he was is surely Shackleton himself. He is specific on that point. Secondly, I am no longer sure what constitutes a 'reliable source' in regards to the Anglo-Irish thing, in general. Having studied it at university (yes, that university), it seems to me that there are a number of qualifying criteria. 1. A strong association with Britishness for generations. This rules out the Shackleton family. 2. A strong sense of self-identification as British. This rules out Ernest. 3. Substantial landowner status and/or wealth. This also rules out the family. 4. British on both sides. Again, no. Mother was Irish, father's family in Ireland since the late 1700's. So what we're left with is Protestantism. (Yes, on that score, but there were thousands of Irish Protestant families within The Pale - and indeed beyond - who were simply Protestant, and nothing else). You deride the Thatcher/Geldof analogy as irrelevant, but it's far from that. It is core. I once read a tribute piece by Bill Wyman which claimed that Rory Gallagher was born in Derry, such was his grim determination to adopt the man as British. Sorry if you find all that 'irrelevant', but it's part of a wider syndrome that's been going on for decades. The Shackleton matter is a good example. In my view, this whole thing needs to be reverse engineered to start with the 'Anglo-Irish' piece, which I have twice read through, and it's a leaky bucket indeed. As for its 'sources', I'd suggest that many are outmoded and insubstantial. Nobody is suggesting that Ireland didn't have a pecking order. Every country does. But the complications with this particular term are manifold, and the main one is qualifying criteria. The second is the rather bogus nature of it to begin with. I recently read a piece about 'Anglo-Irish' architecture in Dublin, which mentioned the GPO, Trinity, Leinster House and the old Parliament on Dame Street. Never mind that these are neo-classical buildings that aren't British in any sense. The British Museum isn't British. This is Greco-Roman architecture, as were all grand projects in the eighteenth century. In this case, the architects themselves were all Irish, as was the labour force. In what sense are these buildings 'British' or 'Anglo-Irish'? In what sense in Shackleton not simply Irish? Then, inevitably, we get into politics, and then, inevitably, we are censured about a 'Troubles' violation. I'm sorry, but if you really think this is all about 'reliable sources' and 'nothing else', good luck making a rational case for that position. This one requires a little more exercise. Hanoi Road (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've just noticed that Oliver Goldsmith (presumably one of the Goldsmiths from Connemara), whose ludicrous countenance is mounted on a plinth at the front gates of Trinity is described in the lede as 'Irish': a fact clearly obvious in his principal work, 'The Vicar of Wakefield'. You'll start to grasp my dilemma. Hanoi Road (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see three users here expressing a preference for a return to the longstanding consensus version that was upended last October through some deletions. Per the consensus I see here, I am restoring the text calling Shackleton a British polar explorer from an Anglo-Irish family. Given the rough consensus here, and the weight of WP:STATUSQUO, significant change in editor agreement and/or a RfC is needed to change this sourced text to 'Irish'. Grandpallama (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested an RfC as the best way forward. "Three users" (one of whom cannot spell) does not constitute any sort of concensus. Hanoi Road (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a consensus to restore this article to the state it was in before it was changed and has been so aggressively enforced by you before an RFC. This is becoming a clear case of editor misconduct with a complete lack of good faith from one party and the attempt to filibuster against restoring this article is very much evident. W C M_email

