Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
Former featured article Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 2, 2004.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.
This article is supported by the Military work group.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] seasickness common

the author states that it is "ironic" that nelson suffered from seasickness. That's not at all ironic to anyone who knows about sailing. It's just a fact, as much as is his height or the number of letters in his name. No amount of experience at sea over the years cures seasickness, although just a few days at sea gives one "sealegs" that prevent seasickness for the rest of the voyage. Let's drop the highly subjective, uninformative, and IMO wrong, word "ironically".

[edit] older entries

What was disgraceful about the way he conducted the Neapolitan campaign? 207.189.98.44

Was he preserved in brandy, or rum?207.189.98.44 18:43, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Going from this (Admiral), wasn't Nelson as a Rear Admiral of the Blue the Ninth-highest ranking officer in the Royal Navy, not the Sixth? Would've eventually reached it - he was Fifth, a Vice Admiral of the White, when he died, if memory serves.

Excellent work thus far, imho. Wally 22:00, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Painting of Nelson

I did a minor change to the first image shown when the article is open. The previous one shown Nelson as though he looked "lost" (I'm sure it may have been a derogatory image during that time). The new image is a painting made during Nelson's lifetime, while wearing the insignia of a vice-admiral, and sporting a badge of honor on his hat given to him by the Turkish sultan.Carajou 04:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This painting is by Lemuel Francis Abbott and is in the National Maritime Museum, http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conMediaFile.2365/outputRegister/lowhtml. Shouldn't the artist be identified? It could possibly be a copy, as Abbott himself made several copies and others might have done so too. But there's little doubt about the author of the original. Daisy2 14:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've added the artist's name to the main article, "Early Life" section. I hope someone who knows how to do it will move it to its proper place in the box. Daisy2 14:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on the derogatory nature of 19th Century British Politics

"Lord Nelson has a vote." "No, Lord Nelson has a boat, Baldrick. He has a boat."

[edit] rank

This question was asked before, but not answered: the article says Rear Admiral of the Blue was the sixth highest rank, Rear Admiral of the Red the fifth highest and Vice Admiral of the Blue the fourth highest. This is at odds with the article Admiral, which says they are ninth, seventh and sixth respectively. Which is correct? A few minutes' googling suggest that the Admiral article is correct. Also, there is no mention of when he became Vice Admiral of the White, his highest rank. --Auximines 08:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agree - corrected and added. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:00, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] eyepatch

his left eye suffered from the additional burden, and Nelson was slowly going blind up until his death; he would often wear a patch over his good eye to protect it.

While a lovely anecdote, this seems dubious. The idea of an eye going blind from overuse is now wholly discredited, so "suffered from the additional burden", while perhaps a historical belief, is not strong enough for a Wikipedia claim. Nelson may have worn a patch to protect his good eye simply because he only had one left (though this would seem scant protection in war, and rather inconvenient). In fact the idea that he ever wore a patch at all (let alone over the left eye) is disputed. Unless a source can be found for this claim, it should probably go.

  • I believe he wore a shade, not a patch, over his 'good' eye. Paul Tracy

Nelson had lost his eye before the Nile. 68.23.224.34 17:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Nelson ever wore an eye patch, though there is pretty conclusive evidence of the shade. The records of James Lock & Co (Nelson's hatter) indicate a green eye shade sewn into his undress hat. Several replicas of the hat exist, complete with eye shade. It was not to protect the eye from flying objects, but rather from glare and sunlight. For more information see Cliff, Kenneth. Mr Lock: Hatter to Lord Nelson and his Norfolk neighbors, Wendy Webb Books, Norwich, England, 2000.Bshipp 15:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There's another great "blind eye" story told by many early biographers but now generally accepted as apocryphal. Admiral Hyde Parker, in overall command of the Copenhagen campaign, signalled the fleet to withdraw. Nelson is reported to have raised his telescope to his blind eye, declaring "I have a right to be blind sometimes." (Southey) Modern biographers generally acknowledge that Nelson intentionally ignored Parker's signal, but regard the comment as a later addition to the story. Bshipp 15:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last words

