Talk:Ernest Shackleton

/Archive 1

South: the story of Shackleton's last expedition, 1914-1917

I have created s:South: the story of Shackleton's last expedition, 1914-1917 at enWS. I was going to wikilink, however, I see that you have a later edition, rather than this 1920 edition, so I left it for your consideration. billinghurst sDrewth 16:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The article should mentiom that Schakleton was a Knight Bachelor (Kt.B.), not a member of the first or or second class of an order (neither a C.V.O. or an O.B.E. can be addressed as "Sir"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus777 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Attitude toward "weaklings"

In his own account, "South!" Shackleton displays a markedly unheroic contempt for what he called "weaklings".

After leaving the ice-bound ship, he has a litter of puppies and the ship's cat shot. There was no shortage of food at the time and the deaths of the animals caused grief to his men, particularly the carpenter. Shackleton noticed this, but did not seem to care.

When landing on Elephant Island, Shackleton pushed the youngest member of the crew into the surf so that he could be the first man to set foot on Elephant Island. Blackbarrow, the crewmember, sat there in the surf looking stunned, but not moving. Then Shackleton happened to recall that Blackbarrow had two badly frostbitten feet and was an invalid, incapable of walking. Shackleton then joked that Blackbarrow was the first to sit on Elephant Island.

It is interesting to note that in 1908, he himself was the weakling. Perhaps he was overcompensating for his own feelings of inadequacy, but that hardly excuses such callous treatment of his men.

By contrast, Robert Falcon Scott, who has been lionized and then labeled "bungler", once jumped down a crevasse to rescue two sled dogs which had fallen in.

193.2.57.25 (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Article contains only facts which present Shackleton in a heroic light.

Even a brief reading of Shackleton's account "South!" will provide many instances in which Shackleton displayed a lack of compassion for the weak, including members of his own crew. The shooting of the carpenter's cat was the reason for the tension between him and Shackleton, but this fact is glossed over in the article.

Shackleton's gift of his gloves to another member of the crew is cited as evidence of his heroic nature, but Shackleton also pushed a frostbitten invalid into the cold surf of Elephant Island, and then joked about it rather than apologize. It is a captain's responsibility to be aware of the condition of his men, and not to endanger them unnecessarily. Blackbarrow, the man who was pushed into the surf, later had to have five toes amputated from his right foot. (source: "South!")

Shackleton was not always heroic, as his own words indicate. But all evidence of non-heroic qualities has been suppressed from the article.

193.2.57.25 (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I will first note that this article passed WP:FAC, which is the most rigourous assessment process for articles on Wikipedia, and no one raised any issues there that the article was not neutral (not that someone could not have missed it). As someone who also wishes Mrs. Chippy (the cat) and the puppies would not have have been shot, I can understand your feelings. However, and this is the important point, Wikipedia is not written to reflect the feelings of those who edit it, it is supposed to be written from Neutral Point of View based on what others have written in independent third-party reliable sources. If you know of such sources that agree in the interpretation of the facts that you put forward here, please cite them. Note that no one disputes that the animals were shot, or that Blackbarrow was pushed into the water on Elephant Island (although if he could not walk, how else was he going to get off the boat?). What is needed here is a reliable source that says the things you do. If not, then your points are Original Research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

By contrast, Robert Falcon Scott, who has been lionized and then labeled "bungler", once jumped down a crevasse to rescue two sled dogs which had fallen in. - Scott's final trek to the Pole failed because he was too soft-hearted to leave behind one of his men, so that as a result they had an extra mouth to feed - they had made food and fuel allowances for four men on the trip to the Pole and they ended up taking five - they then ran out of paraffin to heat their food during prolonged bad weather and all died. Shackleton would never have done that.

Shackleton knew how to lead men, and that meant that in certain circumstances knowing when to persuade, cajole, push, or threaten, the men whose lives where in his hands. It also means knowing when to be hard on your men when it is in their own best interests, making them do something that they may not like doing but which will keep them alive instead of dead. People who do not understand the situation will often resent this, but at least they live to resent it, rather than being left behind in a cairn to be found by others several years later.

