Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson

No real mentioning of bombardment of copenhagen

Lord Nelson is widely regarded as the man who forced neutral Denmark-Norway to side with Napoleon (in Denmark at least) by starting the battle of copenhagen and capturing the danish-norwegian navy. At the same time he also commited one of the first acknolwedge terror attacks on a capital city, in the bombardment of Copenhagen, yet the article barely mentions the battle and none of the attrocities. I consider this to be a rather important aspect of the battle. The main article about the battle should provide suffecient sources to verify what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.145.44 (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe that in Nelson's Battle of Copenhagen, in 1801, he did not actually bombard the city, just the fortresses and the floating batteries and ships moored along the waterfront. During the negotiations to establish the truce, he seems to have threatened to bombard the city but did not actually do so. It was the 1807 battle, nearly 2 years after Nelson died that the British did bombard the city and about 200 civilians died and thousand buildings were burned. Dabbler (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thereafter right up to Mers el Kebir destroying or rendering ineffective a potentially belligerent fleet was known within the Royal Navy as "doing a Copenhagen". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.6 (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

'first acknolwedged terror attacks on a capital city'. What precisely is meant by this? Why is it different to the time-honoured tradition of sacking or burning a city? LastDodo (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

File:HoratioNelson1.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:HoratioNelson1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 29, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-09-29. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, (1758–1805) was a British flag officer who served in the Royal Navy, particularly during the Napoleonic Wars. Born in Norfolk, Nelson entered the navy at age 13, and in 1778 he obtained his own command. During his career he suffered from seasickness, and by the time of the Trafalgar Campaign he had already lost his right arm and sight in an eye in battles in Santa Cruz de Tenerife and Corsica, respectively.

In 1805 he took over the Cádiz blockade, and on 21 October of that year Nelson's fleet engaged the Franco-Spanish one at the Battle of Trafalgar. The battle was a British victory, but during the action Nelson was fatally wounded by a French sharpshooter. Numerous monuments, such as Nelson's Column, have been created in his memory, and his signal "England expects that every man will do his duty" has been widely quoted, paraphrased and referenced.Painting: Lemuel Francis Abbott

Nelson's Blood

British Admiral Horatio Lord Nelson was killed off the coast of Spain on October 21st, 1805 at the Battle of Trafalgar. His body needed to be brought back to Britain for proper burial. In order to preserve his body during the long passage back, Admiral Nelson’s body was stored on the ship in a vat of rum and the crew was forbidden to drink it. When Nelson’s body was retrieved at port, the vat was discovered dry. Apparently the crew had ignored orders and had consumed all of the rum in Admiral Nelson’s vat. From that point forward, British Royal Navy rum was known as Nelson’s Blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.90.62.125 (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately several of the above statements are not true. Nelson's body was placed in a barrel of brandy not rum. Secondly, the body was still immersed in brandy when he was transferred to the coffin back in London. Dabbler (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Brandy and port was drunk by the officers and rum by the men. The officers would not have deprived the men of their rum, as they had earned it, and would more likely have sacrificed their own supplies of brandy for this purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.6 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I an a true born Nelson but French..of black decent. But claim my family white also. Thank you Wiki for your help. Bless the Lord of Lord. Wisdomismykin (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Death of Nelson painting

Why does an image of the "Death of Nelson" painting appear in this article? This painting is totally inaccurate and rather than inform readers of the article it misleads them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:CD00:7A74:B908:6A2E:519D:16A3 (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"Battles/wars" section of infobox not aligned

yo,

small issue guys, the aforementioned field does not line up properly. i experienced this issue before on Edward Routh's page, and i guess some dumb luck resulted in a fix.

are there rules for infoboxes with long lists like this? i was hoping maybe removing the bulleting or playing with the spaces would fix it. i know it's minor but it's SOOO ANNOYING, lol. it should line up!! 174.3.155.181 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson. 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/20070930014923/http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/prints/viewPrint.cfm?ID=PAH7300 to http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/prints/viewPrint.cfm?ID=PAH7300