What is the thinking on Nelson's last words? Were they Kiss me Hardy, Kismet Hardy or Thank God I have done my duty? adamsan 18:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looks like we now have something on this, but not really enough. Why Nelson would want to be kissed by Hardy surely requires some explaining. (I have no idea; I had thought it was kismet but am happy to be proved wrong). PeteVerdon
Nelson's last words were "Thank God, I have done my duty". This is clearly indicated in Beatty's account of Nelson's death. The word kismet did not enter the English language until much later. --JW1805 9 July 2005 02:09 (UTC)
However as Nelson was in Marmais before the Battle of Abukir in 1798 perhaps he learned of "kismet" while he was there, as a Turkish word. The OED has the earliest use of the word in English as 1849, but this is only the earliest recorded use of the word. Perhaps Nelson was the first Englisman to use the word, in 1805. Of course Hardy had never heard the word kismet before and assumed he had said "kiss me". We can only speculate what Nelson thought when Hardy kissed him.
I think this falls under Wikipedia:No original research unless you can provide a verifiable source for the above suggestion. Dabbler 16:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
If it is only a rumour that Nelson said kismet does anyone know the earliest reference to it?
Removed the addition saying that it is "generally accepted" that his last words were "drink, rub, fan, etc.". If there is a source saying that these were his last words (that is as authoritive as Beatty's), it needs to be provided. Beatty's account clearly says "Thank God, I have done my duty.". --JW1805 17:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
How about this reference from the Nelson Society website http://www.nelson-society.org.uk/html/body_battle_of_trafalgar.htm "There was another pause, then Nelson said, "Don't throw me overboard, Hardy." "Oh, no, certainly not." "Then you know what to do?" Nelson went on. "Take care of my dear Lady Hamilton, Hardy, take care of poor Lady Hamilton." Then he said faintly, "Kiss me, Hardy."' Hardy knelt and kissed his cheek. "Now I am satisfied," said Nelson. "Thank God I have done my duty." Captain Hardy stood, stooped and silent, for a moment, then knelt again and kissed Nelson's forehead. "Who is that?" he asked. "It is Hardy." "God bless you, Hardy." Nelson now asked his steward, Chevalier, to turn him on to his right side. This may have eased the pain but it hastened the onset of death for the blood that had flooded the left lung, now began to drain into the right. "I wish I had not left the deck," he said, "for I shall soon be gone." His breathing became slow and shallow, his voice weaker and he whispered to his chaplain, "Doctor, I have not been a great sinner". Then, "Remember that I leave Lady Hamilton and my daughter Horatia as a legacy to my country... never forget Horatia." His distress increased with heat, thirst and pain which could be eased by Scott rubbing his chest. "Thank God I have done my duty," he was heard to mutter: "Drink, drink. Fan, fan. Rub, rub ... " Then he became speechless. The chaplain and the purser were supporting his shoulders and his steward knelt at his side, none speaking. Then Chevalier called Dr. Beatty and the surgeon took Nelson's wrist: it was cold and he could feel no pulse. At this, Nelson opened his eyes, looked up and closed them again. The chaplain continued to rub his chest, while the purser held his shoulders until, at half-past four, the steward called the surgeon again. He confirmed what they already knew: Nelson was dead." The words are from historian Tom Pocock's book "Horatio Nelson", pages 322 to 333. Dabbler 18:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but Pocock is not a primary source. In fact, this account is actually from Beatty. Beatty does say Nelson said "drink drink, fan fan, rub rub", but then clearly says: "[he] pronounced distinctly these last words: 'Thank God, I have done my duty;" and this great sentiment he continued to repeat as long as he was able to give it utterance." That's pretty definitive, I think. --JW1805 19:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Eye witnesses, or in this case ear witnesses, are notoriously less reliable than the aggregation of a number of sources of information (See the famous picture of the death of Nelson which is completely out of scale). Beatty, as was clear in both his own and Pocock's book, was not actually listening to Nelson all the time he lay dying. He was quite properly dealing with the many other, less exalted, wounded. Pocock quotes the additional testimony of those, his chaplain and his steward, who did spend their time with Nelson as he lay dying and eased his passing. Beatty seems correct in reporting Nelson's words, in as far as he heard them, but did he hear all of them? I am afraid I can't tell you what Pocock's sources, apart from Beatty, were as I don't have a copy of his book to see his references, but he is a well known, respected and reliable historian and would be unlikely to make up details like that about an incident which has been so critically examined over the years and with such a well known source as Beatty available. This site mentions that the written testimony of Scott, the chaplain and Burke, the purser are available, so possibly that is what Pocock used in his reconstruction. http://www.seabritain2005.com/server.php?show=nav.004018008002&chooseLetter=K Dabbler 21:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
We need to locate Burke and Scott's written accounts, so we can precisely explain any discrepencies. My understanding was that Beatty wrote his account based partially on what they told him (I agree, Beatty had a lot to do at the time and wasn't with Nelson at the moment of death). That's why I stipulated "according to Beatty" in the current text. Maybe we should expand this section a bit, to provide more detail about who was there, what they recalled, etc. I just want to make sure everything is backed up with authoritative sources. --JW1805 21:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson's Number

