Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

POV

The article is ridden with POV. See the italicized lines below:

In 1796, after a promotion to colonel, he accompanied his regiment to India. The next year his elder brother Richard was appointed Governor-General of India. When the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War broke out in 1798 against the Sultan of Mysore, Tippoo Sultan, Arthur Wellesley was given charge of an army division. After that war, his brother appointed him (despite cries of nepotism) to be Governor of Seringapatam and Mysore, positions he held with distinction until 1805. He reformed the tax and justice systems in his province, and he defeated and killed the robber chieftain Dhundia Wagh, who had escaped from prison in Seringapatam during the last battle of the Mysore War. Characteristically, he then sent Dhundia's orphaned son to England for a proper education. In the Maratha War of 1803, Wellesley commanded the outnumbered British army at Assaye and Argaum, and stormed the fortress at Gawilghur. On one occasion, he out-galloped the Mysore soldiers pursuing him and avoided being killed. (In fact, he had uncanny good luck life-long: despite exposing himself on the front lines for over twenty years, he was never wounded, injured or captured.) Through his own skill as a commander, and the bravery of his British and Sepoy troops, the Indians were defeated at every engagement. Following the successful conclusion of that campaign, he was appointed to the supreme military and political command in the Deccan. In 1804, he was created a Knight of the Bath, the first of numerous honours he received throughout his life. When his brother's term as Governor-General of India ended in 1805, the brothers returned together to England, where they were forced to defend their imperialistic (and expensive) employment of the British forces in India. India had taught him to abandon the common habit of infrequent bathing, and he is usually credited with popularising the custom of daily bathing in his own country.[citation needed] More importantly, campaigning in the arid reaches of Central India gave Wellesley thorough practice in logistics, while dealing with cautious-to-commit Indian allies taught him diplomacy. Both skills would prove invaluable in the future fighting in Portugal and Spain.

-Ravichandar 03:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this article is more that it is grossly undersourced, more than it is POV. And I'm not clear why you have chosen to focus on two distinctly innocuous little sections when there are worse examples, except that I could assume by your username you have an axe to grind with relation to the British in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agema (talk • contribs) 11:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits/improvements

Over the coming weeks I will be making significant edits to the article. Most importantly I will be adding references to the majority of the text and rewriting most sections. I will also be restructuring the article in an effort per article guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. I appreciate any help and welcome any criticisms or edits to improve my additions. Thanks. LordHarris 20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Too much personal opinions and doubtful conclusions

Especially the part about Waterloo is filled with personal remarks and judgement about effectiveness of the battle strategies, troop morale, and the leaders abilities.

It even ends with a personal opinion rating the "quality" of the battle.

Lack of citations, notably about the German historian calling this a "German battle", since Germany didnt exist at that time.

Controversy between Prussians and English after the battle concerning their respective Importance for the allied victory missing in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htews (talk • contribs) 08:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wellington/Wesley/Wellesley--Interesting?

This is just a possible suggestion of something that might be interesting.

I just read, in John Keegan's Mask of Command, about Wellington being born a Wesley, later changing to Wellesley (Keegan 103). Since Wellington lived right after John and Charles Wesley's time of activity, I wondered if they were somehow related. I have not looked into this very much, and I don't know if it is of any interest. But I did find this,Wellington's Family Name Colley from the NY Times in 1894. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.6.196 (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The changes of his surname are connected with some heritages made by his father. It is describe in all biographies about Wellington, that has been common practice in that time in England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.16.120 (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Colley is well known about, but when exactly did they change from Wesley to Wellesley? I don't see it on the article, and surely the name of a subject is important.86.42.222.164 (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC):

The date of the change from Wesley to Wellesley was May 1798.86.42.214.4 (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling and Grammar

This article is appalling in terms of spelling and grammatical errors. There are several instances of made-up words being used, such as "learnt," as well as a distinct lack and utter misuse of punctuation. While this article is highly factual and presents relevant information in a clear and logical manner, the quality of the writing is decidedly poor. I am disappointed to see such an otherwise good article in such a loathsome condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.120.207.220 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Learnt is not a made up word! It is in common usage in British English and equally equivalent to learned. The usage of each is debated, but nonetheless learnt is a 'real word'. As far as the rest of the writing is concerned please feel free to contribute and improve the punctuation yourself (rather than moan about it on the talk page). LordHarris 23:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Lord Harris. Sioraf (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How was he Irish?

Weren't the Anglo-Irish protestant ascendancy despised in Ireland?

