Talk:Ernest Shackleton/Archive 2

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)

When he indeed had some kind of "weakling"-complex, it is getting clearer why he felt offended by Capt.Scott referring to him as an "invalid" - which was no exaggeration but just a matter-of-factly dscription, by the way... He did not want the public to know that he was not able to muster the strength to stick out the march to the pole, thus being some kind of weakling in that situation,and hated that this fact was communicated...But he surely couldn't expect Capt.Scott to conceal the facts about his inability to keep up the needed strength and call a spade a spade.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2013 (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)

I think to state Shackleton's social class (avoiding the discussion as to whether it is indeed accurate or not) as his principal identity is poor. Surely the least POV solution to this problem would be to change "Anglo-Irish explorer" to "Irish-born explorer". Can we get a consensus on this? As for "Nationality = Anglo-Irish", Please, this is awful and needs to be changed to Irish or British. In fact, I suggest deleting "Nationality" and perhaps replacing it with "Allegiance = United Kingdom". Again, any objections? Micielo (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read previous discussions about nationality. XXXX-Born does not belong in the lead by the way, unless it's pivotal to who he was. He is more notable as Anglo-Irish than Irish or English or British or whatever. There is no arbitrary rules enforced on nationality with people like Shackleton either. Place of birth does not determine nationality. --Nutthida (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion I am afraid. See #redux below for my comment 187.37.52.215 (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Micielo, you're in the wrong section of this talk page; see the consensus for Anglo-Irish below: #Nationality and #redux. One Ton Depot (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that this entire discussion sprung from a false premise: that 'civilization' or 'organization' are US spellings. They're not (or rather, they're not just US spellings), they're the longer-standing spellings in British English as well. On this basis, going to change them back. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 22:55, 12 December 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. Gerry D (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a good analogy. The Shackleton family had been in Ireland for five generations before Ernest was born, and his mother's family for longer than that. The term "Anglo-Irish" is very well understood as covering cases such as Shackleton's, and to any intelligent reader carries no ambiguity. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. In that case, I think Anglo-Irish is best. Gerry D (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say "knowledgeable" readers :) indeed, a main purpose of this encyclopaedia is to educate. If they don't understand the term, they should learn what it means and why it's being used in the context, and in this case, after looking at all the evidence, Anglo-Irish is certainly acceptable, factual and relevant to someone like Shackleton. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Per you and Brianboulton and others, I support Anglo-Irish. The alternatives are awkward. Rivertorch (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to add in that although someone may be a citizen of the UK, that doesn't change the fact that England/ Scotlland/ Wales/ Northern Ireland (and at the time, Ireland), are each countries/ nations themselves. See e.g. Countries of the United Kingdom and Home nations. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What is relevant here is what is the appropriate way to describe Shackleton, and just "Irish" is not descriptive enough. No one is denying he's Irish - but he isn't just Irish. I'm Israeli-British (Or English) because this is the most descriptive and accurate way to describe me - and Shackleton is Anglo-Irish, which suits him fine here. And don't worry about about the recognition that NIreland/Wales/Scotland/England are treated as Nations here - that's vigorously enforced even by myself. We have had allot of trouble in the past and present with people not understanding the situation in the UK and trying to label everyone from it "British". I think we have an understanding on this one, IP :) --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree that it should be Anglo-Irish- Shackleton was Irish by birth but his exlporation was done on behalf of England and he was an officer in the English Navy. Anglo- Irish is not a nationality but it is a useful descriptive term for the people who although Irish or English by Birth- acted on behalf of the other country. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

In his time, it would have been fine to just call Shackleton Irish, as the whole island was a part of the UK and all Irishmen were also Brits, just as English, Scots, etc., are today. Shackleton was a proud Irishman (as, indeed, was Edward Carson), but unfortunately nowadays the British and Irish nationalities seem to be treated as two irreconcilable, conflicting traditions rather than complementary ones (especially in Ulster), so I'm in agreement that the Anglo-Irish disambiguator is neccessary here. JonChapple^Talk 21:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

He was certainly proud to be British too. - He stood against Home rule, had no interest in Irish independence struggles and so on. Anyway, no need to discuss this any further. The disruptive editing this page suffered has been remedied with constructive fact-based neutral discussions. I'm very proud of how it turned out :) --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I agree with you, that's what I was trying to say – Irish unionists back then were proud Irishmen and proud Britons simultaneously, and didn't consider the two labels mutually exclusive. It's a shame many unionists in Northern Ireland now are so wary of being called Irishmen, but I suppose that's understandable when you consider what's gone on. Anyway, Anglo-Irish is good. :) JonChapple^Talk 06:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The term "Anglo-Irish" is generally used by the British to claim credit for any successful Irish people before 1922 as they are too petty to call them Irish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.51.28 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

And why don't you shut the hell up, you snide little racist. Oh yeah, and if you're going to bitch about the British all being Anti-Irish snobs then try not to do it from a UK-England based IP address. Ouch. You must be a seriously conflicted person, are you constantly cursing under your breath as you walk the British streets? :P Well I'm "Messing with you" a bit, but seriously enough of this "THE BRITISH ARE COMING THE BRITISH ARE COMING!" comments. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC

redux

I've reviewed the above. There seems an agreement that Anglo-Irish is appropriate, is what's been in the stable version most of the time since this article passed FA, and is what should be in place until such time as a new consensus is reached. However, in recent weeks (and months), User:Jonchapple has been edit warring to use the term British. There is also a current discussion about this editor and pattern of editing at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jonchapple[1] concerning other Troubled articles. When I was reverted on Anglo-Irish, I started a discussion at User talk:Brianboulton#Ernest Shackleton[2]. I was pointed at FA stewardship and will be restoring the consensus term after this post. For reference:

[3]; Anglo-Irish to British, with link changes, too. [4]; removes Irish-born. [5]; adds Anglo- resulting in Anglo-Irish. Followed immediatly by: [6]; Nationality to British. [7]; Nationality to British, again. [8]; Nationality to British, again, removing a source re Anglo-Irish (BBC, ironically). [9]; Nationality to British, yet again, an yet again removing the BBC link. In this edit summary, it is asserted that Anglo-Irish was just added five days ago (which would be the edit by me, where I linked the BBC page): [10]; Anglo-Irish sourced to BBC.

[11]; Jonchapple agrees with a request for comment that "Anglo-Irish is good. :)"

— One Ton Depot (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The original debate on nationality was started by a socker who deliberately gamed the system and taunted me to excess, and was rude to just about everyone who disagreed with him, whose sole aim was fueled by nationalist agenda. Now that's over, and he's finally left once his socks where discovered, a serious debate arose and has reached the same conclusion as was reached by the original FA team. I am personally pleased to see this. I doubt they'll be any need to start the same debate again as it's been discussed now extensively and any user wishing to contest his nationality should check previous discussions. Mostly the sole reason anyone could change it for is cherry-picking Wp rules or using the "He was Born in Ireland, he's Irish no other way" route.--Nutthida (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope this is over, "until next time." I've changed the article to say Anglo-Irish and linked Ireland as his birthplace (specifically because it is a geographic article, not a political one). I see that there have been pushes the other way, too, so at this point anyone arbitrarily changing this should be reverted swiftly and harsly dealt with if they're insistent about it. One Ton Depot (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