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) 00:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Archived ref no longer shows Nelson's coat of arms and so I have deleted it as there already was another reference. Dabbler (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson. 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/20080821021212/http://www.oxonianreview.org/issues/5-1/5-1nicholls.html to http://www.oxonianreview.org/issues/5-1/5-1nicholls.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Early Naval career

The section on 'Early naval career' has a linked reference to the 'fabled North West passage' In fact they sailed NNE by Spitzbergen and were searching for the North East passage. The orders were to see if there was open water all the way to the pole, and to return if that were so. Oddly, they took whalermen as pilots, and they already knew there was impassable ice.Dean1954 (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it depends on your point of view. But I take your point, Phipps' expedition went via Spitsbergen.--Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Slavery section

I have one or two concerns about the relevance and factual accuracy of this section. It suggests, for example, that Nelson's wife was the daughter of a slave owner with £60,000 worth “stock of Negroes” and “cattle”. Frances Woolward's father may or may not have owned a slave but his money came from his position as a senior judge. Her uncle, John Herbet, was a councillor on the island and owned a large estate where she and Nelson were married. Perhaps this estate had slaves, although I don't know that for sure, and this is what is meant by "family". But in any event, what has this to do with Nelson? By all means mention his views on slavery but the rest seems somewhat undue to me. Nelson wasn't a George Washington he didn't own slaves and he didn't profit from slavery through his marriage.--Ykraps (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The book to which this is referenced is here.[[1]] On p.162 there is part of a letter to Nelson's uncle, Maurice Suckling, in which Nelson does indeed talk about Frances' uncle, who settled a debt on her behalf and must be very wealthy because he owned several plantations with "£60,000 worth stock of Negroes and cattle". So again I ask, is this relevant? Also notice the letter makes no mention of her father being a slave owner.--Ykraps (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is the letter to Simon Taylor, published in volume xi of Cobbett's Political Review, January-June 1807, columns 295-296.[[2]] I can see how someone with the obvious prejudiced and partisan views of Afua Hirsch might read more into this but I would say it takes a fair bit of WP:Synth to make the source fit the current wording. For a start, Nelson is not offering to fight in defence of the slave trade, he is offering to fight in defence of the West Indies.--Ykraps (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Unable to stimulate debate here, I have been WP:Bold and rewritten this section to reflect what has been said in WP:Reliable sources. I hope this suits everyone. Whether it deserves a level-2 heading is another question.--Ykraps (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This section seems somewhat contradictory. The first half makes him out to be as in favour of slavery as anyone that ever lived, the second half seems to suggest he has much more nuanced views. The section does not attempt to reconcile these, which would be helpful. LastDodo (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The bit after the following line feels like editorializing. "Many of Nelson's actions indicate his position on the matter of slavery, most notably: " As previously shown in the section there is evidence on both sides, nothing listed below this sentence actually proves he was anti-slavery. Either it should be stated that the list is purely the 'he was anti-slavery' evidence or the he was pro-slavery evidence like the fact he seemingly wrote a slavery-supporting letter should be included in it to make it neutral and unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firestar47 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Dying words

I have no idea where to find a reference, but I recall many years ago reading that the words "Kiss me Hardy" were actually "Kismet, Hardy.", indicating resignation to fate. ("Kismet" means "Fate".)

Does anyone know a suitable reference for this ? Darkman101 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Modern historians dismiss the kismet story as nonsense; an invention of prudish Victorians who misunderstood that kissing a dying friend was wholly in keeping with the age in which Nelson lived. Nelson's relationship with William Hamilton and wife, no doubt adding to the embarrassment. Nobody who was with Nelson at the time recorded anything other than "Kiss me" and that included William Beaty, Alexander Scott, Walter Burke and of course Thomas Hardy who, in response, kissed Nelson twice; once on the cheek and then later, on the forehead. --Ykraps (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

WIA listings needed for Nelson's list of battles?