Excellent spelling. I would point out that Grandpallama has just two days ago suggested an new RfC. I might also add that where an article is incorrect or inaccurate, any editor is free to challenge it. The fact that the term 'Irish' to describe Shackleton has remained unchallenged by the entire community for almost a year says more than I ever could. Reason rules. "Aggressive enforcement" as you put it, does not work on Wiki. Hanoi Road (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to indent, you're now at 6RR and will almost certainly be blocked. I would strongly suggest you self-revert if you wish to avoid one. I looked at the revision history and every time someone has tried to change it, or discuss it, you have revert warred it back. That isn't how wikipedia is supposed to work, you've got away with it for a long time but that still doesn't make it right. W C M_email 01:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I suggested RfC in good faith when it wasn't clear to me that a consensus (still) existed. The fact that said consensus does exist, that I am in agreement with it, and that it has existed for many, many years means I no longer see a need for such a process. If an editor feels strongly that consensus is wrong, they are free to file a request for comment, but I'm not required to do so simply because I posited it as one possible avenue for resolution. Again, it's pretty clear to me now that consensus already exists. Grandpallama (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What concensus? You are new to this article. Don't back-pedal to cover your dishonest tracks. Shackleton's description as 'Irish' has stood for a year +/-. Had there been concensus that it was otherwise, how likely is that? Many editors have been involved with this piece and finally accepted his definition as Irish. If you wish to re-open the matter by RfC, (as you suggested, and allegedly having read all supporting material), then do that. But don't come here at a minute to midnight making changes you can't rationalize, and aren't entitled to make unilaterally. Hanoi Road (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any likely concensus on an RfC, I've referred this to arbitration. Hanoi Road (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Arbcom will want to get into a content dispute, especially as you've repeatedly refused to attempt any other kind of dispute resolution. DuncanHill (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do that. What can you suggest? There's always RfC, but if you have any other ideas, please say what those might be. Incessant back-and-forth doesn't seem to get us far. Hanoi Road (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I already told you, there are several linked from the RfC instruction page. Either you aren't bothering to read what is said, or you are deliberately pretending not to know things which in fact you do. Either way, taken in conjunction with the rest of your behaviour (including your disruptive use of indents) and your deliberate and repeated introduction of irrelevancies, I do not believe you are acting in good faith here. DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am acting in good faith. I've spent most of the morning researching the Shackleton family and how the term Anglo-Irish might be applied in their case. I think it is a tenuous connection at best. My impression is that they somehow fall between the two stools of 'Irish' and 'Anglo-Irish' for reasons I've outlined earlier. That said, I concede that describing the family as 'Irish' does not do the article justice. On balance, they seem to fall (just) on the side of 'Anglo-Irish'. Would you therefore be satisfied to see him described as that? I think 'British' is to absolutely overplay the hand. It would also be incorrect on several, obvious fronts. Hanoi Road (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you accept going back to Anglo-Irish? The change you called vandalism at the top of this thread? That's the problem, I just don't believe a word you say anymore, and have no desire to have anything to do with you if I can avoid it. You have been massively disruptive, made thinly veiled threats to more than one editor, posted untruths, engaged in massively irrelevant ramblings, refused to use any kind of dispute resolution, and now you've had your fun at the expense of the rest of us you say we should go back to the wording that set you off in the first place? Well, I shall change it back, but I won't be holding my breath for you to respect it, despite what you've just said. DuncanHill (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill, at this point, I think the presence of RS make clear that "British explorer" is better, with the Anglo-Irish family. That language has sourcing, better complies with MOS:ETHNICITY, and was previously the product of consensus to arrive at an appropriate compromise. Grandpallama (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The problem with 'British polar explorer' is that it can be interpreted to mean BRITISH (nationality) polar explorer (inappropriate) or British Polar Explorer (ie: one whose explorationa originated from British funding, were based in Britain and represented those interests. The lede makes clear he led British expeditions. That is enough. Again, Shackleton self-identified as Irish. He was also born there. The piece must acknowledge this. Hanoi Road (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "piece" does state he was born in Ireland. The "piece" does still include the line about pride in his Irish heritage. None of that has any impact on "British explorer" being reliably sourced. I get that you don't like this, but you've not provided sources to back up your claims--just opinions and personal research. Grandpallama (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I like or don't like (and please don't interpret either) has nothing to do with the matter at hand. I suppose my principal "source' to back up my "claims" that he was Anglo-Irish rather than British is that he was born in Ireland and identifed as such. Or is Shackleton himself not a sufficiently reliable source? If you want to put this to RfC, go ahead. I doubt you would get much support for an opening line as bombastic (and inaccurate) as the one you're suggesting. Hanoi Road (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British, Irish, Anglo-Irish, he was all of these, and not unusual in that. The real problem is the stupidity of people trapped into a false, binary, system of thinking, and those who think that one word in the lead means some country is being deliberately robbed of one of its heroes. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disagree with that assessment, though no Irish person could rationally claim that his achievements had ANYTHING to do with birth in Ireland and self-identity as Irish. I certainly don't, no matter what you think. Ireland cannot be "robbed" of a hero whose achievements in exploration it did little, if anything to foster. I do, however, resent his appropriation as 'British' in the opening sentence, particularly when that is clearly a political statement masquerading as 'clarity', and rides roughshod over the facts. Hanoi Road (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a political thing at all, and certainly does not ride, roughshod or otherwise, over any facts. He was a British subject, had a British passport, lived in Britain, and accepted British honours. Perhaps it's a political thing to seek to deny his Britishness. As the article says, his achievements were claimed as those of an Irishman by the Irish press. Anyone reading the article should get a good sense of his multiple heritage, regardless of one word in the lead. Perhaps "Shackleton was an Irish Antarctic explorer of Anglo-Irish heritage with British nationality who lived in Britain and accepted British honours and was proud to be Irish and was acclaimed as a British hero and a great Irishman" would cover all bases, but it would be cruel to expect our readers to put up with that. Anyway, we're on Anglo-Irish at the moment, and you said you would accept that. DuncanHill (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do accept it. I also understand the difficulties involved. But I think this formation is concessionary enough to all interested parties (and of far greater importance, paints an accurate picture for any reader) to be left alone. As it stands, the lede sums things up reasonably well. PS: Don't mistake a certain stamina as trickery or malice. I quite resent the statement that I "had my fun". This is no fun at all. I'll be glad to see the back of it, as, I suspect, will you. My principal 'area' (?) is minor factual addition to quality films. Not much else. Hanoi Road (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It also occurs to me that this description avoids confusion for those unfamiliar with the ancillary issue of national identity on these islands. One of the best (and worst) features of Wiki is that editors tend to be educated and to presuppose (wrongly, in most cases) that the wider world understands why someone born in Ireland, for example, would ever be described as 'British'. At least by clicking on 'Anglo-Irish', this apparent inconsistency becomes clear. In that sense, it it useful. Not suggesting we're in the business of 'educating' anyone or making choices for them, but neither are we there to baffle people when any head-scratching can be solved by a simple click. Hanoi Road (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're on it, take a look at Oliver Goldsmith. How is this man 'Irish' when Shackleton is 'Anglo-Irish'? I have no objection to a change. There should at least be some consistency in this. Hanoi Road (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Gravestone