When you are in difficult, possibly dangerous, circumstances, then you take orders from (whoever) knows what they are doing, and Shacklteon knew what he was doing, and (unlike some of the others) he knew what was at stake - they were thousands of miles away from any outside help in an era when everything had to come by steamship. They were on their own in the middle of nowhere. That sorts the men from the boys, and some of the criticisms of Shackleton show just which of the two their authors were. The South Pole was/is a dangerous place, and Shackleton brought all his men back alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.55.226 (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

British English

Does anyone have any objection to me adding a Template:British English notice to this article, and changing the American English (such as civilization, organization) to British English (civilisation, organisation)? Shackleton is described as a Anglo-Irish, so I'd expect it to written in British English. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 21:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As there's no objection - I've changed some of the article's spellings to British English. --George2001^hi 17:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What does Nationality 'Anglo-Irish' mean? Should it not just be 'British'? He might have been Anglo-Irish but that wasn't his nationality. "When I returned from the 'Nimrod' Expedition on which we had to turn back from our attempt to plant the British flag on the South Pole, being beaten by stress of circumstances within ninety-seven miles of our goal, my mind turned to the crossing of the continent, for I was morally certain that either Amundsen or Scott would reach the Pole on our own route or a parallel one. After hearing of the Norwegian success I began to make preparations to start a last great journey--so that the first crossing of the last continent should be achieved by a British Expedition." - South --Flexdream (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I came here to change that. He was Anglo-Irish ethnically, but there's no such nationality. He was British. I'm changing it. Jonchapple (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC

There is, however, a nationality called Irish and given that he was born in Ireland rather than Britain that is the most natural designation. 86.42.16.3 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that when he was born in Ireland it was part of Britain, and he always called himself British. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ireland was not "part of Britain". It was ruled by Britain, by a state which, explicitly acknowledging that Ireland was not "part of Britain", was named the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. It's not as if "Irish" people stopped existing simply because the country was under British colonial rule. If this were the case, somebody's going to have to go around Wikipedia and change the definition of all people born in Ireland during British rule from "Irish" to "British". 86.42.16.3 (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

First off, my apologies for not accurately describing the political situation in Ireland at the time of Shackleton's birth. Is it safe to say that he was born a subject of Queen Victoria (and remained a subject of the British monarch the rest of his life)? Second, his Anglo-Irish family moved to greater London when he was about 10 years old, and he was typically seen as a British person the rest of his life (though the article notes this view was not always shared bu Irish newspapers). Third, as far as precedents go, I think on Wikipedia the rule is to identify a person's nationality by the country s/he spends most of his or her life in - thus C.D. Howe, who was born in the United States of America but moved to Cananda at age 23, is described as Canadian in the lead of his article (also a FA). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This one always causes a debate on wikipedia is there any way of sorting it out? God knows I suppose. For one, we could say that there is a difference between a nation and a state (as Weber et al would)-the state being the land ruled by the government the nation being the people with a shared culture, a little bit simplistic but there you go. In the case of Great Britain during the time under discussion it was actually known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Act of Union 1801)-Ireland was treated as a different (not seperate but different) territory. This can be evidenced by looking at acts and laws where the heading Ireland was always used for example the Census of Ireland was used on the census returns. I know from studying the period and looking at many Hansard debates that an MP from Ireland was referred to as being from Ireland. I suppose what I am trying to say in a long winded way is that the term Irish/British were not always mutually exclusive which, seems to cause a lot of confusion nowadays —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.12.178 (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I am not clear what your complaint is or what you want changed. The article makes it clear that he was born in Ireland and spent the first 10 years of his life there, then moved to Greater London and spent the rest of his life in Britain (or out exploring). The article also makes it clear that Irish newspapers called him Irish. For what it's worth, Shackleton's Nimrod Expedition was formally called the British Antarctic Expedition by Shackleton himself (despite its not receiving financial support from either the British government or the (British) Royal Geographic Society). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no complaint it is just a general comment on how this always pops up on wikipedia with regards Irish people born during this time. Irish/British was not always mutually exclusive during his lifetime i.e Shackleton calling himself British doesn't automatically mean he was rejecting the Irish part of his identity. 86.47.12.178 (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a nationalist political dispute and has nothing to do with Shackleton. He was born in Ireland. His nationality was British.The article should say that. He considered himself British. There is nothing to suggest that he considered himself Irish rather than, or even as well as, British. If anyone can find any reference to support him describing his nationality as other than British I'll be happy to reconsider. --Flexdream (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Anglo Irish is more commonly used to describe the aristocratic/social background of protestant families. I think it would be more appropriate to describe him as a British explorer born to an Anglo Irish family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.159.249 (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I think it would even make more sense to say he was an 'Irish explorer ...' than to say he was an 'Ango-Irish explorer'. It just seems clumsy as it is. The box says his nationality was British, he was born in Ireland, and I think that's clear and accurate enough. --Flexdream (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Should this be in the article?