I don't know if it's necessary but there is some inconsistency between the listings of WIAs over numerous battle articles, some featuring WIA symbols, some without. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Haydn's "Missa in Angustiis" ("Nelson Mass")

The text states "In 1797, the famous composer Haydn wrote a mass to commemorate Nelson’s stunning defeat over Napoleon and the French."

The Wikipedia entry for the "Missa in Angustiis" ("Mass for Troubled Times") indicates that it was was written before the Battle of the Nile, and its nickname the "Nelson Mass" was acquired because news of Nelson's success in the battle was reported around the time of its first performance in September 1798. If this is correct it would be inaccurate to state that it was written to commemorate Nelson's victory.

--JRAC001 (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If it does not have a source to back the claim, you can simply remove it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Name of San Fiorenzo

@Benea I am making some copyedits to the article and I noticed that the town of San Fiorenzo / Saint-Florent is referred to as "St Fiorenzo". Although this is the name used in the source (Nelson: A Dream of Glory by John Sugden), I don't think it can be considered accurate. At Siege of San Fiorenzo, a note in the lead section explains that it is most commonly referred to as such in English-language sources. Thus, I will be changing all references to "St Fiorenzo" to "San Fiorenzo", as that was the local name and (apparently) the British name of the town at the time. If you object to this, please let me know, revert the edit, and we can discuss it further here. Toadspike (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Article is inconsistent between "dé" and "de"

At the date and time I'm writing this the article is wildly inconsistent between "Santa Cruz dé Tenerife" and "Santa Cruz de Tenerife". I don't know which is correct. The articles about the battle and the town there do not seem to have any occurrences of "dé", so I suspect "de" is correct and "dé" could be vandalism.2600:8804:8C40:401:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Sir John Moutray and his wife Mary

Nelson is mentioned at John Moutray. But in his BBC4 documentary "Nelson’s Caribbean Hell-Hole" here, historian Sam Willis suggests that Nelson was besotted with Moutray's wife Mary. There is more here. Nelson's time stationed at English Harbour in Antigua probably deserves more coverage. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Minor edit needed: Two sentences are combined, with subject and verb missing in a clause.

Unclear sentence:

"He fought in several minor engagements off Toulon and was important in the capture of Corsica, where he was wounded and partially lost sight in one eye, and subsequent diplomatic duties with the Italian states."

The second clause either should be removed or someone with knowledge of the history should properly complete: "and subsequent diplomatic duties with the Italian states." Eltamarindo (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Blake

