Talk:Valerian Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington

Untitled

So the reason we have to have a bizarre caption is "he has a name and title, only the queen can remove it"? That's crazy talk, I don't even know what that means. john k 16:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In other articles Wiki uses styles before names eg The Rt Hon [name of politician] It would seem that for consistancy we should alter this article to start

The Most Noble Arthur Valerian Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington.

Otherwise we should remove other styles. I can't see a pattern to use atm. Anyone?Alci12

• • I know the 8th Duke, He's the Colonel in Chief of my Regiment. His Official Title is:- Brigadier, His Grace, The Duke of Wellington, KG, LVO, OBE, MC, BA, DL. It's printed in capitals on the facing page of the Dukes Regimental Magazine. Regardless of what anyone wants, that's it, full stop. If you think it should be any different then I suggest you speak with Major General Sir Evelyn Webb-Carter KCVO, OBE, the Colonel of The Duke of Wellington's Regiment, who would be happy to advise you. His e-mail address is: ewebb-carter@armybenevolentfund.com or better still The Dukes Secretary is:- Major David Harrap, E-mail: rhq@dukesrhq.demon.co.uk at the Duke of Wellingtons Regimental Headquarters. Proteus just because you don't like something you should not remove it. John Kenny do you not understand English? If a man has a name given to him that is what he is entitled to be known by. If the Queen of England has awarded him a title, he has the right to use it, only the Queen can then remove that title from him. Not you, or anyone else, by the stroke of a pen, simply because you think it should be different. Richard Harvey 5 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

• • We are under no obligation to use full titles when referring to people. And there's no such person as the "Queen of England". Proteus (Talk) 5 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

• • We is a big word, do you mean you or are you talking on behalf of the whole community? Also try Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom. Richard Harvey 5 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)

• • I'm talking with the authority of Wikipedia policy, which you don't seem to be aware exists. And, as is made rather obvious by the fact that Her Majesty's article is at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, she is Queen of the United Kingdom. There hasn't been a Queen of England since 1707. Proteus (Talk) 5 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)

• • • Proteus but what is the policy with regard to styles as in Francis_Maude cf to Arthur_Valerian_Wellesley,_8th_Duke_of_Wellingtonabove people seem to be doing it one way with some people and the reverse with others. It doesn't really matter which way is chosen as long as it's the same for all articles. You seem to be agreeing with my point in the Project_peerage thread.

• • • Richard Harvey's point is a matter of use. ie His grace The duke of.. whereas it is [Rt Hon/Most Noble] [fornames][surnames][rank of Title]The latter format is that used on letters patent. Removing peerages requires and act of parliament and cannot be the monarch's will.

Why don't you go mess with articles that really have taken away titles awarded by the "Queen of England?" See Michael Ancram, for instance. or Harold Macmillan... john k 5 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

I'm sorry gentlemen but I'm far too busy and really don't have time to get into a scrabble, with other users. Wikipedia is not the only Website on the Internet, where people can get information, or see images, of the 8th Duke of Wellington. For example: the Duke of Wellington's Official Regimental site, such as page:- http://www.dwr.uk/dwr.phpid=108. Richard Harvey 5 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)

Does that mean your leaving? Hurray! john k 5 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

Mr. Harvey, you are by far the most absurd and ridiculous person I have ever encountered on wikipedia. I will have it known that I will not allow your version of the image to appear on this page so long as I am involved with wikipedia. john k 7 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)

• • • The 8th Duke is the Colonel in Chief of The Duke of Wellington's Regiment. Perhaps this uploaded information page From The Regiments own 'Official Magazine' will help to clarify the form of address / title, that should be used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iron_Duke_Magazine.jpg . The Regiment's Publisher / Editor should know how it should be shown. Though the additional issue here is that user:John Kenny has downloaded a crown copyright image, then altered it, by cropping the embedded name, rank and title from the image, which was embedded to prevent abuse, then re-uploaded it. If the information embedded was correct, then the image should have been left alone on the page. Richard Harvey 7 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

As this is the message placed on my talk page by [user: John Kenny]] I can only assume that he is being personally offensive and immature.

You are completely disgusting, you know that? The original version of the image which you uploaded didn't have the caption on it. The version I put up was exactly the same as the image which you originally put up and said was fine to use so long as we didn't defame the Duke. You do not get to win an argument by default. Until you put back up the version of the image without the caption, I am going to keep the image out of the article. john k 7 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

Additional comments from user:John Kenny like this:-

I said on the description page that if you didn't like it, I would delete it, you asshole. You are a completely absurd person, fuck you. john k 7 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)

BTW, the caption is not part of the image, and you don't get to decide the caption for an image just because you upload the image. Your version of the image is not going to be in the article. john k 7 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

Do tend to indicate he does not deserve to be on this website. Richard Harvey 7 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

Oh, I don't deserve to be on this website? You are an incredibly annoying pest. john k 7 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)

There's no such thing as deserve on Wikipedia. This is a collaborative effort and we are building an encyclopædia. We have the right to disagree/agree, but we do not have the right to make personal attacks. Mr John Kenney, if you could be so kind as to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and please refrain from making them in the future.

