Talk:Lord Charles Beresford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

2008 comments[edit]

This article is awful and needs completely rewriting. Any rewrite should use:

  • The biography by Geoffrey Bennett,
  • Beresford's books:
    • The Breakup of China,
    • The Betrayal, and
    • his two volume autobiography
  • Various good sources on the internet listing the ships he served on
  • I suppose you might want to use the book quoted about Battenberg - though Beresford's biography does not support the allegations
  • Properly researched histories of the Navy such as Marder (not 'blog'-type books such as Massie, which lack adequate citations

--Toddy1 (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Having a copy of massie here I would observe it seems to have just as many citations as I would expect, they are just listed in one look-up section at the back rather than by numbered notes on each page. I havn't read all of 'dreadnought', but I read a chapter about beresford. It did not pretend to be a full biography of the man, just what was relevant to the subject of the book, how he reacted with Fisher and what was relevant to the story of the navy's development. On the other hand, wiki is hardly the place for an utterly comprehensive biography either. I may work on this article, and if I do, I doubt it will read as it now does once Massie's info has worked into it. Sandpiper (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

New file File:Charles William de la Poer Beresford, Baron Beresford by Charles Wellington Furse.jpg[edit]

Charles William de la Poer Beresford, Baron Beresford by Charles Wellington Furse.jpg

Recently the file File:Charles William de la Poer Beresford, Baron Beresford by Charles Wellington Furse.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 06:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Title for use in Heading[edit]

Would it not be more correct for 1st Baron Beresford to form part of the article title as accessed, rather than Lord Charles Beresford? His barony was arguably of senior rank to his familial title of Lord Charles Beresford (held as younger son of a Marquess).Cloptonson (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No doubt there are those who would argue that because Beresford was known by his courtesy title most of his life, his article ought to reflect that. I would counter that because he specifically asked for a peerage (and got it), the article title ought to reflect his barony. Wikipedia is supposed to educate as well as inform after all. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
But we do not usually use titles such as "Lord" in article titles. As a rule, we would prefer the format Charles Beresford, 1st Baron Beresford. A discussion concerning WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCPEER etc would seem worthwhile. Off the top of my head, I prefer Cloptonson's version but that is for no other reason that it is how we usually do it. - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Lord Charles Beresford's numerous mispellings in his book[edit]

Rajmaan (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Google Books doesn't show the same content throughout the world and I cannot see the pages that you have linked above, only what they call "snippet view". What mis-spellings are you referring to? Could you type some out, please? - Sitush (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Rajmaan, are you referring to the contemporary spellings which he used in his work? For example, on page 289 of The Break-Up of China he uses a number of Russian names the spellings of which are hardly current. I fail to see why this is an issue. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 09:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, this may be the equivalent of archaic Hindoo vs. Hindu. If so then, yes, it is of no relevance. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
no. The first link i posted is really hilarious, it was an 1899 article published in "Literature" by The Times and noted that Bereaford made errors spelling almost every single foreign word in his book, russian, chinese, and japanese. Since the work is in public domain, i will paste it here in a quote for you to look atRajmaan (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The style of the book is that of a man of action, and calls for no comment, but Lord Charles Beresford should have submitted his proof .sheets to some one more familiar with the Far East in order to avoid eccentricities of spelling that disfigure his pages. We find " Habarovak" and "Habarosk," both' standing, we presume, for Khabarovsk or Khabarovka; "Kansuh " for Kansu—also spelled correctly; the ridiculous Gallicism "Tonquin "; "Blagovensk" for Blagovyeshchensk or Blagovechensk; "Chung Chi Tung" many times for our old friend Chang Chih-tung (we rubbed our eyes, by the way, when we found this undoubtedly able, patriotic, and clean-handed Chinaman described as "celebrated for his friendly and courteous bearing to all foreigners " !); "Yingkau" (the port of Newchwang) for Yingtzu; "Fookien " for Fukien; and not a few others. The amiable junior Chinese member of the Legislative Council of Hongkong was Mr. Wei-yuk when the present reviewer knew him, not "Weityuk." Lord Charles apparently was not told that "E-wo" is the Chinese name in Shanghai of Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Co.; a fighting man should not have allowed the familiar newfashioned and old-fashioned rifles to be called respectively "Mannlicker" and "Sneider "; and the Elswick-built cruiser which the Japanese Government placed at the author's disposition was surely the Takasako, and not the "Takasago." These inaccuracies, however, though they might easily have been avoided, are the merest trifles in comparison with the value—the momentous value—of the book. Particularly the industry of the author is to be commended. In an astonishingly short time he visited all the chief foci of foreign interest in China, and at every one he collected precisely the facts and opinions essential to a correct judgment. There is hardly a page of "padding" or an irrelevant reflection, and it is the duty of every Englishman who thinks, speaks, or writes about the Chinese problem to read the volume from beginning to end. With one possible exception I see no point at which Lerd Charles has been misled by the remarks made to him-'-no small achievement when the complex and deceptive character of the Chinese is remembered. The exception—and I lay no stress upon it—is this: every official or influential Chinaman Lord Charles met proffered the assurance of his friendliest feelings toward England, and all these assurances are duly set down as if they meant something. They would have been expressed with identical cordiality and sincerity to an American, a Russian, or a German, of the author's position and rank.

Page 535

Title Literature, Issues 64-89

Author Henry Duff Traill

Publisher The Times, 1899

Original from Indiana University

Digitized Oct 21, 2009

Thanks. It isn't really a concern for this article, though. People make mistakes and spellings change over time. Unless he was known for such eccentricities - William Archibald Spooner, for example - it really doesn't matter here. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)