Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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".

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)

First brandy; then, after VICTORY had reached Gibraltar, spirit of wine; during the return voyage to England this was twice renewed by a mixture of brandy (2 thirds) and spirit of wine (one third). Source: Beatty, William, Authentic Narrative.... (1807). Beatty was the ship's surgeon who supervised the preservation of the body and performed the autopsy.--Kauko56 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2009 (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)

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)

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)

Also noticed this and its still not been fixed Darkagl1 (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it has. Have you looked closely? Benea (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just checked again the 7th highest rank according to rank article is the vice admiral of the blue and the sixth highest is the vice admiral of the white, which doesn't match what this article says ergo something must be wrong. I believe that the lord nelson article should be changed to say that he was promoted to the vice admiral of the blue and then to vice admiral of the white, since the original comment here seems to suggest those are the proper ranks. Darkagl1 (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant the mention of when he became 'Vice Admiral of the White', both the fact that he did and the date are mentioned. But it clearly says that he was promoted to Vice Admiral of the Blue and then Vice Admiral of the White. The discrepancy about the seniority of his ranks seems to come by not including the rank of Admiral of the Fleet, the highest rank, so all the ranks in the Nelson article are out by one. I've altered this. Benea (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

As I understand it, the signal from Parker was a permissive order and not a direct one which meant Nelson had every right to ignore it. It is well documented that Nelson acknowledged the signal so he could hardly claim later that he hadn't seen it (despite what is recorded)!--Ykraps (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nelson never lost his eye and nor did he wear a patch. This is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.14.132 (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

"i have read in an article on Nelson that his last word may have been "will you miss me Hardy?" has anyone got a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merchantofdrivel (talk • contribs) 17:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

None of the accounts of the death scene use this phrasing. Hardy certainly heard it as 'Kiss me', later Victorian prurience suggested 'Kismet'. But these certainly weren't his last words. Beatty heard 'Thank God I have done my duty', but wasn't present at the time of Nelson's actual death. Alexander Scott, who was, recorded 'My God, My country' as Nelson's absolutely final words. Benea (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Requested move to "Horatio Nelson" (2005)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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, of course. James F. (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

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.

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)

Nelson used the expression himself when describing his battle plan to, amongst others, Lord Sidmouth. As far as I'm aware, using it to describe his leadership style came later. Ykraps (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

- Harrington's pretty obviously influenced by Lord Nelson, even to a heavy-handed degree. She gains attention for having a unique ability to bring out the very best in her fellows in the military, with gains remaining even after they stop serving with her. Loses an arm, loses an eye, renowned for her unconventional and highly effective tactics. Due to her exploits she's eventually made a Duchess(to his Dukedom). She's a "national" hero(to the planets she calls home) and upon her reported death is given simultaneous state funerals. They even build a large statue of her on a large column much like Nelson's Column. She was also the subject of controversy over infidelity as he had. There are differences between them, but there are also a HELL of a lot of similarities. ValeOfAldur (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2008 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Nelson Mandela I make it.89.129.59.218 (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Vain Nelson

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

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)

nelsons youth

http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/lifeofnelson.htm

It clearly mentions him attacking a polar bear I remember doing this at school well I read it to pass the time my point is why isn't it on the wikipedia? I put it on but some1 took it off.

But in the story I read I'm sure he was on a ship as a stow away that was trying to find a path through the north antartic to get to America which isn't mentioned on this page. This page also states he did it to prove his courage. But when I read the story he did it at the dead of night when everyone else was asleep so who was he proving his courage to?