But 'Anglo-Irish' is not a nationality. Could it not just be left out, or described as something else?--Flexdream (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There's been a huge fuss over this. Please read the whole discussion. We have a consensus that this is the appropriate term. You'd have to make a very strong case and convince quite a few editors to sway that. One Ton Depot (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This same discussion appears to be debated for almost every Irish-born of note prior to 1921. Anglo-irish is a social class. I can see no other example of social classes being used as the primary identity in wiki biographies (with the exception of the anglo-irish anomaly). Neither can I find examples of bios of individuals from genuine Anglo-Irish families explicitly stating "Nationality = Anglo-irish". This indicates to me that the article has made Shackleton exceptional and I do not see why this can be justified. Could we please have examples, any examples, where "anglo-irish" has been explicitly used for nationality in any other wiki biography? Micielo (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Micielo, Wikipedia is supposed to follow relaible sources, not other Wikipedia articles. The BBC calls him Anglo-Irish, and the BBC is definitely a RS. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

cute sig. One Ton Depot ^°°_<>< 11:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Several RS refer to him as Anglo-Irish, Irish, or British. Importantly, simply referring to him as anglo-irish is very different from asserting "Nationality = Anglo-irish". The least POV solution to this is to state "Irish-born British explorer". It is a fact that he was born in Ireland, and a fact that he was a key part of British Antarctic explorations. This avoids arguments over the prickly subject of "nationality", and whether he felt this way or that. Micielo (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

All that you're arguing, has been argued above, and has not swayed the overall consensus for Anglo-Irish. One Ton Depot (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

more. I see you're after the same Anglo-Irish link on articles such as Edmund Burke, too. Not kosher. One Ton Depot (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No, not really kosher (And I'm Jewish so I'm more awesome when I say that) but at least he's not arguing for just Irish (Which really was POV and just not factual), like our troublesome friend a short time ago. Micielo, please read the previous discussions before commenting further, it will really help. I don't think you're trying to be disruptive but it would do us all a favor if you could read them, thank you. --Nutthida (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(aside: I'm not Jewish; just using the term loosely). The off-bit is really the use of IPs and his named account on the same issue. He did re-sign, above, but on Burke the IP edits are distinct from the account edits. On Burke, he removed a similar (to the one in use here) BBC source re Burke's Anglo-Irishness; a month later, another São Paulo IP 'fixed' it, after it was changed back (without the BBC having returned) by a London IP doing other 'British' nudges to articles. The Troubles are widespread. This should be cross-posted to Burke's talk... where I see a thread on Anglo-Irish... One Ton Depot (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Nutthida, I appreciate your diplomacy and understand this may be a tad repetitive. My main concern is that I have not yet seen a reliable source that makes the case for anglo-irish meeting the norms and conventions of a national identity. I would welcome such a source. I have not found one yet. Shalom.

Regarding One Ton Depot, you have been combative from the beginning. It is a shame new contributors are treated with such hostility. Perhaps your somewhat wayward investigative skills could be better applied to the quality of the article instead of some silliness. Has it crossed your mind that I might actually travel between the UK and Brazil? Micielo (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Shackleton was a British subject and had a British passport.

Technically English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh didn't exist as nationalities in Shackleton's time, and with the exception of Ireland after independence in 1922, the other three still don't exist as 'nationalities' today. You can call yourself 'English', 'Scottish', or 'Welsh' if you want to but no-one official outside the UK recognises these as nationalities, they all come under the heading 'British'. So Shackleton was British, whether he or anyone else likes it or not. That's just the way it is. There's nothing wrong with the Irish claiming him if they want to, for all I know he may have been a proud Irishman, but as far as his nationality is concerned, he was British - for the reasons I mentioned above.

You see, at the time saying someone was 'English' or 'Irish' (or, for that matter, 'Scottish' or 'Welsh') had about the same meaning as saying someone was a 'Texan' or a 'Californian', or a 'Basque' or a 'Breton' - they mean something within the governing state, but nothing outside it. To foreign governments who have recognised a governing State these 'local' distinctions simply don't exist. That's why you cannot get a passport for one. Therefore, at the risk of repeating myself, while 'Anglo-Irish' may have been Shackleton's ethnicity - his nationality was British - hence the flag [12]

Oh, BTW, I wouldn't go too much by what the BBC web site says - they almost certainly got all their information on Shackleton from this very Wikipedia article.

File:AllSafeAllWell.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AllSafeAllWell.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It was kept - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:AllSafeAllWell.jpg Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Robert falcon scott.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Robert falcon scott.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish

Anglo-Irish is not a nationality, it is a social class, this disregards the MOS for Irish and Irish-related articles. I did not change the lede, because it is a well written article despite the misconception of Anglo-Irish being in it ( I don't understand how there was consensus for that). Sheodred (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You have ignored consensus (see FAC and above) and violated WP:3RR. I am not going to revert your edit for 3RR reasons. Please cite a reliable source that names him as Irish. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes but this policy of the incorrect usage of the term Anglo-Irish violates the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles. Sheodred (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Violating 3RR will get you blocked. Could you please say how this is a violation of the MOS on Ireland-related articles? I read that page and it does not mention the words nationality or anglo-Irish. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Either way ethnicity can not go in the lead , as shown here WP:MOSBIO "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." Murry1975 (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It passed FAC this way (with Anglo-Irish in the lead) and consensus here has been to keep it (see above), precisely because it is relevant to Shackleton. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well then it should stay that way .As MOSBIO says "should not generally be emphasized " but doesnt state always .Murry1975 (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a reliable source saying he was an Irishman. Mo ainm~Talk 22:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There was very strong consensus for Anglo-Irish as it reflected, in a biographical sense, who Shackleton was. He would of grown up in a typically upper-class Anglo environment as apposed to the typical Irish background of the day. Simply calling him Irish is not descriptive enough. No one seemed to be denying he was Irish, but just Irish, yes - it was considered that's not wrong, it's just not descriptive enough. His ethnicity being represented in the lede is perfectly acceptable. This is a very different case to C.S Lewis'. 3RR being violated is extremely disruptive to an FA article. --Nutthida (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree 3RR is disruptive, maybe this might need a FA review. Mo ainm~Talk 08:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Lets work on some proposals. And let's make no more edits. The info-box should not have his nationality until a dispute has been resolved. --Nutthida (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough, so we have a reliable, verifiable source calling him Irish so what is wrong with it? Mo ainm~Talk 09:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the book is already listed in the article under Further reading. The article mentions Irish 10 times including this sentence The heroism was also claimed by Ireland: the Dublin Evening Telegraph's headline read "South Pole Almost Reached By An Irishman",[65] while the Dublin Express spoke of the "qualities that were his heritage as an Irishman".[65] Please see the above and archived discussions for why we cannot just call him Irish. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sheodred it's counter-productive edit warring on (no wait, this FA) these articles and making changes without CONSENSUS and simply stating guidelines in edit summaries which is wrong and counter productive. On a personal level, I don't see why an Irish nationalist such as yourself would be so intent on claiming Shackleton - just Irish? Oh dear! You must be KIDDING. This man lived a privileged lifestyle and upbringing totally different from the average Irishman of the day. His upbringing was distinctly ENGLISH. Calling him just IRISH is a farce, factually inaccurate, and seems insulting to your own nationalist beliefs! Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is the most common sense and ONLY guidline that should be applied here. Make no more changes. Full stop. --Nutthida (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That is your prerogative, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong and wrongly misinformed it is. Sheodred (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

PS. If you have a problem with the guidleines and Wikipedia's MOS, bring it up at those pages. Sheodred (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

CONSENSUS IS TO KEEP THIS IN THE LEAD. The MOS at 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, 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. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