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - re your removal of a See also link. Robert Blake was as famous in his day as was Nelson in his, and like Nelson, remains so today. Blake served under and was admired by Oliver Cromwell as an Admiral and General during the English Civil War in many major campaigns. He was the General at Sea during the First Anglo-Dutch war. For his service he was thanked by the Parliament who appointed him Council of State. After he died, of battle wounds, he laid in state in the Queen's House, Greenwich and then received a memorial parade attended by Cromwell and many state officials, after which he received a state funeral and was buried at Westminster Abbey. There is a monument in his honour and also a plaque in his honor at Westminster Abby. There are coins and stamps minted in his honour. There were several British ships named in Blake's honour. To say Blake was and is "nationally acclaimed" is not at all some subjective opinion any more than it would be to say so about Nelson, who once said "I do not reckon myself equal to Blake". Please see Robert Blake (admiral)#Final days and legacy, and the many works written about Blake if you doubt any of this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Links in the WP:See also section should be relevant and just being a famous admiral is not relevant enough in my opinion. Why Blake and not Hawke, Boscawen, Hood, Jervis, Pellew etc? --Ykraps (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you have to justify reason for inclusion better; also see see also. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The see also section is for "related or comparable articles". The three extant see also links for Nelson are all clearly and directly related to him and/or his career. If we're going to add every British admiral (or why stop at only the British?) who's been compared to Nelson then we're going to need a bigger article. To add to Ykraps' list, why are we not also adding Drake, Rooke, Collingwood, Grenville, Beatty, Russell, Cunningham, Howe, Duncan, Rodney, Monck, Smith, Benbow, Cochrane, Keppel, Codrington, Hawkins, or Saumarez? A brief quote from Nelson from one letter is not, in my opinion, enough to allow Blake the honour of being the only admiral listed as being comparable with Nelson. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:SEE ALSO also says: MOS:ALSO — Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category.
Blake was not just another British Admiral. Blake is relevant as he was a very famous British Admiral in the same capacity that Nelson was. ( 1, 2 )  While "tangentially related" topics are allowed, Blake is at least that, and more, given the extensive history he was involved in. They share a "defining category" as they are both very famous and top British Admirals who died at sea in the service of their Kings. That Nelson, albeit in one letter (that I know of off hand), compared himself to Blake also says much. Nelson didn't mention Admirals Monck, Drake, etc, it was Blake. There are many dedicated works on Blake, while virtually all the others are only mentioned in context in those works. Unlike the other admirals, both Blake and Nelson where honoured with large parades, or funeral processions that received national attention, and have monuments or statues erected in their honour - the others do not. No one wants to include 'just another British admiral' here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Having read the very interesting and well formed viewpoints my "editorial judgment" is that Blake is best not added to see also Lyndaship (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Not seeing any viable or pressing reason why Blake should not be included, while there are a number of reasons why he should -- it's only a See Also link, btw. Having said that, we must abide by consensus. Thanks for the feed back everyone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

To be clear on my view about adding Blake - no. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is "Viscount Nelson (of ... and all that stuff)" missing from the succession-boxes of Peerages at the article's end?

I can't find anything in this article that says he wasn't really created a Viscount. In articles on other nobles, one can find such titles listed, with "new title" as the "predecessor", and "extinct" as the "successor". Why wouldn't this be done in Nelson's case? The omission sticks out like a sore thumb, since I came to this article by typing "Viscount Nelson" in the search-slot, and I'm sure many people come to this article the same way.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Requested move 18 July 2024