I have amended this to Anglo-Irish. LordHarris 23:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

They were but being hating by your own(even if they're only semi your own) does not mean you are someone else.Let's flip the situation: if a Hiberno-English person is hated by the English he's still English. Sioraf (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely the Colleys were Norman-Irish and having lived there since 1172 or so meant that they were great survivors. North-west Kildare passed out of English control in 1350-1500. By the eighteenth century they had conformed to the system but many other Irish people did not. I don't think it makes them less Irish, except in a POV sense.86.42.222.164 (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Colley is not a very common surname in Ireland. On wikipedia you can find George Colley, government minister and son of an IRA veteran, and George Pomeroy Colley.86.42.214.4 (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please clearly state why any Irish with an affiliation to the British establishment are so often described as "anglo-irish". I see this terminology being used repeatedly on wiki pages. It seems that Behan's criterion of "a protestant with a horse" has been the only one applied. Although used historically, anybody with an understanding of human history in Ireland will find this term ambiguous, and now largely redundant and potentially negatively discriminatory. We do not identify the english head of state "germano-english", clearly she is english, right? So why this terminology. I propose changing the opening paragraph to "was an Irish soldier and statesman. He was one of the leading military and political figures of nineteenth century Britain". I think the remainder of the article sufficiently describes Wellington's family background/ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micielo (talk • contribs) 14:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

--- If I remember rightly. Wellington's own comment went something like this: “You’re not necessarily a horse because you were born in a stable and you’re not necessarily Irish because you were born in Ireland.” - Campolongo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campolongo (talk • contribs) 13:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Remember rightly indeed. If you care to read into the matter further old boy you will find that this comment has been attributed to Daniel O'Connell, and not Wellington. Ref: Shaw's Authenticated Report of the Irish State Trials (1844), p. 93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micielo (talk • contribs) 03:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be more complicated than just stating he was Irish because he was born in Ireland. I don't think Anglo-Irish is denying his Irish roots, it just a simple term to explain a more complex notion. Anglo-Irish describes the Protestants of English ancestry living in Ireland as a social group ascendant over the Gaelic Irish Catholics. They lived parallel lives to the Irish, in the same country but never the same culture. Historian Gordon Corrigan wrote that the Anglo-Irish 'professed attachment to an England which very largely ignored them. They considered themselves to be English expatriates surrounded by a large and potentially hostile population, as indeed they were. Unlike their Norman predecessors, they had not intermarried or been absorbed into Gaelic aristocracy'. BarretBonden (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is more complex than that. I would suggest everyone’s identity in Ireland (and elsewhere) is a lot more complex than that. However, we agree that he was Irish (the country of his and his families birth). You strive to identify his nuanced form of Irish identity. I do not think this is helpful, as this is contentious and can not be simply asserted in the opening paragraph.

So, if we have to discuss his form of Irish identity (I think dealt with quite sufficiently in the subsequent section, his protestant background etc) we need to understand that 1. Anglo-Irishness generally refers to the wave of “new-english” colonisation which occurred after the 16th century. Clearly Wellington’s ancestry pre-dates this time frame (Online: The Anglo-Irish, Fidelma Maguire, University College Cork). Indeed, the Norman invasion brought his family to Ireland along with other families such as Burke, Fitgerald, Darcy, Joyce, Barry, Clare etc., families which cannot but be declared simply Irish. 2. Since the 19th century, the term Anglo-Irish has been used in a prejudicial manner to marginalize a certain section of the Irish population (Online: The Anglo-Irish, Fidelma Maguire, University College Cork). The term is consequently contentious. 3. Finally, even for those historical figures whose ancestry does fall into the correct time frame according to Maguire, for example Charles Stuart Parnell, Isaac Butt, John Millington Synge, Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw, WB Yeats, Samuel Beckett (or was he of Huguenot!), they are clearly identified as Irish in the literature and, rather importantly in this case, Wikipedia articles. I therefore see no reason why the same standards and logic should apply and why Wellington should not be included in such outstanding company. Can you? Micielo (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Micielo (talk • contribs) 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not one to be anal about such things, but even your reply shows the problems (and contradictions) associated with this topic ie “I don't think Anglo-Irish is denying his Irish roots” and “They lived parallel lives to the Irish”. Clearly there is a problem here.

To reiterate, I think it is quite acceptable, and I would say necessary, to state that he was Irish in the opening paragraph, and then deal with the complexity of his Irishness in the more descriptive, subsequent section. Is this not reasonable? Micielo (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micielo (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would still argue that Anglo-Irish is an adequate description in this instance – someone who was born in Ireland but with strong cultural links and attachment to England. Wellesley's father was born a Colley, a family that originated in the English Midlands, and had lived in Ireland for three hundred years without a single Irish name on its pedigree. The term has gone out of use in modern Ireland, but it is useful historically and for the casual Wikipedia reader, and anyone confused by the term can click on it and get to an article describing its meaning. I don't think you can compare the examples you have given (Charles Stuart Parnell, Isaac Butt etc) with Wellington. All were born much later with different circumstances. I see no reason why this term, in Wellington's case, is negative or discriminatory to anyone. BarretBonden (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a little concerned that you have completely missed my point. The fact that Parnell’s, Synge’s, Yeats’family arrived much later was exactly my point. It means that they fall into the correct historical time frame to be identified as Anglo-Irish. Wellingtons family does not.

That the Colley family (derivatives: Collie, Caulley, Caolley, Cowley, and indeed, MacColley and de Cowley; You will find Colley and its derivatives are frequent in Ireland) may trace its origin back to the English midlands almost a millennium ago is not, by any historians point of view, a justification to be called Anglo-Irish. There can be some active debate as to whether the family can be considered Hiberno-Norman, Anglo-Norman or perhaps even Cambro-Norman (MacLysaght, 1965; Duffy 2000; Orpen, 2005) but Anglo-Irish it is not. We have to be clear about the time frames here, and the terminology we use. I am trying to do this.