Why does the number 111 have an affiliation with Nelson? --Plattopus 20:20, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Cricketers call a score of 111 a Nelson, because supposedly he had one arm, one eye and one leg/testicle depending on the source. It's an unlucky score to have [1] adamsan 22:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I knew it was an unlucky number in cricket becuase it resembles a wicket without bails, but was unaware of why it was named after Nelson. Thanks for the enlightenment! --Plattopus 11:57, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

111 was known as nelson's number in cricket because, Nelson during the war of waterloo was left with one eye, one arm and one leg.

Narendra

Nelson died in 1805. The Battle of Waterloo was in 1815.

The tradition account of why 111 is called a 'Nelson' is a reference to "One arm, one eye, one arsehole". Agemegos 23:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move to "Horatio Nelson"

Why isn't this article at Horatio Nelson, where (in my not so humble opinion) it belongs? That's the man's name. "1st" isn't even a word; if we must include one of his many titles, at least write out "First"! Surely nobody has suggested a page move to Vice Admiral of the White The Right Honourable Horatio, Viscount Nelson, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath; the reason is that titles, and even middle names and initials, are elided when the figure is best known by another name. See for instance Otto von Bismarck. In fact, even Sir Walter Scott is listed in Wikipedia as plain old Walter Scott! Can anybody suggest a reason to keep this article at Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, or should it be moved to Horatio Nelson? --Quuxplusone 15:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I vote Move. --Quuxplusone 15:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote Move. NoAccount 01:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

On second glance, I see I may have missed out on this battle. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and User talk:Proteus have some discussion, and there's plenty of less-organized discussion on every single wrongly (IMO) named article's talk page: Talk:Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson (Alfred, Lord Tennyson); Talk:Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay (Thomas Macaulay); etc. Still, my vote is that the peerage titles are inappropriate. --Quuxplusone 15:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage, and its talk pages (and the archives thereof). Proteus (Talk) 16:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I absolutely oppose the move. The peerage titles are used for good reason. As to the Sir Walter Scott stuff, wikipedia policy is not to use Sir for good reason, but to use full peerage titles. BTW The Right Honourable is not a title, it is a style, and styles are not used in article titles. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 21:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
What good reason? Everybody knows who Horatio Nelson is. How many people do you suppose type in the 1st viscount bit? That isn't even his full title, of course. NoAccount
  • Oppose move, on the grounds of consistency and established policy. sjorford →•← 08:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I oppose the move. As long as the page Horatio Nelson exists and redirects there is nothing wrong with the page being named as it is. If one day another famous Horatio Nelson came about then wikipedia will already be ready for the new persons page. Borb 09:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose the move. Redirect from Horatio Nelson is fine and its more accurate. Dabbler 15:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Opppose. Redirects are your friend. –Hajor 15:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 19:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Nelson Touch

According to these pages at the BBC and a nautical bookshop, the phrase "the Nelson Touch" refers specifically to the tactics employed by Nelson at the battle of Trafalgar, rather than Nelson's charisma as stated in the Legacy section of the Wikipedia article.