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

The result of the move request was: not moved to Lord Nelson. A new discussion may be formed to determine whether the page should be moved to Horatio Nelson. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson → Lord Nelson – WP:NCPEER states that "When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known", there is no need to use the full title. The 1st Viscount seems to be the most well-known Lord Nelson. This is also in line with the way articles on several other peers are titled, including Lord Kelvin, Lord and Lady Byron, and Lord Mountbatten. Векочел (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject London, and WikiProject Military history have been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage and GLAM/MON have been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support Horatio Nelson per Britannica. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Support Horatio Nelson per @Crouch, Swale. He's also known as Admiral Nelson, I don't think these aristocratic shorthands are good for recognizability in most cases, this being one such case. Killuminator (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. That part of WP:NCPEER is resulting in some questionable article titles, and I think it needs to be subjected to some scrutiny (probably in an RfC) before any more RMs like this are made. The only examples it gives are Lord Byron and Alfred, Lord Tennyson – hardly typical peers as they were literary figures. Let's avoid the kind of mess article titles for European monarchs have got into, where a WP:CONSISTENT system has been ditched in favour of interminable RMs. Ham II (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support Horatio Nelson It's both common and consistent with the article on his wife, Frances Nelson. Keivan.f^Talk 22:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCPEER. This is getting ridiculous. These proposals are unencyclopaedic and cheapen Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Ham II and Necrothesp, and it seems to me that the recent move to Lord Mountbatten did not get much in the way of consensus at all. —Simon Harley (Talk). 10:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, this should probably be appealed. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't know what an RfC regarding NCPEER would really achieve, as seems to me that it is only by the exceptions it allows for, that avoids it regularly running into direct conflict with COMMONNAME and other overriding policies for determining article titles. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose With the examples of Lord Byron and Lord Mountbatten, that is what they are overwhelmingly known by. I doubt most people could tell you what their first names were. That is not the case for Nelson, who I think is just as much, if not more, know as "Horatio Nelson" or "Admiral Nelson" than "Lord Nelson". Would not be opposed to a change to "Horatio Nelson" but equally don't think it would make much difference. I echo the words of Ham II, that this part of NCPEER needs reworking in a much more careful manner. It appears to me that the intention was to say that a peer who is easily the best known of their lineage can have a shortened title based on what they are most commonly known as, e.g. "Alfred, Lord Tennyson". What this seems to be being taken as is that the most well-known should be changed to "Lord XXX", based on the examples NCPEER provides which I think are incidental rather than intended precedent. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: 'overwhelmingly' is key and no attempt has been made at proving this. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I have been thinking a lot about why this nomination is not just wrong but is utterly misconceived. WP:NCPEER is correctly quoted as saying that "When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known" the article should be given this title. This guideline is itself inappropriate because whoever wrote it tripped over their logical bootlaces. An example: of all the people called "Lord Prescott", John Prescott is overwhelmingly the best known (he is so far as I know the only Lord Prescott). Should we move the title of this article? No, the consideration should be: of all the names by which this person (peer) is known, by which name, if any, are they overwhelmingly best known? And the answer is John Prescott. Turning to Nelson I dare say he is the best known "Lord Nelson" (maybe not overwhelmingly so) but he is also the best known Horatio Nelson, Nelson and Admiral Nelson. So we need to chose a good article title and not be constrained by ancient, slipshod, guidelines. I think Nelson is best known as simply "Nelson" but this would be a very bad title. Thincat (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Extremely confusing title. Per list-article Earl Nelson, we have biographical articles on 10 Earls Nelson, and 1 Viscount Nelson, and they are all members of the same family. So we have 11 Lords Nelson. Dimadick (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, as Horatio Nelson is better known by both his actual name and "Admiral Nelson" than by "Lord Nelson", and just Horatio Nelson would be fine if there was support for it. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2024 (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.

"fatally wounded by a French sharpshooter"

This is how the lead describes his death, however this is unsourced; "sharpshooter" is a distinct type of unit used in military studies of the era, whereas the body only identifies the gunman as a musketman, and the term 'sharpshooter' is not mentioned whatsoever on the article for Battle of Trafalgar. Orchastrattor (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The rationale in the edit (by Benea) that included this word was "sharpshooter is the better term here, these were not snipers in the modern sense, but regular French naval infantry sent into the fighting tops". Definitely an improvement on sniper, but I agree suggests a proficiency and specialisation that the sources do not back. The ODNB used to cite his death only notes "was hit by a musket-ball fired from the mizzen-top of the French Redoubtable alongside". I have changed the lede to more accurately reflect the source. I note that Hibbert does mention sharpshooters, but only in a more general sense. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The main question for me was how likely it was that the Frenchman responsible was specifically aiming for Nelson, as would be implied by either sense of the term; trying to eliminate an enemy commanding officer with small arms would be a very bold and distinctive strategy for the naval combat of the era, so I got very suspicious when looking up "naval sharpshooter" didn't seem to bring up anything relevant. Many of the casualties in these situations would come from strays, which is what the source you highlighted would lead me to believe happened to Nelson.

