Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Portrait by Swinton is not of Kitty Pakenham

The portrait by Swinton, labelled in this article as being of Kitty Pakenham, is in fact of Elizabeth, 2nd Duchess of Wellington. I work at Stratfield Saye House and see the original oil painting daily. It is not Kitty, it is the 2nd Duchess.

I have removed the image. Dormskirk (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Heraldic state funeral?

The article says that Wellington's funeral was "the last heraldic state funeral to be held in Britain". What is meant by a heraldic funeral in this context? It's not clear from the text. Beorhtwulf (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Anglo Irish

I think Anglo-Irish is a contentious and arguably derogatory term . It also fails to recognise the British nature of his life and country, excluding as it does Wales and Scotland. There is no evidence that the term would have been used by Wellington himself or his contemporaries. It is more common perhaps in Ireland or other places with an animus against Britain (e.g. France where many still confuse England and Britain). Please don't just revert if you disagree but put other points of view or supply references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathugeo (talk • contribs) 18:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should only contain a summary of what is in the main article body. It is not a place for grandstanding a specific issue. Per WP:BRD, reverting is exactly what to do if people disagree with an entry.

Your reference isn't particularly useful. I see no evidence that Anglo Irish is derogatory, and your own source undermines the idea that it isn't currently used to describe him. That source isn't particularly useful in an article about a historical person anyway - which should mostly use WP:RS sources from historians specialising in the subject. (Hohum ^@) 20:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the onus is on you to demonstrate the authenticity of the description, Anglo-Irish. The only reference I can find is another Wikipedia article which merely asserts this but does not provide any authoritative source. I replaced it with British aristocrat, which has the advantage of being factual and irrefutable. The quote is very well-known and often cited so even if you do not find it useful or illuminating, many other people have done, so I see no justification for you deleting it. Whether he said actually it or not is beside the point, which is that overlapping Irish and British identity was and is a matter of debate and political sensitivity, not a settled fact. Either way this description does not capture his Britishness and therefore does not belong in the summary. It does, however, belong in the text as this is an important part of his identity, if not the whole story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathugeo (talk • contribs) 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The onus is on you to prove that "Anglo-Irish" is a "contentious and arguably derogatory term" that you claim. I would even go so far as to call your claim a WP:FRINGE theory. The use of "Anglo-" plus some other nationality, often one that was once part of the British Empire, is quite common it describe historical figures with mixed heritage... Anglo-American especially, Anglo-Indian and Anglo-Australian less so. If one is "derogatory" then are not all of them potentially derogatory terms? If so, why have we never seen these terms being challenged by politically-correct groups or media? Since this is not an WP:EXTRAORDINARY form of identification, then editors have every right to revert your changes. Please note that you are on your WP:3RR limit and may be reported and blocked if you the article revert again. Also, your last edit summary "I am happy to have my changes improved but you should not simply delete if you disagree" comes across as WP:OWN-like behaviour. Any disputed material can be challenged, especially if it cannot be verified. Please stick to discussing the matter here – although it has been discussed many times before, if you check the Archives, so it's unlikey your edit will stick – rather than attempt further war-editing or POV-pushing. — Marcus^(talk) 16:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I added a very famous quote, I described Wellington as British because it is clear from multiple sources that this is how he saw himself (which is what makes it derogatory) and I changed his description of being a pre-eminent military leader as being before Waterloo not just afterwards. This has all been deleted without justification. I am sure the Irish specialism of the editor has nothing to do with it but either way I'll think I'll leave you to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathugeo (talk • contribs) 08:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