[2] [3]

Another page at the Nevis Historical and Conservation Society is somewhat inconsistent and supports both points of view:

'The "Nelson Touch" went beyond military plans and became the phrase used to refer to the ability of one man to touch the lives of many and command an almost unwavering loyalty. [...] The combined effort of the France [sic] and Spain was not enough to overcome Nelson's battle plan, since dubbed the "Nelson Touch".'

[4]

Finally, this page from the Claremont Institute, and seemingly the most learned, supports neither point of view. Instead it takes the phrase to refer to Nelson's tactics in general:

'But what of the actual tactics that led Nelson to victory in all of his great engagements [...] Although he gives these key battles and others their due, he never really steps back to analyze comprehensively what would come to be known as the "Nelson touch."'

[5]

Importantly, none of these pages unambiguously support the claim made by the current Wikipedia article.

0113 25-6-2005 UTC

There's an interesting discussion of Nelson's leadership style in "Legacy of Leadership:Lessons from Admiral Lord Nelson" by Joseph Callo (Hellgate Press, 1999) Bshipp 16:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promotion in the 18h century Navy

It might be useful to point out at some point in the article that promotion above the rank of Captain in the 18th century navy did not depend on merit, but on seniority. Of course, a Captain promoted to Admiral on seniority might not be employed - a fictious "Yellow" squadron was used for that purpose - but the promotion that Nelson enjoyed was dependent on the death of those more senior.

Actually it was not only death that caused you to become an Admiral. There were cases where the Admiralty promoted a group of captains to reach the one man they really wanted, the others were "yellowed" or not given apointments. However, Nelson became a post captain at such a young age that his promotion at such a young age was not very surprising. Dabbler 00:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
True, but I understand this was rarely used as it removed potentially employable Captains from the pool of talent available - a "Yellowed " Admiral could not be employed at all. However, you are correct that it was done on occasion --PCooper 15:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Nelson's conduct during the Neapolitan campaign

To answer the reader's question, there are several criticisms of Nelson's actions during the Neopolitan campaign. In general, he is accused of excessive devotion, to the point of poor judgement, in the support of the monarchy. As Roger Knight says in his 2005 biography, "Nelson would now go to the other extreme and embrace [the Admiralty's] 'Principle Objectives' of 'cordial and unlimited protection' to Naples to an extent that went beyond the bounds of reason." (Knight, page 311)

Perhaps one of the most glaring examples of Nelson's conduct in this regard has to do with the capitulation of the remaining revolutionary garrison in Napes. Negotiated by Cardinal Ruffo and accepted by Captain Foote of the Sea-Horse, the surrender was under "condition that their persons and property should be guaranteed, and that they should, at their own option, either be sent to Toulon or remain at Naples, without being molested either in their persons or families." (Southey) Nelson repudiated the terms of the surrender, and ordered the court-martial of Francesco Caraccioli, one of the revolutionary leaders. He was tried and executed the same day.

Bshipp 02:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken image link

"Nelson is shot on the quarter deck of Victory" is a blank box. Can anyone fix it?

Tyrenius 07:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Literary Influences

I don't agree with the first sentence. I'm not overly familiar with Aubrey, but both Hornblower and Harrington are most likely inspired by Nelson. For example, the former gets seasick, while the latter loses both an eye and an arm, hardly coincidental. Both have little "influence at court" and manage to get promoted by sheer merit. Unsigned comment: 72.60.20.24 10:31, 25 February 2006

I don't know much about Honor Harrington but Hornblower owes a lot more to Lord Cochrane and, perhaps, Edward Pellew than Nelson. All that he has in common with nelson is sea sickness and infidelity. Many episodes from Hornblower's career can be directly related to Cochrane's exploits. Dabbler 15:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Nelson's early promotions were most definitely not due to "sheer merit." There is ample evidence of patronage, though not at court. His uncle, Maurice Suckling, was appointed Comptroller of the Navy Board in 1775. This was a very powerful position, from which Suckling definitely helped advance Nelson's career. In fact, when Nelson sat for his Lieutenant's exam in 1777, his uncle was one of the three examining captains. His brother William later claimed that Suckling, ignoring the time-honored practice of patronage did not acknowledge to his fellow examiners that Horatio was his nephew. But as biographer John Sugden points out, WIlliam's account makes no sense. It would have been well known that Nelson was Suckling's nephew. (Sugden, 109)