See IMOS, Anglo-Irish was a social class, social class or ethnicity does not belong there, Shackleton considered himself an Irishman not an "Anglo-Irishman", his family back that up. Sheodred (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't much care how he is identified, but the claim that this violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles is bunkum (despite the fact that you started a thread proposing an addition to make it do so after you met resistance). There is long-standing consensus for the Anglo-Irish label here, but perhaps the opening could be reworded to omit mention of his nationality/ethnicity/allegiance entirely. It's an inelegant opening to just call him an explorer though. Yomangani^talk 12:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually that is a lie Yomangi, I started a thread here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Anglo_Irish, before I met any problems with misinformed editors regarding the use of Anglo-Irish. Oh it does not matter if you don't like or don't care what he self-identified as because it is relevant and it does matter, not only did he self-identify as Irish, he was born and raised in Ireland. Regarding consensus about having Anglo-Irish there, consensus does not equal unanimity, bring your concerns here if you have a problem. Sheodred (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise for my lie. Which was it? That it isn't in violation of the guideline as you claimed or that you started a thread on the talk page after you met resistance changing the article here? As to the rest of your comment, I can't make much sense of it: I suggested we might look at dropping Anglo-Irish/Irish altogether if we can find some elegant phrasing; your response seems to address something completely different. Yomangani^talk 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that he only identified as Irish?? It seems to me he was barely raised there! And you're spouting ONE guidline and ignoring other MOS guidelines. Calling someone like SHACKLETON JUST IRISH IS WRONG. Would you be happy to call some toff who lived on a massive estate in Ireland while the people around him starved in the 1850s? Just because he was BORN in Ireland? And no matter, if he called himself Irish, he was NOT - Ignore rules, ignore them all, think what is the best way to describe a man like Shackleton. --Nutthida (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Being born in a stable does not make a man a horse". DuncanHill (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that your obsession with the political status of Ireland at that time serves a proprietorial interest in Shackleton which is more related to your own personal insecurities than any regard for custom or convention. Why stop with "Ireland, then part of The United Kingdom"? Let's just do "Ireland, subjugated by Cromwell", or "Ireland, the place I wish Shackleton had not been born because it undermines his Britishness". In fact, let's abandon normality altogether and make Wikipedia about YOU. In some other rant, you accuse me of being an "Irish nationalist", which says more about your own agenda than my repeated corrections to your one-man crusade. Nobody is denying that Shackleton was "Anglo-Irish" (though barely so. His mother came of Cork/Kerry stock, the family was not monied, and a transplant from Yorkshire to Dublin would generally be considered a lateral move and nothing else) but you cannot expect to rearrange world geography to accommodate this craven nonsense. Tom Crean, one of his lieutenants, is described as born in Ireland. So in fact are Oscar Wilde, Jonathan Swift and Bram Stoker. Your rationale for forcing the issue of 'Britishness' seems to be based on a personal preference, and nothing else. To assign your lengthy country name ("Ireland, then part of the United Kingdom" ....???) would result in a democratic requirement that any Irish citizen born before 1923 and listed on Wiki would need to be assigned the same bizzare qualifier. I don't think the encyclopedia should be turned upside down to indulge your nonsense. Mike Galvin (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Two other things. You might want to check out The James Caird Society, which discusses Shackleton's abiding love of Ireland as well as the fact that much of his family still lives there. As to his not spending much time there, Shackleton spent the first ten years of his life in Ireland. These are generally considered to be the formative years. Mike Galvin (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Can we get rid of the Infobox?

Shacklton as a young man

There is no requirement to have an infobox and the Nationality line in the current box is an edit war magnet. I tried this diff as a compromise, but it was reverted almost instantly by the lastest edit war. Why not just have the photo of Shackleton as a young man and his signature below (it could use a {{multiple image}} template. What do others think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Much better. Tom Crean (explorer) escaped the nationality war by having his (dis-)infobox removed (I don't know why somebody put it back. Arf.) Yomangani^talk 16:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There was no nationality war involving Tom Crean, a certain user wanted to put United Kingdom instead of Ireland,which violated Wikipedia's MOS, fortunately this was addressed and the editor was stopped in their tracks. Sheodred (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that (with Crean). I am fine with removing the infobox there and here. I will not do it myself as I do not want to run afoul of 3RR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove it. Yworo (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the infobox one editor saying to remove it is not consensus. Mo ainm~Talk 22:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I count three in favor (Ruhrfisch, Yomangani, Yworo), and now one opposed (Mo ainm). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I also mutually support its removal simply because FA articles have a history of not having Infoboxes. Probably for some sort of professionalism sense. Further - leave the nationality field blanked. --Nutthida (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Make that 5-editors, in favour of deleting the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know there was a whole argument over it. Shame. Real shame, I think it makes an article about a person look pretty neat. Oh well. I may just add that Tom Crean's page does have an infobox right now so I assume the war has ended there.AllYourPowers (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I do agree it's a shame, but an infobox can be a bleeding ulcer on this article. Tom Crean is in a simpler situation, being (for all that he was born in what was then the UK) fairly unequivocally Irish, identifying as such. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

a page on a person with no info box looks like a mess. If is just takin down to stop a nationality war then the page should be locked after his nationally is fixed. Info boxes are needed. User:Theshaman21

Shall we get rid of the infobox on Robert Falcon Scott's page too then? (which contains no nationality incidentally)

I see another well-meaning driveby infobox has turned up. Shall we give it a go and just agree to leave Nationality blanked? This is akin to the first sentence of the lead - and while the infobox is an edit magnet, of course the first sentence is also, so the amount of vexation may be unchanged. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles

I have read all of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles (shortcut is WP:IMOS), and fail to see how it addresses the ANglo-Irish question. Looking specifically at the Biographical articles subsection, which reads as follows:

Biographical articles

For people born before independence in 1922, describe their birthplace as simply Ireland (not [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Ireland]]). Similarly, for people born before 3 May 1921 in what today is Northern Ireland say Ireland, not Northern Ireland or [[Northern Ireland|Ireland]], and do not describe them as Northern Irish.

Do not capitalise the first letter of words such as nationalist, unionist, republican or loyalist, whether used as nouns or adjectives, when describing people. Example:

• John MacBride was an Irish republican
• Thomas Sinclair was an Irish unionist politician

It then goes on to a subsection on "Naming people" which does not seem applicable here (as Shackleton's name is not in dispute). Searching the page, I do not see any mention at all of "Anglo-Irish" or "nationality" or "ethnicity" or "social class" or even "class". Could anyone who thinks that WP:IMOS forbids use of Anglo-Irish please explain in detail, quoting specfic text from IMOS or other parts of the MOS. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Here in MOSBIO [[13]] , mentions :

• 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, 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

Ethnicity should only be used if it is notable or affect the persons notability , not purely as a compromise , but it can be used . Shackleton was from an Anglo-Irish family (unlike his friend and co-adventurer Tom Crean , who was of Irish stock and spent his years after leaving the British Navy in Ireland) , some will point his mothers was just Irish- but that doesnt detract from the fact that his influence and family fortune , and the ties that brought about , were Anglo-Irish . There is a circular debate on this . In my opinion no one glove fits all . What some will see as supressing Irishness ( it actually does happen more with Ireland thatn the other home nations ) others will see a encyclopedic accuarcy . Each case needs to be dealt with on its own , Crean would be considered Irish (why not?) but Shackleton at the very most Anglo-Irish (if it is allowed in this case).Murry1975 (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we please restore Anglo-Irish to the lead??? --Nutthida (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It is fine with me - consensus on the talk page is clearly in favor of Anglo-Irish. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that Just Irish or British or whatever was not backed up by MOS which was originally claimed. --Nutthida (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus to have Anglo-Irish in, and it does NOT BELONG IN LEDE, leave it be.Sheodred (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Anglo-Irish in this particular case and it has the advantage that it can be cited to a reliable source. Yworo (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Anglo-Irish per MOS listed above. Mo ainm~Talk 23:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

IMOS has nothing to say on the matter. Yomangani^talk 23:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Ernest_Shackleton#Nationality for the consensus on Anglo-Irish. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

?:I strongly suggest you revert that edit or else I am going straight back to ANI, the admins will not appreciate what you are doing which is blatantly pushing your POV when things were quiet, the four of you, and another one or two editors you have collaborated with hijacking the talk page on this article does not equal consensus. Sheodred (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Go for it, if you feel lucky. Malleus Fatuorum 06:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I also oppose the inclusion of AI in the lede as per MOS. I have reverted MF edit as there is no clear consensus for this. Bjmullan (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup; Anglo-Irish was a social class, not a nationality Lugnad (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well blow me down, who'd have guessed. Thanks for your insightful contribution. Would you say that it's a social class in the same sense that "middle class" is? Malleus Fatuorum 11:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't be surprised, I was just quoting from the Anglo-Irish article. Lugnad (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• What do the sources say? --John (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