"A musket-ball fired from..." feels too wordy for the lead. I would recommend "fatally wounded by musket fire from the French Redoubtable", feels more in line with how more general events are described in military history. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Your alternative doesn't shorten the sentence by much, but does open up the suggestion that Nelson was hit by more than one musket ball. Whether someone was aiming specifically for Nelson, and whether Nelson was wearing a more distinctive uniform than usual, is a much-debated topic and one that goes far deeper than "sharpshooter or not". I think the article now reflects the sources in a more appropriate manner, but let me know if you have any further suggestions. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe just "musket shot" then? Describing the type of ammunition feels too technical for the lead. Orchastrattor (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Orchastrattor: To answer your question; very likely indeed. It was extremely common to have specalist sharpshooters in the rigging to deliberately target the officers. The plaque on the quarterdeck of Victory, which records where Nelson fell, specifically uses the term sharpshooter and the man [sometimes] credited with shooting Nelson (whose name escapes me for the moment) claimed to have deliberately picked out Nelson. It is well documented that many of Nelson's officers tried to dissuade him from wearing anything that marked him out, for this very reason. Searching Google Books for "fighting tops sharpshooters" brings up several examples of the term including: "...he [not Nelson] was wearing epaulettes which marked him out to enemy sharpshooters in the tops" (Nelson’s Band of Brothers p.123) and "...sharpshooters in Redoubtable’s fighting tops..." (Napoleonic Britain: A Guide to Fortresses, Statues and Memorials of the French Wars 1792-1815 p.101). --Ykraps (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 5 September 2024

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Simplexity22 (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson → Horatio Nelson – Per Britannica and WP:CONCISE there doesn't seem a need for the "1st Viscount Nelson" like Anthony Eden per WP:OBE given he's primary for this term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. reading beans 01:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCPEER (which is the same as WP:OBE). He was made a viscount in 1801 but his naval career continued until his death in 1805, so the "only received a title after they retired" exception to point 1 of WP:NCPEER which covers Eden doesn't apply. According to ngrams, references to "Lord Nelson" outnumber ones to "Horatio Nelson", and he's the primary topic for both forms of the name – so he's more often referred to as having a peerage, which is not the case for Anthony Eden. Ham II (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Ham II. —Simon Harley (Talk). 07:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Ham II. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. That ngrams chart shows how small the number of searches there are for "Viscount Nelson"? And I guess no-one ever searches for "Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson". Also Anthony Eden (OBE) a very different historical figure to Nelson, although the exception rule probably applies equally to many others? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, you're thinking of Google Trends. The Google Books Ngram Viewer counts occurrences in a corpus of printed sources. NebY (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I was simply commenting on the link provided by Ham II, thanks. But I think my comment on Eden still stands. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject London, WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, GLAM/MON, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Biography have been notified of this discussion. reading beans 01:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment That ngram is a little puzzling. The American English one[3] has Horatio Nelson rising fast to equal Lord Nelson and the British English one[4] shows the prevalence of Lord falling fast, but the English one[5] (as linked above) shows a steady gap. Are they good indicators or are we looking at, say, artefacts of small numbers? NebY (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment If the vicountcy died with Nelson, should he be called the 1st Viscount? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Support - Per nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 01:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Completely unnecessary. Best to stick with WP:CONSISTENT for peers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom

Kowal2701 (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. He's often known as "Lord Nelson" as a commonname but we drop vague honorifics like "Lord", so "Horatio Nelson" is the best option - he's not called "Viscount" very often at all for reasons discussed. And while Nelson was active after getting his peerage, it wasn't for all that long. SnowFire (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  When someone is a British peer (i.e., a lord, if male) we apply the style outlined in the first point of WP:NCPEER unless the exceptions there are met, regardless of whether the exact formulation that results – in this case, Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson – is the most commonly used form of the name. Nelson doesn't meet the "Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names" exception because instances of "Lord Nelson" outnumber those of "Horatio Nelson", and both those forms most often refer to him, not to someone else. Ham II (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not directly relevant to the issue at hand but I disagree with "while Nelson was active after getting his peerage, it wasn't for all that long", in that while for length of time this is true, the period of 1801 to 1805 was also that in which Nelson was at his most successful and highest fame. Prior to his peerages he was a household name within the navy but hardly of national importance. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ham II and Necrothesp. If we must simplify it, which I also disagree with, Lord Nelson is preferable, similar to Lord Byron and Lord Mountbatten. Walco1 (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ham II and Necrothesp - this article does not in my opinion fall under any of the stipulations in NCPEER. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2024 (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.