I just removed the following insertion. The language is fairly POV (great attempt, remarkably), and the ref is not formatted. While these could both be corrected fairly easily, it also seems pretty tangential to an article on Shackleton himself. What do others think?

In 2008, one hundred years after Shackleton's first great attempt to reach the South Pole, three descendents of Shackleton and his team also attempted the pole. Leftennant Colonel Henry Worsley, a relative of Shackleton's Captain Frank Worsley, led the modern Great British attempt. Shackleton's Great Nephew, Will Gow, and Henry Adams, Great Grandson of Jameson Adams, Shackleton's second in command, completed the team. The men carried with them the original brass cased spirit compass that Shackleton carried in 1908, only this time, remarkably, the three amateurs of the modern world took the compass all the way, finally completing its intended journey. The men's expedition was documented by the BBC's Timewatch programme.

PS I also have changed the description of Shackleton himself in the infobox to match what was in the text (from an IP) "Irish-born British" it seems to succinctly describe him, but as long as we are getting feedback, please feel free to weigh in on this too (either just Irish or just British seems to leave too much out). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

PPS It was in the Legacy section, which seems the palce for it, if it is included. If it is included I would trim it back as much as possible as it is pretty long too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^°

Nationality

I've been trying to change Anglo-Irish to simply Irish in the lede, as Anglo-Irish is not a nationality, it is either an ethnicity or a social group, and thus I see no reason for including an ethnicity or social group in the lede. However, my edits have been reverted as "nationalist POV pushing". Anyone have a solution to this? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually going to agree with you about Anglo-Irish not being a nationality, but he wasn't an Irish national either. He was a citizen of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. All I know about Anglo-Irish is that it was a term used to describe people like Shackleton back then, and the editors who bought this article up to FA status decided this was factual to his identity more than British or Irish or English. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to think modern-day nationality laws apply to an historical person such as Shackleton, I see now. Well, they don't, this article is for a man who died a long time ago and when he was born for 99% of his life, Ireland didn't exist as an independent state. You have used no historical evidence or reliable sources to back up your assertions. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that modern day nationality laws apply to historical people, don't be so snide. "Anglo-Irish" is not a nationality, nor has it ever been, so it does not belong in the lede. Whether it should be replaced with Irish or British is a separate question. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I will suggest to you, although we have just met - do not be rude to other users. Nationality in some cases historically notable are not always reported at wikipedia de facto - as in this case - the person seems notable as an anglo Irish person. From the BBC - Shackleton was an Anglo-Irish Antarctic explorer, best known for leading the 'Endurance' expedition of 1914-16. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Snide? I am not being snide, I am being factual, and this encyclopaedia is built in facts. And didn't I agree with you that Anglo-Irish isn't a nationality? Again I don't know why the editors who bought it to FA decided Anglo-Irish belonged in the lede. Please don't hold me responsible for things that are not in my control. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