[14] hope this helps Lugnad (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That book wasn't written by Shackleton, or anyone who new him, and there are reliable sources that state he's Irish and also Anglo-Irish. Shackleton was not just Irish, his money, Social background, learning and personality were all distinctly Anglo-Irish, he led a very different life style from the average Irishman of the day. I just find it insulting. All I see is people quoting MOS, MOS MOS, over and over again, with people consistently ignoring WP:IGNORE and the exceptions in the MOS, which clearly state they are not-set-in-stone by any means. People are totally ignoring what is best for the quality, factual accuracy and relevance for the article. What is the best, most factually accurate way to describe Shackleton that is. --Nutthida (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

the book was written by John de Courcy Ireland regared by some here as Anglo Irish Lugnad (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And I'm sorry, but any of your consensus is beaten overwhelmingly by the editors who made this article FA. By a long, long way. --Nutthida (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

How does that work? Malleus Fatuorum 11:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's called common sense and directly relates to how the article became FA in the first-place, it needs to be reviewed if it's going to be removed - either an FA review, or Anglo-Irish Stays... --Nutthida (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not how things work, but bear in mind that I believe the Anglo-Irish epithet to be correct, and far from wanting to remove it I in fact restored it. Malleus Fatuorum 11:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears there's not going to be any agreement over a straight in or out. Basically the position is:

• IMOS has nothing to say on the matter (despite claims to the contrary).
• The MOS says we shouldn't put it there unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. The argument over its relevancy can go either way (see above).
• Whether it passed FAC with Anglo-Irish in the lede is neither here nor there, nor are any claims of the authors that took it to FAC having more rights to decide.

Personally I'd say that his social class/ethnicity is relevant here: he moved to England when he was ten and was a British establishment figure, but I don't really object to it not being in the lede other than for the fact that "was a polar explorer" as the introduction is a bit feeble (especially as it pretty much repeats that in the next sentence). How about "Anglo-Irish explorer from County Kildare, Ireland" ? That covers both his heritage and his birth place. Yomangani^talk 12:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• There's a relevant and useful discussion IMO at WT:FAC#Disputed nationalities in the lead sentences of two FAs. - Dank (push to talk) 16:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

In an attempt to reach a compromise which might be acceptable to more people, here are three versions of the first sentence, followed by a suggested version that may be an acceptable compromise, or at least a starting point for discussion.

1. FAC version first sentence:

   Sir Ernest Henry Shackleton, Kt., CVO, OBE (15 February 1874 – 5 January 1922) was an Anglo-Irish explorer.

2. Current version (Dec 2012) first sentence (has been in this basic form for well over a year):

   Sir Ernest Henry Shackleton, CVO, OBE (15 February 1874 – 5 January 1922) was an Anglo-Irish polar explorer, one of the principal figures of the period known as the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration.

3. Ireland birth first sentence (used earlier this month and last):

   Sir Ernest Henry Shackleton, CVO, OBE (15 February 1874 – 5 January 1922) was a notable explorer from County Kildare, Ireland, who was one of the principal figures of the period known as the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration.

I looked at the FA on C. D. Howe who was born in the United States, but is notable for his work in the economy and government of Canada. It reads Clarence Decatur Howe, PC (15 January 1886 – 31 December 1960), generally known as C. D. Howe, was a powerful Canadian Cabinet minister of the Liberal Party. Notice it does not call him American or Canadian, but does identify what he did by nation. The lead then goes on to start the second paragraph Born in Massachusetts, Howe moved to Nova Scotia as a young adult to take up a professorship at Dalhousie University. Could something like this work for Shackleton? Here is my suggestion for the first two sentences

Sir Ernest Henry Shackleton, CVO, OBE (15 February 1874 – 5 January 1922) was a polar explorer who led three British expeditions to the Antarctic, and one of the principal figures of the period known as the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration. Born in County Kildare, Ireland, Shackleton and his Anglo-Irish family moved to Sydenham in suburban London when he was ten.

Comments welcome, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Seems a decent compromise. --John (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• I actually really like that. --Nutthida (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with John, seems like a reasonable compromise. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• I've forgotten how I got here, but never mind. I think that is a brilliant re-write. Thincat (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

*"Born in County Kildare, Ireland" Belongs in first sentence. *"Shackleton and his Anglo-Irish family moved to Sydenham in suburban London when he was ten." Does not belong in lede, it belongs in early life, why is the introduction so long? Most of that belongs elsewhere in the article. Sheodred (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Where is this suggestion below?

Sir Ernest Henry Shackleton, CVO, OBE (15 February 1874 – 5 January 1922) was an Irish polar explorer, one of the principal figures of the period known as the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration.

This just goes to show all the bias here and on wikipedia by POV editors from listing notable historical Irish figues as Irish, while we are discussing this why not change some of the English historical figures to Anglo-Saxon instead of English, this is astonishing....full of hypocrits. Sheodred (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Except Anglo-Saxon is a much, much older term...and that's probably one of the most irrelevant comparisons I have seen - you could just go around calling people cave-men because they once were. The English are not Anglo-Saxons. And cut out the POV accusation crap, it's tedious and not constructive at all, people for the Anglo-Irish side have come up with reliable sources, and good reasoning, your only real argument was that along the lines of "born in Ireland, must be Irish". And when someone comes up with a good compromise, you ignore it, and that you are completely ignoring the person at hand, WHO we are discussing here. Nutthida(talk) 16:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"The English are not Anglo-Saxons." And Irish people cannot be substituted for Anglo-Irish to suit the political opinions of some editors.

"people for the Anglo-Irish side have come up with reliable sources, and good reasoning" Give me some good reasoning, I'm dying to hear it, because no neutral party has seen any from you and your POV collaborators.

"your only real argument was that along the lines of "born in Ireland, must be Irish" No its not. he identified as Irish, all evidence points to fact he considered himnself Irish, I gave you sources but its "not good enough", or you come up with some bull to protect your POV and agenda. Sheodred (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheodred, seriously now - "POV collaborator" I am not, why am I arguing for C.S Lewis to be described as Irish, why the heck did I just remove someone adding "British" to the lead of the Terry Wogan Article? You really are rude to everyone who so much as disagrees with you, as you have just proven. "And Irish people cannot be substituted for Anglo-Irish to suit the political opinions of some editors." - Rubbish. This is not about any political opinions I may or may not have. I have purely based my argument on how Shackleton was raised - which was very different from the typical Irish man/woman of the day. Not about any laws, silly modern day opinions - but about the man himself. "Give me some good reasoning, I'm dying to hear it, because no neutral party has seen any from you and your POV collaborators." - I was commenting on others, the original FA editors of this article, and numerous sources - pot kettle black? Where is YOUR evidences? Oh wait, you just Cherry pick to death. One source over the other is bias cherry picking, you're supposed to see both sides of the argument. "No its not. he identified as Irish, all evidence points to fact he considered himnself Irish, I gave you sources but its "not good enough", or you come up with some bull to protect your POV and agenda." - Again more cherry picking. Someone describing himself as Irish can't POSSIBLY be assumed to only be the thing they described himself as in the quote, and again, where is YOUR evidence? For the sack of convenience, provide in each discussion...and these sources not "Being good enough" has nothing to do with it, it's to do with multiple reliable sources stating different things. Preferring one source over the other is POV and Bias. Know how many times you've broken 3RR, Good faith and other editing practices? And your accusations of "collaborators" is... unbelievable, frankly, I do not communicate with anyone else around her barely at all, I am here as an individual editor expressing my opinion to hopefully try and find a resolution to this. Don't like it? Then this place isn't for you. --Nutthida (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I throw the stone, it landed comfortably out the window. And I would not of even said that if you weren't so rude and seeing one side of the argument. Believe it or not, I actually see good reasoning for him to be described as Irish, I just prefer Anglo-Irish as it's a good descriptive term for the kind of man Shackleton was. --Nutthida (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Nutthida (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

"I refracted those comments, because they were wrong." Yes they were, and I was not rude,it was you who resorted to personal insults. I disagree with what you say about Shackleton, who is Irish. Anyway.......I don't know if you have not noticed but on almost every single article on Irish figures you will find edits and comments by editors claiming those Irish people as British not Irish, amongst many other things.....so yes I am cynical and judgmental of certain editors who frequent the Irish-related articles, yes I might have been quick to judge the motives of you, but you are one of the rare exceptions who has displayed some neutrality, I apologise for judging too quickly but you have no idea about the amount of absolute fucking bullshit that myself and other editors have to go through on the encyclopedia, being accused of being nationalists pushing our POV, when in essence we are correcting errors and rectifying articles that have been subjected to the POV of editors who than throw that exact same argument at us to be disruptive.