62.31.242.62 (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC) justinrwebb@hotmail.com

The story that you're thinking of is one of many elements of the Nelson myth, though you seem to have been told a more confused version than most. Nelson was on an Arctic (not Antarctic) mission in 1773 at the age of 14, to find the fabled North West Passage. He was not a stowaway, the position had been arranged by his uncle, Maurice Suckling and Nelson held the rank of midshipman aboard HMS Carcass. As to the polar bear incident, that comes almost entirely from two slightly different stories told many years after the event by Nelson's old captain on the expedition, Skeffington Lutwidge. In the first version, Nelson chases a polar bear spotted near the ship, which simply runs away. In the second Nelson and a companion pursue the bear. Bear in mind (no pun intended) that these stories were told after Nelson's rise to fame. They were eagerly seized on by later biographers and artists, the most famous being Robert Westall's depiction of Nelson wielding the butt of his musket against the bear. It was all used to illustrate the legend of the daring, intrepid and resourceful Nelson, and exaggerated each time. Clarke and MacArthur's early biography described a chasm that separated Nelson and the bear. Westall ignored this and depicted the two just inches apart in a fierce confrontation. The log of the Carcass for that day, as filled in by the Master, James Allen reports the incident as at about six in the morning 'a bear came close to the ship on the ice, but on the people's going towards him he went away.' Nothing more was said about the incident, until Lutwidge's stories, the first of which appears in 1800. Contemporary biographers now treat the tale with considerable scepticism, and the truth is probably far more prosaic. This is why additions to the article must always be carefully sourced to avoid wikipedia repeating popular myths as fact. The article is in need of a more thorough overhaul, and this is one of the areas that will probably be addressed. Benea (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Did Nelson contribute to his own death?

I have read (and I confess I can't remember where) that at Trafalgar, Nelson forbade his Royal Marines from taking up stations and firing from the rigging, including the "crows nests", because Nelson was always concerned that the practice risked fire aboard his ship, from burning wadding etc. falling to the decks, or setting the pitch laden rigging on fire. Because of this absence of Marines in Victory's uppers, there was more chance that a rival sharpshooter would be able to pick off the British officers below, which is of course what happened. Does anyone have an more information on this, i.e. is it true? If so it may be worthy of inclusion in the section relating to Nelson's death. --Phil Wardle (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In my research into Nelson's death at Trafalgar, I found similar information. Lord Nelson seems indeed to have been of the opinion you quote. Marines in the rigging might have given a hard time to the musketeers in the opponent's mizzen top (where the fatal shot came from), but then the French captain Lucas (of the REDOUTABLE) had his crew specially trained in grenade throwing and small arms fire, because he was a strong believer in close combat & boarding. Against THAT highly trained opponent, Marines in the rigging could not have offered much protection anyway. The fact that Nelson wore the stars of four orders EMBROIDERED on his frock (so that they could not be removed) was without doubt a help for any enemy who tried to pick him out of the group of officers on VICTORY's poop. His missing arm further helped to identify him - to be safe he would have had to go below decks; an impossible idea for an officer of his time, upbringing, and character.--Kauko56 (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

DNB article

Hi. I don't edit in this area, but I noticed that there is a long Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Nelson here: http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/1.html

It is the Life of the Day today, and available for a free substcription to Life of the Day. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Was Horatio Nelson a Explorer

Was horatio nelson a explorer i don't no but shall we find out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.200.86 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the voyage to the Arctic is probably the closest he came to being an explorer. Benea (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Paston Grammar

I have re-added the tidbit about Levett Hanson and Nelson in a footnote. The two were lifelong friends since their time at Paston.[6][7]. The letters between the two not only demonstrate a degree of familiarity, but also an insight into a less-formal side of Nelson, Nelson as a schoolboy. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference style

The reference style has just changed from the common form used in articles, especially FAs, to a more unorthodox method whereby all of the references are inclosed in note forms. This has not been done fully though, where each reference should hold all of the information. Personally, I much prefer the older style where you could find the reference easily in a separate references section. In an article with so many citations, it is especially pertinent I think. Now, when you try to find say extended information on Sugden, you have to manually search in the main notes column to locate the first instance. This is as a result of it not being done fully. Per WP:CITATIONS citation styles should not be changed without a discussion first, so I have reverted until we can discuss it per WP:BRD. Thanks, regards, Woody (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article had two styles in place, so I picked one over the other. In broad theory, a normal ref system either puts only short citations in one section, and all full citations in the other, or it puts everything in one section.

This article had (and now has again) one section, "Citations", that contains more than two dozen full citations plus about 200 short citations. Then it has another section, "References", that contains full citations for the short citations (plus, originally, an item that had no matching short citation).