It was after a series of unfortunate incidents involving Prince William Henry (later William IV) that turned Royal favor against Nelson. William Henry was out of favor with his father, George III, and also with the Admiralty. Nelson allowed his subserviance to the royal personage to affect his judgement in several matters regarding William, to the detrminent of his reputation with the King. Bshipp 01:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] is it the hitcnbroke?

Question: the article states that Nelson's first command was the hitcnbrooke, at 1779. then it says, that Nelson was given the command of a ship by the same name in 1784. Could it be that he returned to same ship? was it possible, with his growing seniority? other sites mention the Boreas as his next command. Zkip 11:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Oops! You're right -- he assumed command of Boreas in '84. I double-checked Southey to make sure. Good catch! Fix made. Bshipp 19:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it HMS Hinchinbroke or HMS Hinchingbrooke? The Earl of Sandwich holds the title of Viscount Hinchingbrooke. Google search favors a Hinchingbrooke spelling. I would confirm which is correct, but suddenly I'm hungry for a sandwich. --Jreferee 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Pollard (1787-1868)

Not sure if Pollard is sutiable for inclusion somewhere in the article, so I will leave it up to you to decide. It is claimed that he killed the Frenchman who shot Nelson. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jealousy of Wellington

The line "Nelson felt throughout his life that his accomplishments were not fully rewarded by the British government, a fact he ascribed to his humble birth and lack of political connections as compared to Sir John Jervis or The Duke of Wellington)." is at least very misleading in context. At the date of Nelson's death the future Duke of Wellington was a mere KB and unemployed Sepoy general. Wellington did not get a peerage until 4 September 1809.

On the one occasion on which they are known to have met (in a waiting-room off Castlereagh's office in Downing Street) in 1805, Lord Nelson, far from resenting Sir Arthur Wellesley, does not appear to have known who he was even by name. And there was precious little time after that for Nelson to discover a envy.

Then be bold and edit. Remove Wellington by all means. Though perhaps it would be bettr to reword things to make it clear that it is posterity not Nelson who feels, correctly, that Wellington's noble birth helped him along in a way that Nelson's didnt. Alci12 23:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson in searchbox

If you type Nelson into the wikipedia searchbox, it is quite a struggle to find a link that takes you to this Nelson amongst all the clutter of disambiguations. (Even worse for a schoolchild who may not know they are looking for Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson). Any ideas for improvement?... --mervyn 12:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I now see this was earlier slightly improved.mervyn 12:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in my schooling, he's always been called Lord Nelson, which redirects here. For the Nelson page I moved his name up higher so people will see him quicker. Hbdragon88 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully now improved further.--mervyn 16:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titles on Coffin

"Nelson's titles, as inscribed on his coffin, were Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk"

Can someone verify this exact wording - not the details. As a quick google around found a representation of his coffin, indirectly via the maritime museum, which doesn't match this entry. Alci12 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have amended it to the version I belive is 'correct' as per the coffin. Alci12 15:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, you got smoked cheese?

Nyoro~n :3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.39.25 (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Are you people mad?

Why on earth does 'Nelson' not automatically direct to this page?!

Instead you get a load of crap about various people with the name!