Know how many times you've broken 3RR, Good faith and other editing practices? Maybe you should look up the reasons how, why and who blocked me, two wrongly blocked me, their unblocks were lifted instantly, another block I was wrongly accused of using a sock to avoid the 3RR (obviously they were not penalised because they were admins), but you would have known that if you delved further into it. You drag all this up on the article talk page instead of my own obviously in an attempt to discredit me in front of a larger audience.

If you were able to think (clearly) about my comment about Anglo-Saxons, it was obviously a comparison and mockery of the term Anglo-Irish for the reasons that it is also completely unsuitable term for describing an individual in the lede. (Anglo-Irish is a SOCIAL CLASS, nothing more or less, but editors will come up this faux convoluted excuse for using it, I am sure I could come up with one for Anglo-Saxon)

At least I had the decency to apologise.... Sheodred (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I apologies to :( you should understand English is not my first language and that it's hard to keep track of who the hell says what and when on this talk page, too.

For your first comment, I'm going to say this - I know, sympathies and understand from a whole load of levels, For your second one, I should do my research fore-hand. My Apologies..and of course I wont ^_^ For your third, I didn't know that, I'm not English really, but I grew up here. Sorry if my knowledge is skewed/and or different, I really dunno. I know Anglo-Irish is...I know but, really, Shackleton was so different as a person to the average Irish man or woman of the day. This is old history and I like history, no matter how unpleasant it was. The man Shackleton was, where he was influenced from and such. The actual, and this came to me a moment ago, thing i'm going to agree on is that he was from a socially, Anglo-Irish Background, an Irish-Anglo-Irish Ethnicity. Most people forget his mother was of Irish Stock but protestant (?) very much like my Great-Grandfather. *SHOCK HORROR*. ;) OK, Right...I think that's it? I don't feel comfortable commenting much about this now, I'm going to Stick to C.S Lewis. Irish Pride and heart, British politically. --Nutthida (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Since Shackleton's nationality is disputed, and WP:MOSBIO (specifically WP:OPENPARAGRAPH) suggests not including nationality in the first sentence anyway, I avoided saying any nationalities for him in my suggested version above. Since WP:LEAD (specificallyy WP:BEGINNING) says in part The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. and Shackleton is best known as a polar explorer, that is what the lead sentence should focus on. Finally I tried to make sure the material related to nationality was based on what could not be disputed: he was born in Ireland, his family was Anglo-Irish, they moved to London, his expeditions were British. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, Boy George and Erin O'Connor should be called something like Irish-English as they have Irish parents but the fact is there not. They were born and raised in England so they are called English but their Irish origins are mentioned. Ernest Shackleton was born and raised in Ireland and has Anglo-Irish origins on his fathers side which is mentioned in childhood. Plus his mother was native Irish which means calling this guy Anglo-Irish is as logical as calling Irish musician Phil Lynott Afro-Guyanese because his father was. So if there is no objections, im changing this. 79.97.222.9 (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on this talk page is to call him Anglo-Irish so I reverted. Neither Boy George nor Ms. O'Connor were born in the 1870's (as Shackleton was), so the comparisons are not valid. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I reread this section (ugh) and there was pretty clear consensus above (among users who are not banned as sockpuppeteers) to try the version that does not identify him by nationality at all in the first sentence (though it does say he led three British expeditions) and adds a second sentence briefly giving his birth in Ireland to an Anglo-Irish family and move to suburban London at age 10. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, although he seems to be "Irish" again, sigh... Pinkbeast (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

References

See British subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.196 (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Wife and children

This article currently make only passing mention of Shackleton's wife Emily (no mention of their meeting and marriage) and none of their children. Edward Shackleton, Baron Shackleton states that he was "the younger son of Sir Ernest Shackleton, the Antarctic explorer." Who were their other children, and where would be a good place to put that information in this article? Perhaps mention of their marriage could be slipped into the section which covers that time period, and their children mentioned there ("they would eventually have x children ..."), or the "Final expedition and death" section ("survived by ..."), or the "Legacy" section. -- ToE 02:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing this out - I agree that a bit more could be said in the article about his children and his marriage, as long as they follow reliable sources. I also note the website maintained by his family says only "In 1904 after his return he married Emily Dorman, they had three children Raymond, Cecily and Edward." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

While the older two don't have their own articles, they are geographically immortalized in Mount Raymond, Swinford Glacier, and Mount Cecily. I don't know if Cecily got a middle-name-glacier. (I'm not suggesting that those links should appear in this article.) -- ToE 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Farthest South

How close did they get? 114 miles or 112? Both are mentioned in the article. AMCKen (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• The got within 97 geographical miles, which is 111.625606 statute miles, or 112 miles to the same degree of precision. I fixed it - thanks for the heads up. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The note on that, note d, gives a page number in Heart of the Antarctic, but I can't seem to find what it's supposed to be pointing to. I don't have access to the 1911 edition mentioned in the reference list, and searching within all the various online editions has yet to turn up a likely candidate. Laura Scudder | talk 19:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Crew - dogs

A film is not a good authority, generally.

My copy of "South" contains portraits of dog Samson, and of pups Roger Toby Nelson Nell. It names about 50 dogs, and says 8 were not named - look for date 1914-12-24. A Google search for [ Lupoid Chirgwin Shakespeare ] will find many lists - but beware of OCR ones. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hero who rebelled against Shackleton

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/hero-who-rebelled-against-shackleton-is-honoured-with-statue-of-beloved-cat-6166876.html

Harry "Chippy" McNeish, the carpenter on Ernest Shackleton's ill-fated ship Endurance , was shabbily treated.

Despite his crucial role in the transantarctic expedition, he never received a Polar Medal. Even worse, his beloved cat was shot dead after the ship was crushed by ice...

< REMOVE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL>

--37.230.15.203 (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've undone the posting of copyrighted material from The Independent in the above post. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

He never received a medal because his earlier 'rebellion' and insubordination could have resulted in the deaths of the whole party.

... and all the other pets were shot too, as there was insufficient food for them and the men. Shackleton had no idea how long they would have to live on their remaining stock of food, see.

And McNeish was doubly lucky to be alive. If he had gone too far in jeopardizing the safety of them all Shackleton would almost certainly have been justified in shooting him.

So that's why McNeish never received a medal. He disgraced himself.

Shackelton must have had a forgiving nature however, because although he denied McNeish a medal, he didn't have him tried on their return to civilisation for attempted mutiny - for that's what it was. For that, McNeish would have been facing a possible hanging if found guilty.