I thought that, rather than having a partly mixed and partly separated system, we would have one fully mixed system. I chose this primarily because it's simpler for people adding single sources here and there (as editors often do). If you'd rather make it fully separated, then that's perfectly fine with me. My objection is only to the half-and-half style.

BTW, the "common form" on Wikipedia uses "Footnotes" as a title instead of "Citations" (which title is easily confused with military honors), and I've never once seen a style guide that recommends redundantly listing full citations throughout 200+ items rather than using short citations after the first time, so I'm not sure that your idea of the common form is actually all that common in practice. Having said that, note that WP:CITE says that editors can invent any style that they think sensible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed it was called citations, I have changed it to footnotes, though Footnotes and notes titles should probably be swapped. I can't see though, where the printed references have full information in the notes section? It is normal to have full web referencing information in the footnotes, but not that for printed references. Our style guide currently recommends that they are, but that isn't surprising. I simply think the reader (and me) finds it harder to locate the full information in the footnotes section. I didn't say that including the 200+ information style is common, merely that it is technically correct per our guidelines, though personally I wouldn't use it as you are right, it is illogical and would be overbearing. I prefer the style in its current form, with only author and date listed in the footnotes. Regards, Woody (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me where exactly you're finding this "style guide" information? I'm a semi-regular editor at WP:CITE, which is supposed to be the source for this kind of information, and I'm not aware of either a declaration that web refs should be considered short cites, or encouragement of repetitive full refs anywhere in it.

As for "dead tree" resources being listed in the short cites, see every ref to the London Gazette.

(The contents of "Notes" and "Footnotes" appears to be highly variable. The general trend seems to be putting comments under "Notes" and short cites under "Footnotes", although, like you, I personally would have guessed the other way around.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I got the repetitive full refs from Wikipedia:CITATION#Footnote system, I have to say I haven't read WP:CITATION recently, I just go on personal experience from FAs. I don't believe the electronic vs printed (by that I mean books) is codified anywhere to be honest, again, just personal experience from FAs. As long as it is consistent, it is fine I think. Regards, Woody (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that #Footnote system is really meant to encourage repetitive full refs, although that is what it does. I'll bring it up on the talk page.

My main point is that the existing system Is. Not. Consistent. It lists some full citations here, and some full citations there, with no clear reason for placing items in one category or the other. It does not divide according to e-sources and paper-sources: there are full cites for paper sources in both sections. If you specifically want a "book" source listed in the short cites, please click the link in #3. Additionally, there are sources freely available online -- see Haydn's book, Nelson's letters -- that aren't linked. Furthermore, this "e-divide" distinction between reliable sources (assuming, of course, that the article actually made one, which it doesn't) is not supported by any guideline or policy, and it seems a rather silly distinction to be making. Surely a newspaper article is every bit as much a printed source as a printing of Nelson's personal letters.

I do not insist on any specific style. I just want one style to be implemented for all sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm responsible for the current disparity, though I've been planning to make them consistent as part of my drive to get this article to FA. One question, for FA style articles is the use of <ref name="Hibbert 159">{{cite book |last=Hibbert |title=Personal History |pages=159}}</ref> preferred over <ref name="Hibbert 159">Hibbert 1994, p. 159</ref>, or vice versa, or is there no prejudice against either?

Also I'm not aware of an 'e-divide' (I certainly wasn't making one). Older citations that have remained since after I began work on the article may be of the 'full type', and I plan to either convert them or replace/phase them out in the near future. Benea (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think plain text is preferred, but honestly don't think many will notice. As long as the article is consistent in what it does, it is fine. (You might ask over at WT:FA, I honestly don't think there is a preference). I will bow to you, you have done the work on the article, so what you think goes.