Oddly enough, his gravestone says Shackelton. Can we put that in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.60.17 (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article read during episode of Atypical

Just had the delightful experience of hearing the characters in cool TV show Atypical

Season 2 Episode 8. Living at an Angle

Main character Sam is freaking out and his sister offers to read him this article to help him soothe.

I have no idea if it’d make sense to add a line to this article about it (with a link to Atypical show) but I wanted to note the cool factor of seeing Wikipedia used in a show.DrMel (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with editing privileges add this to the infobox please?

Shackleton's grave:

| burial_place = Grytviken, South Georgia | burial_coordinates = 54°17′06″S 36°30′26″W / 54.28511944401586°S 36.50727886228288°W

Thanks81.141.34.4 (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried but it appears those parameters weren't recognised so I didn't save it. W C M_email 16:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you. I took them from infobox person. The infobox used on Shackleton is "officeholder" so not compatible. Thanks for trying though.81.141.34.4 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Military rank

...discharged from the army in October 1919, retaining his rank of major.

Does this mean transferred to the Regular Army before discharge, thereby entitling him to use the rank as an honorific? Valetude (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts about mentioning a particular author in the lead

Having this in the lead: (He rapidly became a role model for leadership as one who, in extreme circumstances, kept his team together in a survival story described by cultural historian Stephanie Barczewski as "incredible".[3] seams to me to be not really so useful. It would seem to just be getting a mention of Barczewski where it is not really needed. They don't seem to me to be sufficiently noted as a Shackleton scholar to warrant this here. Or it could be there for some good reason and I might be easily be missing something. It just felt promotional of them rather than the subject matter. I could be wrong. Should it be removed? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)).[reply]

I think it's OK as it helps to balance the facts with the legacy of the man. I don't think it's intended to be promotional. It is dealt with in the body of the text, so I would trim the lead mention to: "...was rediscovered[2] and became a role model for leadership as one who, in extreme circumstances, kept his team together[3]". Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:Msrasnw, this should be removed - who is she, why are her views relevant? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She's a professor of history at a USA university and specialises in British cultural history. She and her work is noted several times in the article. Her book is not particularly recent so it's not being pushed, so far as I can see. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is she? [6] I don't think it's promotional to include, but I also think it could be incorporated without namedropping her. She's certainly an expert in the history of English/British cultural heroes. Grandpallama (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change; trust it's acceptable. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Story of Shackleton

Shackletons journey book 2.27.26.174 (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cat

"Shackleton had clashed with McNish during the time when the party was stranded on the ice, but, while he did not forgive the carpenter's earlier insubordination, Shackleton recognised his value for this particular job."

Wasn't this right after he killed McNish's beloved pet cat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabbycatlove (talk • contribs) 05:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]