- I am not interested in your anger...or your nationalistic edit warring POV.... and although technically a German, Albert Einstein is reported only as "a German born" person. There are a fair few more similar historically notable people that have become notable for not being such a clear notable nationality. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ignore this* --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please follow the indent levels to see who the comments are in reply to - those comments are not in reply to you, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You learn something new everyday. I think this all boils down to a problem of guidelines not always being clear or set in stone. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the guideline right now, but doesn't it say that Ethnicity can be included in the lede if it's highly relevant to why the person is notable? The Anglo-Irish where a very high-class group in Ireland, and no doubt this had influences on what Shackleton went onto become and do in his life --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It all depends on notability with high profile historic figures the nationality/ethnic notability does not necessarily have to be the country he was born in but can be ethnic, if that is how he is cited in reliable reports. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Shall we (You) add that source to the lead then? Could be worth it. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Anglo-Irish most informative - Shackleton was born in County Kildare, which is certainly within modern Ireland. I don't doubt that Irish would like to claim him, hero as he is, as their own. On the other hand, he was born in 1874, before the existence of the modern state of Ireland, and his father's family was from England. The article Anglo-Irish indicates that the term "Anglo-Irish" is a commonly used phrase to identify English that lived in Ireland during the 19th century. Complicating this is the fact that it looks like his mother was Irish (her family was not from England) so, one could argue that he was 1/2 Irish and 1/2 Anglo-Irish. He moved to London in his youth, and attended college in England. Final conclusion: Anglo-Irish is probably the best term to use. His birth place, on the island of Ireland, can be emphasized more, if necessary, to make it clear where he was born. --Noleander (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's how the editors who brought it up to FA determined it too. (Wouldn't it be funny if I became famous and there was an Edit war about me being British or Israeli? :0) I see this is a really tricky situation that should only be decided upon with all the relevant facts...which you have kindly given us Noleander. Most grateful. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish may well be more informative than simply Irish or British, but MOS:BIO states that the lede should contain "Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);

In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national (according to each nationality law of the countries), or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. " I don't deny that Shackleton was Anglo-Irish, but Anglo-Irish is not a nationality, it is an ethnic/ social group, so I don't see what it's doing in the first sentence of the lede. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In reality...he lived such a different life to the Irish-Irish which were mostly made up of poor working class labourers, it almost sounds insulting to them to describe him as Irish. If I were Irish, I would certainly not want to claim him, but see him as some kind of opportunistic invader and land thief. He was so different from them...it's just unreasonable to describe him as just Irish... --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In Zimbabwe and South Africa, whites and blacks generally live very different lives. Should we therefore Identify Robert Mugabe as a black Zimbabwean and Charlize Theron as a white South African? Is it "just unreasonable" to identify Charlize Theron as South African?79.97.144.17 (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@IP: I believe that virtually every WP article on famous explorers includes their nationality/ethnicity in the lead, often in the first sentence. This article should follow suit. The only issue is whether to use the term Irish, Anglo-Irish, English, or British. The sources, from the few I've glanced at, seem to point to Anglo-Irish. If someone can do a statistical count and demonstrate that another nationality/ethnicity is more commonly used in the sources, that would be helpful. --Noleander (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute that he is (or rather, was) Anglo-Irish, I just don't understand why the term is being used in the lead of this (or any other) article, when MOS:BIO states that ethnicity should be avoided in the lead unless particularly relevant. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, for the sake of argument: let's say the lead should identify his nationality, not his ethnicity. What term would you use for his nationality? --Noleander (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure whether Irish or British is more appropriate. British was obviously his citizenship, but I would consider Ireland/England/Scotland/Wales to be nations, and Irish therefore his nationality. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll throw something fresh into this discussion - what did Shackleton himself consider his nationality to be? Do we even know this? Also, I quote "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions" on MOS guidelines. Place of birth does not determine ones nationality. One could equally argue that Britain was his home nation as at the time Ireland was a part of Britain. He also moved to England at a young age, perhaps he considered England to be his nation? We don't know. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on the matter, some of which repeat what others have already said. First let's look at Shackleton himself.