In terms of "e-references", it might just be me then, though I know a lot of FOOTY ones do that, as in have all the web refs use the cite template in the footnotes and all the books use the cite templates in the "bibliography". I don't tend to list websites in the bibliography, just my quirky style probably. The "LondonGazette" refs should use {{LondonGazette}} because when the links get changed like they did recently, they can be updated with a few tweaks of the template. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Woody and Benea, I converted them all to the original format, less syntax and more succinct. I think the main thing that matters is that they're consistent. Samuel Johnson is a recent FA and uses a similar style to what Nelson now has. Johnson ones are linked but that isn't obligatory. Tom B (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, FA requires only that there be some sensible system that is (very) consistently applied throughout the article. Consistency, however, is measured from the perspective of the reader, not the editor.

Woody, I asked at WT:CITE about their first example (which used full refs for all three 'footnotes'), and the response has been that it was meant to be just a simple example and certainly not to require the use of full refs throughout -- although, if you think that full refs throughout is a sensible choice for the article, then that, too, is allowed. (I wouldn't choose it here, but perhaps if short cites were very rare, then this would not be a bad choice.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Queen of Naples

The article states that during the Neapolitan campaign, Nelson "approved of a wave of further executions, refusing to intervene despite pleas for clemency from [...] the Queen of Naples." However, other articles about the subject, such as Francesco Caracciolo, Maria Carolina of Austria (the Queen of Naples), Ferdinand IV of Naples or Domenico Cirillo all state that the Queen wanted to take revenge on the rebels; some even consist the allegation that she influenced Nelson through Lady Hamilton. Aquila89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

The Queen initially certainly seems to be of that mindset, telling Emma, who presumably passed it on to Nelson, that he (Nelson) treat the Jacobins like the defenders of a rebellious Irish city (as I recall). However once the bloodshed and violence continued, and particularly as some of her former favourites began to be caught up in it, she became more hesitant. Both she and Emma appear to have appealed to both the King and Nelson for Domenico Cirillo to be spared for example, but without result. Benea (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can cite sources for that, I think it'd be useful to mention it on the articles about the Queen and Cirillo. Aquila89 (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Barbados erected monument in 1813, 27 years before London's Lord Nelson column

The statue of Lord Nelson in Bridgetown Barbados was erected in 1813, 27 years before London's Lord Nelson column. Sculpted from bronze by Sir Richard Westmacott, it is considered to be an accurate likeness of the British Admiral. [8][9]

Barbadians believed they were the first to put up such a monument, however they were in fact third, after Montreal and Birmingham. [10] Winniss (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

New file File:Apotheosis of Nelson (Horatio Nelson, Viscount Nelson) by Charles Heath.jpg

Recently the file File:Apotheosis of Nelson (Horatio Nelson, Viscount Nelson) by Charles Heath.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 04:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The apotheosis pictures are great examples to illustrate the concept of the 'immortal memory' of Nelson, this process of the near deification that takes place after his death. We currently use the (in my opinion) superior painting of this concept by Legrand, which I think is ample for the task. I think we can get the original colour painting by West if we decided to swap though, from the online collections of the National Maritime Museum. Benea (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

More new images

I know there are a lot of portraits of this guy floating around, but just a heads up in case these might be useful. Dcoetzee 23:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• 
  By Lemuel Francis Abbott
• 
  By Leonardo Guzzardi
• 
  By Sir William Beechey
• 
  By Guy Head

Those Images

Wow, in those paintings the artist has clearly depicted him a prissier, more effete version of the United States general George Washington The obvious likeness was no doubt to rescue British self-esteem after their crushing defeats at the hands of the army led by this man. Perhaps more historically accurate images should be used in their stead, if they are available. 64.222.123.220 (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith here, the answer is definitely, categorically no. No there was no deliberate depiction as a 'a prissier, more effete version' of Washington, and the part about the likeness to restore self-esteem is complete and obvious nonsense. The paintings are historically accurate and contemporary, and a fair depiction of the subject, depending on the artists' styles, influences, etc. Benea (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Long Island (1776), Brandywine River (1777)?! --Ykraps (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Handel's funeral anthem

Mahan also cites it in his Life of Nelson. The anthem was also sung at Charles Darwin's funeral and attributed to Handel, but it does not come from Israel in Egypt but apparently from his Funeral anthem for Queen Caroline. The music was re-used in Israel in Egypt, but not the words.Dabbler (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