Absurd. Fix it.Iamlondon 05:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, ethnocentric. I know for a fact that when I think of "Nelson," I think of Nelson Rockefeller, definitely not the British admiral. i also think of Nelson Munts, the Simpsons character. In either case, "Nelson" by himself does not overwhelmingly refer to the British admiral, and therefore it is a disambiguation page. Hbdragon88 04:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The test is global not country-specific. I'm willing to bet that if you say "Nelson" in every country in the world much more than half will think of Horatio, and probably over 95% will in the (British) Commonwealth (nearly a quarter of the world's population). Anyway, since when do redirects have to make any sense......it's usually fanboys that decide and control them vigorously. -- 86.17.211.191 11:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest Naval Hero

At the top of the article, one individual changed the wording from "greatest" to "one of the greatest" naval heroes in Great Britain. He further stated that he was no better than Sir Francis Drake. I beg to differ. Nelson won every naval engagement that he was in, and at Trafalgar he stopped a combined French/Spanish invasion fleet...yes, invasion fleet. Just what was going to be done with that invasion fleet? Nelson quite literally saved Great Britain from speaking French in the early 19th Century. That constitutes "greatest naval hero" as far as I'm concerned! Carajou 22:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

what happened to Nelson's Barrel

Agree entirely with Carajou. No Englishman worth his salt would consider Nelson anything less than our greatest naval hero. Christ, he is just about tied with Churchill as our greatest hero - period! Winnie just pips it though. ;o) -- 86.17.211.191 11:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wrestling move

In the article Nelson_hold, the wrestling moves full nelson, half nelson, etc. are mentioned as dedicated to Horatio Nelson's military strategy. This is based on a sole reference. Are there additional references to this and, if so, should this be included in the present article? Purplemouse 11:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson Chequer

Anyone know of a good reason the Nelson Chequer isn't mentioned here? While a small thing, deserving of no more than a line or two, the man did change the colour-scheme of every vessel in the Royal Navy. Pausing ere I add,Czrisher 23:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admiral Nelson: The Rum

I came to this page looking for the brand of Rum, it is a cheaper rum availible in OH and PA for sure, probably elsewhere...anybody know how to do a disambiguation page? 03:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this page is regarded as the most common and most searched for. As such i think a disambig page is not neccessary. There is a Nelson page where you could add it. There isn't a page yet created for Admiral Nelson Rum. We could think about linking to a disambig page at the top if you create the article. Nelson currently goes to the Nelson page, not here. Thanks Woodym555 10:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ignoring Parker's order to retreat at Copenhagen

In the Admiralty section, Nelson is described as ignoring the signal of Parker to retreat at the Battle of Copenhagen. The article goes on to add that his 'action was approved in retrospect'. However, the Battle of Copenhagen article depicts the events differently. It asserts, with reference to Pocock, that Parker made the signal in the knowledge that Nelson might disregard it. It adds that it was given to allow Nelson to have the option of retreating if he so wished, since for Nelson to do so without an order appears to have been a breach of military law.

Although these alternatives are not necessarily contradictory, each gives a different slant on Parker's competence. It looks to me as if the description in the Battle of Copenhagen article might be closer to the truth; would anyone agree that an alteration of this article would be fitting? WingedPig 20:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I would support adding the statement, it is properly sourced and does not contradict what is already stated here, it does provide motive for Parker's order. Dabbler 13:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, remember to bring the references across at the same time. Woodym555 14:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Changed. WingedPig 22:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage to Frances Nisbet

I'm no Nelson scholar, so I wouldn't know how to go about correcting it, but there's an inconsistency surrounding this in the article. In the Early life section is implies that he met Nisbet in 1777 after being assigned to the West Indies as a Lieutenant. In the next section it states that he met her circa 1784 while in command of the Boreas. Perhaps someone with access to a decent biography can clear this up for us? --Zytsef 04:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

He met Fanny Nisbet in 1785, marrying her in 1787. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.6.46 (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] More on Hardy and reference

The article just noted "Lieutenant Hardy," (reference #11) so I tracked down more, but I'm afraid I didn't enter it correctly. Thanks.Dale662 (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thankyou for the reference. I have used the {{cite web}} template to fully enter all the information. You could also use bare external links such as [http... Weblink] though there are many ways of citing sources. Thanks again and if you ever need any help just ask on my talk page. Woody (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vain Nelson

nothing about nelson's character??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someguyyy (talk • contribs) 12:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article again?

I'm no expert on this subject, but I see that the article was previously a FA. What do you think the chances are of getting it up to FA status again? It would be nice to get it to FA status in time for it to be featured on the main page for the 250th anniversary of his birth in September. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 17:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)