1. Politically Shackleton was born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and was a citizen of the UK all his life.
2. Geographically he was born in Ireland (then a part of the UK, and which still claims him as a son) and spent the first 1o years of his life there.
3. Geographically he moved to England at age 10 or so, where he kept his residence the rest of his life (though he was often away exploring). So for over 78% of his life his residence was in England (still UK/Britain today)
4. Shackleton considered himself a subject of the British Empire - for example, he accepted knighthood/honors (CVO, OBE) from the British monarch and officially named the Endurance Expedition the "Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition".
5. Looking at Wikipedia, the lead is supposed to be a concise summary of the article, so Anglo-Irish was the term chosen to summarize the complex history above (19th century people who were British but had close ties to Ireland). The article used the term Anglo-Irish when it was promoted to FA diff and no objections to the term were raised in its FAC. The article also listed his birthplace in Ireland then, though the whole article has been changed considerably since.
6. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) says in part "The opening paragraph should have: ... 3.Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity); 1.In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national (according to each nationality law of the countries), or was a citizen when the person became notable. 2.Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. To me the question is, is Shackleton's birth in Ireland and Anglo-Irish ancestry relevant? If it is not, he should just be described as "British" (as he was a citizen of Britian all his life). However, I think his Irish birth and Anglo-Irish ancestry are releavant and given the number of editors who have tried to make him just Irish over the years, most editors seem to agree.

So the question is how should he be described in the lead and infobox? To me two formulations seem reasonable - both are concise and seem to convey his history in a few words. They are Anglo-Irish and Irish-born British. I tried putting the latter in the infobox a while ago, and it was changed (currently just uses British).

Finally, I note that C. D. Howe is a FA about a man born in the US, who moved to Canada at age 23, where he lived the rest of his life. Its first sentence identifies him as just Canadian. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so the lead sentence should contain nationality (not ethnicity). Let's say the 3 leading contenders for nationality are:

• Anglo-Irish - Not strictly a nationality: more of a social class or ethnicity
• British - Succinct. Non-controversial. But does not convey the fact that he was born in Ireland, nor had an Irish mother.
• Irish-born British - Contains the most information. A bit unconventional.

Does anyone want to comment on the pros and cons of these three alternatives? I've taken a stab by putting my own comments in-line following the candidate term. --Noleander (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think just British is controversial for all the users who want to change him to just Irish. My strong preference is something that explains his two heritages. Anglo-Irish has the advantage that it is what passed at FAC and is used by the BBC, but it is not a familair term to most readers (despite the wikilink), is not a nationality, and it gets changed a lot, mostly by IP editors. Irish-born British is a bit clunky (and what link to use for Irish could be debated), but it seems to me to be the most understandable and least controversial. I would be OK with either Anglo-Irish or Irish-born British and prefer the latter slightly, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Would this be smoother as well as accurate: "Sir Ernest Henry Shackleton, CVO, OBE (15 February 1874 – 5 January 1922) was a British explorer born in Ireland"? Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds very factual. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

To make the whole opening sentence smooth, perhaps "Sir Ernest Henry Shackleton, CVO, OBE (15 February 1874 – 5 January 1922), one of the principal figures of the period known as the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration, was a British explorer born in Ireland." Finetooth (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That sentence works for me - thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Shackleton stood for the British parliament in 1906 as a Unionist candidate, bitterly opposed to Irish Home Rule or independence. He tended to express his expedition objectives in Imperialist terms. He made no known contribution to the Irish struggle for independence after 1919 and appeared to have no interest in it; belated claims that he was in some ways an Irish hero are historically ridiculous,. Yet in his own way he obviously considered himself "Irish". The statement that he was "an Anglo-Irish explorer" is the only wording that, to my mind, sums up the situation neutrally. It is accurate, and in my view needs no embellishment. Save the tortured rephrasing; sometimes simple is best. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, I defer to your knowledge and judgment. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. I was happy with Anglo-Irish when I assisted with the FA long ago. Finetooth (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Place of birth does not always equal nationality. I was born in Germany. My father was an American soldier and my mother his American wife. I am an American, not a German. I think that Anglo-Irish is not the best adjective. It seems like British is the best. 146.235.130.52 (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)