... poor McNeish - he probably never knew how lightly he was let off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.196 (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, FYI despite the Endurance being lost the party were still operating under Maritime law, and Shackleton was therefore still deemed the 'Captain' and lawful commander of the party and would be held responsible back home in Britain for the crew's well-being and safety right up until they again made contact with the outside world. Hence the law regarding attempting to incite mutiny still applied. Shackleton, like the captain of any ship, held all the responsibility for the safety of the party and he had the right to expect his orders to be obeyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.99 (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems that editors here have one view of McNeish, while the New Zealand Antarctic Society have the opposite view Lugnad (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

My previous post is a statement as to how the law (both British and Admiralty) related to Shackleton's expedition at the time. What the New Zealand Antarctic Society thinks of the matter is their business. Shackleton was in the right, and McNeish wasn't qualified to have any say in the matter, his only qualification was as a ship's carpenter. McNeish may well have come close to being shot. And if he had been, Shackleton would have been right in shooting him, and any resulting enquiry when they reached home would almost certainly have exonerated Shackleton. McNeish's arguing and 'rebellion' came close to mutiny.

Shackleton had previous experience in the Antarctic and in leading men. McNeish hadn't and he wasn't qualified to make such a decision. His 'rebellion' could have sowed doubt and lack of confidence in their leader and lowered morale amongst the other members of the party, and resulted in poor decisions leading to all in the party dying. This is something a leader like Shackleton has to factor-in when making his decisions that a ship's carpenter does not.

... and if I was ever in the same situation as the Endurance party and had the choice of either McNeish and the New Zealand Antarctic Society leading me, or Shackleton, I know which of the two I would choose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.180 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"For scientific exploration, give me Scott; for rapid transport, Amundsen, but when all has failed and there is no possible hope, get on your knees and pray for Shackleton" - Sir Raymond Priestley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.124 (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Top image

I for one prefer the uncropped image of Shackleton in 1917. It's not like the print quality is so high that zooming in gets us much. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Revolver

This article actually seems a little bit incomplete when the times that Shackles threatened his expedition members with his revolver are not mentioned... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.22.185 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Doubtful source for Priestley quote

What makes this source reliable? No author, no editor, no date of publication. I think the Priestley quote, which has been tacked onto the end of the lede, should be removed entirely. Finetooth (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What makes this source reliable? It is the truth and how you are able to establish a connection to it. If you cannot - read some of the truthful reports of the event - naturally including Mister Priestley and his account of events.--37.230.16.241 (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Priestley did say it, but this is more interesting than I anticipated. It appeared in New Scientist in 1957, eliciting a response both telling us when and where he said it and that it is a paraphrase of an expression used in the preface to The Worst Journey in the World (which it does, I checked the copy I have here). Pinkbeast (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Most interesting indeed, and I thank you. I have one other more nitpicky thought. I don't think the quote belongs in the lede. Since the lede is to be a summary of the main text and should not include anything not mentioned in the main text, would it be a good idea to move the Priestley material down to the top of the Later legacy section? Chronologically, it's right on the cusp between early and later.Finetooth (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. I think it is an entirely appropriate quote to put in the lead, giving the reader the flavour of what will follow. It cannot reasonably be summarised, being already as concise as it can get. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't attempt to summarize it; I'd just move it. The other sentences in the lede already inform the reader of what lies ahead. It's your call, though. I'm really happy to see you protecting the article from mischief. Finetooth (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ernest Shackleton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160313100446/http://takeasight.com/ernest-shackleton-expedition-by-tim-jarvis to http://www.takeasight.com/ernest-shackleton-expedition-by-tim-jarvis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring over country/nationality

I have warned the two most involved editors who have been edit-warring over the country and nationality issue. I shall not hesitate to take the issue to ANI if it continues. I would remind all involved that the cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss, not "Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert ad nauseam", and if you could be bothered to look at the edit history there have been recent warnings in edit summaries to "take it to the talk page". DuncanHill (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The last such warning was over two weeks ago, when you reverted a driveby edit without discussion, which may be stretching "recent". I am, of course, quite familiar with the edit history already. You are welcome to take it to ANI if you see fit.

I personally prefer my version, as I would; there is no denying that Shackleton was born in what was then the UK, and also in what remains Ireland, but a note to the effect of the former fact seems to avoid most of the problems and confusion over the fact that his birthplace is not presently in the UK. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw the ANI notice[[15]], and wanted to opine that Ireland is much simpler and useful for most readers. You'd find few Americans who even know that ANY part of Ireland is in the UK, and thus this is unnecessarily confusing. If this was an RfC, I'd vote for just saying Ireland only. I expect that will be what the administrators rule also. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It would be more helpful to start a new section rather than resurrect one from over 6 months ago. DuncanHill (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Readers will easily see the item in the TOC. Reading the long arguments above show that this nationality question is quite contentious. Perhaps interesting to compare it to the usage of British America as the birthplace of the American patriots from the Revolutionary War era. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The term "British America", whilst ludicrous, would not be nearly as loaded as "Ireland, United Kingdom". Both terms are proprietorial fantasies from the Bronze Age, but in the case of Shackleton, it is inappropriate on several other fronts. See below. Mike Galvin (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ernest Shackleton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160122053357/http://harrygrindellmatthews.com/earlywireless.asp to http://www.harrygrindellmatthews.com/earlywireless.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2017

Line: "realising that she would be trapped until the following spring"....needs to have the pronoun corrected to "he" 2602:306:35C3:4BA0:2:CBF1:1C6D:B2F8 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The "she" in this sentence refers not to Shackleton but to his ship, Endurance. "She" is the usual pronoun in English for ships. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

July 2018 - Infobox wording edit war

The current disagreement is over whether the infobox should say "Ireland, United Kingdom" or "Ireland". DuncanHill (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Please restore infobox as it was in [16] before the edit war, per WP:PREFER. DuncanHill (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The template says there should be discussion first before posting this, so consensus is reached. There are several discussions above, including the most recent one that I commented on. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I linked WP:PREFER. The idea of this request is to get it back to where it was before the editor who ignored BRD and refused to come to the talk page got started, instead of protecting it in his preferred version (the one he refused to discuss). DuncanHill (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in PREFER should apply here. It was protected at WP:THEWRONGVERSION by an uninvolved admin, so it should stay there until consensus is reached. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Last time we did this I had "Kilkea, County Kildare, Ireland; then part of the United Kingdom". ("Ireland" and "United Kingdom" could be wikilinked appropriately.)

WP:IMOS says "For people anywhere else in Ireland at any time, "Ireland" should be used. Should pipelinking be considered necessary, Ireland can be used after 1922". Personally, I think this section is a little vague because it seems to deal more with avoiding spurious pre-1922 references to Northern Ireland than with ruling out putting anything after "Ireland", but one could argue it either way - and if it's being argued that there is a ruling there against "Ireland, United Kingdom", my version with an explanatory note is closer to complying.

It also does seem more relevant to Shackleton that Ireland was at the time part of the UK than it might be to articles on other people who, say, never left Ireland and identified as Irish, which is why I think it should be acknowledged in the infobox. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Disappointingly, there's been no further discussion. I propose to stick this in in a few days, which might at least make people wake up... Pinkbeast (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, that worked well. We are now to reach consensus with an editor who has never edited an article's talk page and has absolutely no reason to do so. That sounds easy. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to get a consensus with them, you just need enough editors discussing that you can show there actually is one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Mmm. That's also working well since I discussed it and got silence; I made an edit which I hoped would perhaps produce some discussion and got silence; then you locked that version out for the next month because apparently you believe the best thing to do with an editor who violates 3RR and does nothing else is to reward them for doing so. So this is going well so far. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Cat remove request

Please remove Category:Irish Freemasons. Per the instructions at the top of Category:Freemasons, this should only be used for people who were famous for being Masons, not for Masons who were famous for other reasons. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done @SarekOfVulcan: this page is no longer protected and can be edited directly. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Shackleton Edit War

There seems to be general consensus that "Ireland" is sufficient, rather than "Ireland, United Kingdom" or the most recent and equally spurious "Ireland, then part of the United Kingdom" which is correctly noted above as being difficult for many people - particularly Americans - to understand.

There is also the issue of consistency and correlation. Wilde, Swift, Stoker, and many other obviously Anglo-Irish figures are described as simply being born in Ireland.