1st Duke of Bronté

Why is this "Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson" instead of "Horatio Nelson, 1st Duke of Bronté" ? The Ducal title has higher rank, no? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the foreign title ranks after his British in the British peerage, as shown for example in the reading of his titles as his funeral - '...Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath ... Duke of Bronte in Sicily...' Benea (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move to Horatio Nelson

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. harej 08:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson → Horatio Nelson — as the primary meaning. (I've also created a disambiguation page and added a hatnote to the main article.) This proposal has support at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 21#Category:Horatio Nelson. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Horatio Nelson is what he is commonly known as. The other Earl and the horse listed at Horatio Nelson (disambiguation) are not nearly as historically significant (and indeed, Horatio Nelson redirects right here instead of to the disamig page). Therefore, I support this move. NW (Talk) 15:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Actually I think he is most commonly known as just "Nelson". You could find that "Lord Nelson" and "Admiral Lord Nelson" are more common than "Horatio Nelson". There are some discussions going on at WP:NCROY, I suggest we might put this on hold until this is sorted out. PatGallacher (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Nelson is indeed probably 'what he is commonly known as', the other commonly encountered variants 'Lord Nelson' and 'Admiral Lord Nelson' both reference his peerage, as used in the current article title. Currently this is in keeping with WP:NCROY ('Members of the British Peerage, whether hereditary peers or life peers, usually have their articles titled "Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title"', and 'Redirects from other names are created as appropriate', where redirects link from the other common variants mentioned to here. Given that there are discussions underway at a higher level over the use of titles in article titles, this should be left pending a substantive change in current practice. Benea (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Not sure that waiting for the discussion at WP:NCROY is particularly helpful. That discussion appears to have petered out on 21 July 2010 with an agreement that they couldn't reach a consensus. If that is the case, the only things we can do are try to reinvigorate that discussion and see whether we can get a consensus one way or the other, or deal with each case on its merits. If we can't get consensus, the convention needs noting that there is no existing consensus. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. He is principally known for what he did rather than for his various titles, so adding a title to his name does not seem necessary, as for example Benjamin Disraeli and Norman Foster (architect). This is such a clear case that it does not seem necessary to await any change in guidance. Cjc13 (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I would vote for just Nelson, but there are three "Nelson"'s that I can think of that might warrant being located there. One is Horatio Nelson, who is so important to British history that people commonly refer to him as just "Nelson", even if they know little to nothing of the actual events that made him famous. The other ones I can think of are Nelson Mandela and Nelson Muntz, both of whom I think are more than adequately disambiguated. Keeping the article here would be to add unnecessary disambiguation. I would wager my life-savings that Horatio Nelson (horse) was named after this man. Green Giant (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Seems like a relative no-brainer to me. There are far more usages that can be found that refer to "Horatio Nelson" than the current name+titles, and he is undoubtedly the primary usage of the name "Horatio Nelson". WP:NCROY needs to be flexible in situations like this, which I suppose is why it's a guideline and not a policy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. warrior4321 21:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unless we undertake a wholesale renaming of all notable people who have titles. This is a standard that should be retained, its not as though its hard to find him with the redirects etc.. Dabbler (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I am in agreement with Dabbler, we need to be consistent. --Ykraps (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support as long as the present version is retained as a redirect. Any other uses can go on to a dab page. WP:NCROY is the standard, but needs to be employed with some flexibility. However the "correct" WP:NCROY version should always be retained as a redirect. In this case the "correct" title is artificial since there was no 2nd Viscount. I was wrong: it is more complicated. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for consistency and for the simple matter of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The current setup is simple and follows the same pattern for all those with titles. Nelson was the most common usage and is today but it would be far too complicated to have that as a single use. In lieu of that this is the best possible solution as it is at the moment and moving the page would be wholly unneccessary. Woody (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, though a redirect seems necessary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, provided the present version is retained as a redirect. Flamarande (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Generally known as "Lord Nelson", so article name should include peerage. Proteus (Talk) 09:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations and lead should conform to WP:LEAD --plange 21:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 20:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)