So, to summarise, I am pointing out that your use of “anglo-irish” in the opening line is not only unnecessary (in the sense the term is too loaded for an initial cursory description) but, more importantly, incorrect. However, we both agree that the term I propose to change it to (Irish) is correct albeit less complex (ie it is a higher order identity). Can we not agree on this and move on to work on the subsequent section which deals with the important issue which you have identified, his more complex Irish identity. Micielo (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, to clear up any issues of ownership, it was not me who added Anglo-Irish to the article. I said nothing about Parnell’s, Synge’s (etc) family history. Also, I didn't mean the Colley's had been in Ireland since the Norman invasion – from what I have read they moved from England 300 years before, displacing native Irish landowners, and intigrating very little with Irish culture. Whilst I don't agee that Anglo-Irish should be removed, I do agree that some content should be added to replace the content recently removed concerning Wellington's sensitivity to his Irish birth.

Could Anglo-Irish be changed to British? Or perhaps: ...was an Irish-born soldier and statesman, and one of the leading military and political figures of the nineteenth century. Born to a prominent Ascendancy family, he was commissioned an ensign in the British Army in 1787. BarretBonden (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what you have written in italics above is clear and accurate and, in my opinion, acceptable. In relation to what you call his "sensitivity to his Irish birth", what exactly is this assertion based on? I am curious to know of the facts based around this apparent sensitivity. While I might disagree with what you can clearly define as "Irish culture", I do think the Colley/Wellesley genealogy section needs more references. I have read various accounts of the origin of these families in Ireland, and it is not at all definitive. Micielo (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

I think that, in order to put this into perspective, it should also be pointed out that in Victorian times Wellington was regarded as "the Greatest Irishman in History - the long-nsed b****r that beat the French". Those who persist in calling him "Anglo-Irish" are attempting a very narrow definition, which is almost certainly politically-inspired. Stanley c jenkins (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

'scum of the earth'

scum of the earth, but we made damn good guys of them. is the complete quote.

a source might be: Glover, M.: Wellington as a Military Commander.

the main reason for that might be that the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars consisted mainly of men pressed into service or crminials or privatly raised bataillions.

In constrast the French army was made up of conscripts. With professional officers.

--78.49.16.120 (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"being born in a stable does not make one a horse."

This is not a quote by the Duke of Wellington. It is a quote about him by Daniel O'Connell.[1] - Victory's Spear (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a story that every genealogist in Ireland will tell that explains it. Apparently his family teased him because his mother had said that she was not sure if he was born in Dublin at the family house (that is now the Merrion Hotel), or was born at an inn somewhere between Dangan and Dublin. Naturally his siblings repeated the idea of him being born near enough to a stable, as a tease, and this was taken up much later and twisted by people such as Daniel O'Connell who was anti-Wellington; and by anti-Irish people as well, who liked to think of Ireland as a sort of stable. His reply was made to his sibs, and the other later contexts are misplaced and hardly worth amplifying upon.86.42.208.181 (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote is included in Richard Holmes book Wellington: The Iron Duke, and Gordon Corrigan's Wellington: A Military Life but both authors claim it is uncertain whether or not he ever actually said it, and there is no reference to it in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. However, the quote appears to have a reliable citation in the article. Maybe the sentence could be reworded to: Born as a member of the Protestant Ascendancy, he was sensitive to his Irish birth and it is claimed he stated that "being born in a stable does not make one a horse."? BarretBonden (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

They can be cited (just as Mein Kampf can be cited), but his involvement in the soon-to be-abolished Irish Parliament suggests that he was not in an enormous hurry to get away from Ireland in particular, though he had already spent time in England and France. Thereafter he moved with his regiment which was not posted to Ireland. He came back to marry Kitty in 1806, and was Chief Secretary in Dublin in 1807-09, the top position in the local civil service. In a busy and much travelled career it seems that he did return often, raising the questions - what exactly did he say? to whom? when in his life? what about (was it the inn story)? how was it relayed?

Also, would it be typical and characteristic for him to criticise the country that had built a 200-foot monument to him at Dublin (still the tallest stone monument there), and with another prominent pillar in Trim? I would say not. There is room in the article to include the quote with a wide caveat. Wikipedia approves quotes from secondary sources such as you mention, but the primary source is hearsay and with a lot of uncertainty.86.42.206.90 (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that this quote is misattributed, and it's originator was Daniel O'Connell. I have therefore edited this section. If you have an issue with this change please provide a reference which attributes this quote to Wellington and pre-dates O'Connells speach of 1843 Micielo (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

New files

Recently the files below were uploaded and they appear to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think they would be a useful addition, please feel free to include any of them.

• 
• 
• 
• 

I've already replaced the lead picture by the last one, which is a higher-resolution version of it. Dcoetzee 05:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)