"Ireland, then part of the United Kingdom", is not simply an erroneous qualifier, but preposterous, in the context. Shackleton was an explorer, not a politician, where this awkward description might have some relevance, bit here it has none, other than making a clear, proprietorial claim. This is not what Wikipedia is for.

I have the good taste to not mention that many would find the term inflammatory and offensive, whereas a simple (and accurate) Ireland is very unlikely to have that effect. Mike Galvin (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps launch an RfC? I already chimed in above and agree the United Kingdom reference is unnecessary. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Noted, and thanks. Mike Galvin (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not erroneous to say that Ireland was then part of the United Kingdom, it is perfectly true. It is dishonest to suggest otherwise. DuncanHill (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The "Anglo-Irish" thing needs to be clarified a little also, since it has been overworked here to imply Anglo-Irish Ascendancy class, which is not the case with Shackleton. This was simply a family of English origin which had moved to Ireland (and there were many such families). There is an important distinction here, and that is money and/or title. Shackleton's father could not afford his naval cadetship, and Dulwich College is hardly Eton. Furthermore, Shackleton's mother was of Cork/Kerry stock, from which almost certainly no "Anglo Irish" came (this area was the lightning rod for Irish Independence. Collins, etc). In summary, the family was less "Anglo-Irish" than it was a family that had simply moved to Dublin, making this insistence on "Ireland, United Kingdom", even more bogus and irrelevant. Mike Galvin (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

"Being born in a stable does not make a man a horse". The other "editor" makes this statement above (Anglo-Irish). Nuff said. Mike Galvin (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

No need to put scare quotes around editor thank you. I was quoting Wellington, who used the phrase to deny being Irish. I don't know why you put Anglo-Irish in brackets at the end of your comment, nor what you meant by "nuff saud". Are you implying that I am Anglo-Irish, and therefore not fit to comment on a famous British explorer? Please explain yourself. Please indent your reply correctly. DuncanHill (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I am aware it was Wellington, and aware of the context. That you would quote it makes your attitudes & agenda quite clear - thank you. I wote 'Nuff said'. This is an abbreviation of 'Enough Said', to indicate that the evidence speaks for itself, and requires no further discussion. Mike Galvin (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Please learn to indent properly, it is disruptive of you not to make that tiny little effort. I quoted it as a good example of a person who was born in Ireland but did not regard himself as Irish, and is not generally regarded as Irish. For the record, I am not aware of having any Irish (Anglo- or otherwise) ancestry. My attitude is that when an editor seeks to make a change that may be controversial (and see the previous discussions here, as you were advised to do over a month ago), he should first seek consensus here. This you refused to do for over a month. DuncanHill (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should birthplace in infobox be listed simply as Ireland?

The consensus is that per WP:IMOS Ernest Shackleton's birthplace should be noted in the infobox as simply "Ireland", as opposed to "Ireland; then part of the United Kingdom" or any other variant that includes the qualifier "UK"

Cunard (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

Ernest Shackleton was born in Ireland when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Should his birthplace be noted in the infobox as simply "Ireland", as opposed to "Ireland; then part of the United Kingdom"? Work permit (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

In eliminate ambiguity, the question may read Should his birthplace be noted in the infobox as simply "Ireland", as opposed to "Ireland; then part of the United Kingdom" or any other variant that includes the qualifier "UK"? Work permit (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Yes means to use Ireland with no addition of “UK”. No means to add UK in some way.

• Yes. Per WP:IMOS: The place of birth, residence and/or death of people who were born, lived or died before 1921 in what today is Northern Ireland should be given simply as "Ireland", and they should not be described as "Northern Irish"...For people who were born, lived or died in Northern Ireland after 1922 use "Northern Ireland", which will not normally be linked.. For people anywhere else in Ireland at any time, "Ireland" should be used.. A quick survey of people born in Ireland before 1922 will show this is the convention in Wikipedia. Prominent examples include writers Oscar Wilde, Jonathan Swift and Bram Stoker; Anglo Irish military men Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, Admiral of the Fleet Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope and his brother General Sir Alan Gordon Cunningham; politicians include Irish republican John MacBride and Irish unionist Thomas Sinclair. Work permit (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  Swift and Wellington are red herrings, as both were born before the United Kingdom existed. DuncanHill (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes: also per WP:IMOS otherwise it would be United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. ww2censor (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes: very occasionally, there is ambiguity for the uninitiated with Ireland-born British subjects, but that is not the case here and the article is quite clear about where his birthplace was and what his citizenship was. Pincrete (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes And not remotely near a close call. Collect (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Mike Galvin (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:IMOS, and per convention at other pages. The intention of this sentence in the lede is to inform the reader where he was born; if that is the case, then saying Ireland without any further qualification is all that is required to find it on a map. Adding information about the governance of the place at the time would be to touch on the history and politics of the location, which doesn't seem helpful at this position in the article.Girth Summit (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per Work permit. Can't think of a convincing argument why we should break convention for this article or institute a new convention. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. The place of birth entry in an infobox is there to give readers a geographical location, not a history lesson. 31.49.219.1 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - including just Ireland is concise and tells the reader what they want to know in the infobox. Broadening the description to include larger entities is counter to other established policies, such as using as specific a category as possible. For example, the category Businesspeople from Alaska is preferred over the category Businesspeople. Another way of looking at this is would we be better off saying United States, North America, or Mexico, Central America, versus just US or Mexico? It's clutter. I don't know that I'd be opposed to saying something about the United Kingdom in the body of the article, if it was wordsmithed properly, and of course it would require the editor to demonstrate that a transitioning place of birth somehow impacted the subject. I could see how this might be relevant when discussing American colonists who were born in what was British America, and how that might have affected their sensibilities. But that's another discussion for those more familiar with the history of UK and Ireland than I am. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - Per WP:IMOS as noted above. Meatsgains^(talk) 22:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Per WP:IMOS. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Per IMOS. I think @Peter K Burian: may have a typo there, Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1874. WCM_email 20:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; yes, Wee Curry Monster.. I had a brain freeze on Aug. 28. Ireland was part of the UK when Shackleton was born. Am better now. (I deleted the "typo" in my vote) But see this article: ‘Embarrassing’ Trump told Ireland is not part of UK https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/embarrassing-trump-told-ireland-is-not-part-of-uk-1.3563769 Cheers, Peter K Burian (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Ireland but No, not only. The text (or links) should (unobtrusively) also inform that Ireland was then part of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, simply putting 'Ireland', is easily misunderstood to mean the modern republic, whilst putting 'UK' would equally be potentially misleading as meaning the modern entity. I don't think it disputable that since Shackleton spent his entire career involved with British maritime activities - that his Britishness was also a significant aspect of his life and notability. The Hitler article refers to AH's place of birth thus: "Hitler was born in Austria—then part of Austria-Hungary", which seems complete, unambiguous and informative. In AH's case this is given in para 2 of the lead, but in Shackleton's case could be achieved by linking Ireland thus. Pincrete (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I don't see why we should should break with MOS and examples given above. What am I missing? Work permit (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The issue seems to be his Anglo-Irish heritage, which is well documented in the article. This does not alter his place of birth. Assigning 'Ireland, then part of The United Kingdom' is akin to listing Prince Philip's birthplace as 'Mon Repos, Corfu, Greece, though in quite a British area'. Mike Galvin (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Shackleton was born in the United Kingdom. I know that is upsetting to some, but there is no need to pretend otherwise. And please indent you replies! DuncanHill (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