What quote? The "born in a stable" one? He didn't say it. See: en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington#Misattributed. — Marcus^(talk) 02:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"Anglo-Irish" as a derogatory term? I don't think so! No more offensive than "Anglo-Norman"... An absolutely absurd detail to get uppity on - this man lived in the 18th/19th century :D--Anglo Chartist (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington → The Duke of Wellington – WP:COMMONNAME, and the new name has more Google results than the other one. So, renaming the article will be beneficial to the average reader. Thanks. Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 14:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. It might be marginally beneficial to the average leader but it will require several thousand links to be changed unnecessarily. Dormskirk (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Strongly oppose move! I believe WP:ASTONISH applies here. "The Duke of Wellington" is expected to mean the title Duke of Wellington, not the first person to hold that title – and in fact, Duke of Wellington (title) already exists. In addition, there may be minor WP:THE concerns as well. ONR (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose This would go against the general naming conventions for this type of article. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, The Duke of Wellington is the current title holder, Arthur Wellesley was the 1st Duke of Wellington. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC).

• Oppose. Fails WP:Precise. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no benefit to this. (Hohum ^@) 14:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:SNOWBALL – it's a foregone conclusion. — Marcus^(talk) 15:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Family heritage

The Family heritage section is a mess. We state that the earliest mention of the family is in 1180, then that was given land in 1066 for a specific reason, which would be impossible to know if the first mention of the family was 100+ years later (and there is no family for which we explicitly know why they were given lands following the Conquest - one simply should not accept such outlandish claims unless from a recent scholar with no interest in mythologizing their own family). Then it says that a specific member of the family invaded Ireland in 1172, again impossible to know if the earliest mention of any family member isn't until years later. Then we are told that Lord Wellington had the Wellesley name, not because of descent from any of these people, but due to surname adoption, so what is the point? Next we get an account of the Colleys that starts with the 18th century, then cites a low-quality source to tell the reader the name is English (even though the source itself says it can also be native-Irish) then we are told someone in the 16th century leased some land, then we get a 15th century person who is only speculated to be ancestor (by a stale source) then back downward to connect to a maybe-cousin whose name is not known, and to (perhaps) the 16th century guy again. Next it highlights a link to the Cusacks to demonstrate that there really was a genealogical descent from the Wellesleys, though it apparently had nothing to do with the surname adoption. None of this really helps to understand the article's subject (WP:NOTGENEALOGY). Agricolae (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. — Marcus^(talk) 06:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. Others may not like my fix, though. Agricolae (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems that there's been no instant reaction or revert in the first 24 hours, which is probably a good sign. I generally agree with you that the whole section was questionable. Normally, I would have suggested trimming it down to a more concise summary retaining only the facts relevant to Wellington himself, but looking back over the section I think it was tediously written and that nothing was worth retaining. Removal was probably for the best. — Marcus^(talk) 15:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Awards

The article cites a number of foreign (i.e. non-British) knighthoods. In fact he had over twenty. He was also a Dutch Prince, a Spanish Duke (twice over), and a Portuguese Count. He was also a Marshal in six foreign countries (including France). (See Roberts, "Napoleon and Wellington", p.335).

This is clearly too long to list. I propose to replace with numbers, apart from the hereditary titles, and cite Roberts.

--Markd999 (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

see Arms, titles, honours and styles of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington for information on his awards (they have already been put in a separate article). Dormskirk (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Toulouse (1814)

The article calls Toulouse a French victory. The article on Toulouse says that victory is disputed. (I think this is too kind to Soult; he was a political survivor who was in a position to claim victory on the basis of alleged intentions which I doubt he had. To my mind, carrying a heavily fortified ridge, taking a gun and three French generals prisoner, and then taking a town when it was abandoned by the French was a British victory; Wellington's casualties may have been higher than the French, but one would have expected this simply from the terrain, let alone from the fact that at least two of Wellington's Generals mishandled their troops badly).

I propose to align this article with the one on Toulouse.

--Markd999 (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sparrowhawks? (Penultimate paragraph)

"Sparrowhawks" seems very Wellingtonian. But Roberts ("Napoleon and Wellington", 2001) says categorically that this is apocryphal. It does not seem to add to the article. I propose to delete.

Markd999 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)