By the same logic, Keir Hardie's birthplace should be 'Scotland, United Kingdom', Dylan Thomas should be 'Wales, United Kingdom', and Elizabeth II 'England, United Kingdom'. We don't do that. 31.49.219.1 (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Not many seem to share your view. Mike Galvin (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you must stop misrepresenting what I have said. What I posted here is that Ireland was, when Shackleton was born, part of trhe United Kingdom. Are you claiming that it wasn't? DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should inform the Encyclopaedia Britannica that they've got it wrong. [17] 31.49.219.1 (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica in the article you linked does not make the ludicrous claim (that Ireland was not part of the UK at the tie) that you are implying it did. DuncanHill (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I implied no such thing. 31.49.219.1 (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I said that Ireland was part of the UK, you replied that I should tell EB that they are wrong. Wrong about what? DuncanHill (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The EB states that Shackleton was born in 'Kilkea, County Kildare, Ireland'. Is that right, or wrong? 31.49.219.1 (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I never said it was wrong. I said that at that time Ireland was in the UK. DuncanHill (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Something that nobody, as far as I'm aware, has ever disputed (though to be pedantic, it was The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at the time, which isn't the same thing as the current UK). The question is whether the place of birth in an infobox should give a geographical location, or a history lesson. 31.49.219.1 (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Mike Galvin, above, said ""Ireland, then part of the United Kingdom", is not simply an erroneous qualifier, but preposterous..." I was pointing out that it is not erroneous. DuncanHill (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The phrase 'United Kingdom' is clearly ambiguous, given that both its formal name and geographical extent have changed over time. Perhaps that is what Mike Gavin meant? I wouldn't know, since I'm not him. 31.49.219.1 (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

C S Lewis Cecil Day-Lewis Elizabeth Bowen Augusta, Lady Gregory William Allingham Ernest Walton (a professor at my university) and Sir William Rowan Hamilton. All notional members of the 'Anglo-Irish' class. All listed as simply born in Ireland. As per Wiki guidelines. I'm sorry if that's upsetting. Mike Galvin (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The lede currently gives his birthplace as Kilkea, Athy, County Kildare, Ireland, - I am getting comma fatigue trying to read that. The infobox misses out the 'Athy' part, which is better - I'd suggest doing the same in the lede? Girth Summit (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The Wikipedia page on Kilkea simply states it is a village in County Kildare, Ireland. If that's good enough to describe the village itself, I'd say it's good enough to describe Shackleton's birthplace. Work permit (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Sophistry doesn't help. The Ireland/UK situation is an exception to almost everything, and this has long been acknowledged by both sides, and indeed the wider world. You'll forgive me, but those born in Germany in, say, 1941 are not routinely described as having been born in The Third Reich. There are very good reasons for that, and indeed for this. Let's not get too far down in the mud about this. Mike Galvin (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Was that aimed at me? You really must learn how to use talk pages. Perhaps if you had started when I first asked you to raise your proposed changes here aver a month ago you would be better at it by now. My whole effort in this sorry saga has been to try to get you to come to this page - I am glad that after a month you eventually did do so. Now you just need to work on the honesty. 1) Ireland was part of the UK when Shackleton was born. 2) There is no comparison to Nazi Germany, 3) I personally don't give a fuck whether we say Ireland, or Ireland, UK, about Shackleton - what I do care about is that you try to get consensus for a controversial change (and I mentioned previous controversy when I reverted you over a month ago), and 4) don't misrepresent what I have said and done. DuncanHill (talk)

Tsk. Tsk. Language!

Yes, I can see that you don't care whether we say Ireland, or Ireland, UK (after you altered it Ireland to Ireland, UK three times; then having been slapped down, waited a month to launch 'Ireland, then part of the United Kingdom' 😂 by stealth and have been moaning about it ever since.

Your profile says you live on this site, so hats off to your 'expertese' (...?). Why not listen to other, experienced members of the community and give the crusade a rest? Nobody agrees with you. Nobody.

As for me, I'm new to the ins and outs of Wiki, and not an expert at navigating the different areas. I'm sure a man of your intelligence can set me straight on so many things. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going out to a pub here in Cheltenham, United Kingdom. Mike Galvin (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Please indent your replies, as you have previously been asked on your talk page. My first revert of you was here where I advised you to take it to the talk page, and advised you of WP:BRD. You have received similar advice on your talk page. All I have been trying to do since then was to get you to do just that. You have repeatedly refused to discuss your changes, repeatedly ignored BRD, and repeatedly misrepresented what I have said and done. DuncanHill (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I did not "launch" the "Ireland, then part of the UK" wording, stop lying about me and my edits DuncanHill (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

That wording was by Pinkbeast as mentioned again here. DuncanHill (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And my profile (by which I assume you mean my user page) does not say I live on this site. DuncanHill (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Nnnnnnnoooo. I don't think so. And you are the first I've met on Wiki to use profanity. Mike Galvin (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The real issue here is Shackleton's Anglo-Irish pedigree (conceded - he is clearly more a product of England than he is of Ireland) versus inappropriate terminology to reinforce that fact ('Ireland, then part of the United Kingdom' is not a country description. It is a powder keg). Such a term would be blacklisted in any other context. Shackleton's formative years were spent in Ireland. He always spoke fondly of the country, and given his early death, he spent about 20% of his life there, the formative years from 1 - 10). Yet no Irish person would rationally 'claim' Shackleton. He was quite obviously propelled to fame by his experiences in England, and England is where his life is defined. Yet it is unreasonable to play political games to underline that; it doesn't need underlining. There is a difference between claiming Shackleton and claiming Ireland. I am mindful of a sanction re: Troubles. I suggest that others here be too. I also suggest we let this run its course in RfC and stop slinging shit. Mike Galvin (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you are juxta-positioning the wrong concepts (Irish v English), the pertinent concepts are Irish v British. For many modern and historical Brits, there is no contradiction in simultaneously asserting their Welsh/Scots/N.Irish identities and also their Britishness. For many Irish people of Shackleton's time - especially members of the Anglo-Irish elites, that would have been equally true and would have been the norm among their class. There is no reason to believe that anyone (inc Shackleton himself) needed to ever think that he had somehow become more 'English', or even needed to. Billy Connoly isn't a foreigner to English people, neither were Gordon Brown, Nye Bevan or LLoyd George and 100s of others, but we wouldn't insult these people by calling them English. The concepts may be more keenly felt and expressed culturally, but it isn't essentially different from a US figure asserting that they are proudly Texan, whilst also asserting that they are 100% American. Pincrete (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I would disagree. Most Anglo-Irish 'elites' identified themselves as British (meaning English), using the term 'British' to effectively mean The Home Counties, and that nuance is important. Not for one moment did the Anglo-Irish consider Wick, Aberystwyth, or Lisburn to be British, except in a vague, notional way. The centre of power was London. I have often heard English people express the view that NI is "not really British". During Scotland's Independence Referendum, many English people told me they hoped Scotland would leave. There is British and British. It has to do with gradation. PS: I lived in the States and can find you many Texas who barely know that America exists and would gladly cede from the union. This is not a matter of semantics. It's one of perception. Mike Galvin (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2018 (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.

Troubles discretionary sanctions

Ok, folks, this is getting a bit much.

The Troubles case applies to pages that could be "reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". This issue would seem to bring that squarely into play. So be nice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree. Can the senior boys just make a final decision on the Ireland/Ireland UK issue and have done with this? I think the general opinion is conclusive. Mike Galvin (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC) The Request for Comments has been running for less than a day. Give it more time to reach consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Remove word 'Athy' from lede

Please remove the word 'Athy' from the second sentence of the lede.

The sentence currently starts 'Born in Kilkea, Athy, County Kildare, Ireland, Shackleton...'. This is obviously problematic from a stylistic point of view, to the point of being difficult to read. It's also slightly misleading - Kilkea is near Athy, but it's not in Athy (see Kilkea). I raised this suggestion in the discussion above, and was supported by Work permit - not exactly an overwhelming consensus, but no one disagreed, and I don't think it would be a controversial change. Girth Summit (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support per request. DuncanHill (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support As I stated above, the Wikipedia page on Kilkea simply states it is a village in County Kildare, Ireland. If that's good enough to describe the village itself, I'd say it's good enough to describe Shackleton's birthplace. Work permit (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Unnec. detail. Pincrete (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry,  Done quite some time ago. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)