That said, what's the problem here? Give me points on where you disagree, and we'll see if we can reach an agreement. Remember guys, this is about content, not personal feelings. Inter\^Echo 7 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

I had no personal feelings about Mr. Harvey until he began his absurd games about content. What I object to is the fact that he insists that a picture of the 8th Duke of Wellington must have what he thinks is the proper caption embedded into the image, so that it cannot be changed. Given that he owns (or has some control over? I'm not clear on this) the copyright to the picture, there's not much that can be done about it, except insuring that he does not get his way to have the picture with embedded caption put into this article.

And could people quit being so patronizing with the "would you please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks?" garbage? Of course I know that I'm not supposed to make personal attacks. In this case, I regret having made them, but that is neither here nor there. I've been here a long time. In the future, if I make a personal attack, feel free to assume that I made it in full awareness of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and respond accordingly. In the future I will try, as I generally do, to avoid personal attacks, but I will make no promises in this regard. john k 7 July 2005 23:25 (UTC)

Back to basics

I have had a very hard time following this debate. The key issues, afaik, are as follows (correct me if I am wrong)

• Should an image have a note included in it

• is Richard Harvey a representitive of the copyright holder of these images

• Why has this talk page been such a wikiquette nightmare?

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 7 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)

I have recieved an email stating that Richard Harvey is the Photo Archivist at the Duke of Wellington's Regimental HQ, and that a condition of their usage is that the the name, rank & title be embedded. That is good enough for me, I see no reason to doubt that this is the case, or to refuse to utilise the images under these conditions. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 8 July 2005 11:29 (UTC)

Image

File:Brig Arthur Valerian Wellesley KG LVO OBE MC BA DL 8th Duke of Wellington.jpg

This image should not be removed based on interpersonal conflict of editors. WP:POINT. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 7 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)

It would apear images were also removed from Gerald Wellesley, 7th Duke of Wellington and Henry Wellesley, 6th Duke of Wellington, and I have restored each of these as well. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 8 July 2005 11:34 (UTC)

The image should be removed because Mr. Harvey shouldn't get to dictate the caption. john k 8 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)

Having again removed the images, let me elaborate - the captions demanded by Mr. Harvey are not in keeping with captions that we have for any other article. Initially, Mr. Harvey simply uploaded the images themselves, and inserted his preferred captions in the normal manner. When others (myself and Proteus) objected, once he had failed to convince us of the merits of his approach, he simply reuploaded the images with captions embedded. This is nothing less than an end run around normal means of consensus-gathering. Mr. Harvey should either allow the normal process of debate about what the appropriate caption should be, and try to convince us of the merits of his preferred caption, or he should take his ball and go home. Just because he has copyright on some images doesn't mean he gets to dictate their presentation - better to not have the images at all. john k 8 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

Let me emphasize, also, that this has nothing to do with interpersonal conflict. The interpersonal conflict arose because I have come to believe that Mr. Harvey's demands about content are completely unjustified. I bear him no personal grudge, and I would be happy to debate with him over the proper caption for the article. But I am not willing to let him dictate content as a condition for allowing his images to be on wikipedia. john k 8 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Wikipedia style is for Wikipedia policy to determine

I have trouble understanding this conflict, people are saying such strange things. They're sort of understandable from a new user like Mr. Harvey, who seems unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and principles, but I find them incomprehensible from a seasoned editor like Sam Spade. It seems to me self-evident that if Mr. Harvey controls the copyright, then we can't use the image other than under the conditions he dictates. And since those conditions include having an embedded, uneditable, caption, in violation of the wiki principle, that means we can't and won't use it at all. (That's apart from the phrasing of the caption being IMO quite unacceptable—it's enough that it's uneditable.) Mr Harvey, it's just not the case that your regiment, or the Queen for that matter, is in charge of Wikipedia style. You seem to assume that all that's needed for your caption to carry absolute authority is that a spokesman for the regiment should "clarify" the form of address / title, that "should" be used, and then it will, it must, be used. You are wrong about that: forms of address and titles used here are matters for Wikipedia consensus and policy. Your employers are not empowered to dictate to the world how to speak. I can understand that you think they are, but I don't understand Sam at all. Sam, how can you see Mr. Harvey's demand to dictate the caption as part of an "interpersonal conflict"? It's a conflict of principle. You write: I have recieved an email stating that Richard Harvey is the Photo Archivist at the Duke of Wellington's Regimental HQ, and that a condition of their usage is that the the name, rank & title be embedded. That is good enough for me, I see no reason to doubt that this is the case, or to refuse to utilise the images under these conditions.. Those two conclusions are miles apart. No, there is no reason to doubt it. Yes, there is every reason to refuse to utilise the image under such conditions. It's a pity Mr. Harvey has had second thoughts about the image he uploaded the first time, the one without a caption, and it's, well, just... odd, that he sees cropping off the caption as defamation, but we'll have to live with that. Bishonen | talk 22:57, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

We don't remotely agree. IMO this image caption doesn't violate wiki policy, and yet the foul language and obvious newbie biting of an admin did. What is better for the reader, and for the wiki, is obviously to accomadate the regimant and include the image with the caption. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:38, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you calling Richard "an obvious newbie" because of his behavior or his edit history, Sam? Or are you just up to your usual rabble rousing?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

All of the above. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 13:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

He's been here for nine months. How is that a newbie? john k 18:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

He has less than 500 edits, thats my personal definition. I, for example, have over 25,000 edits. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

GFDL

See that link at the bottom of every page?

That's GFDL. Read it. Understand it.

Now then, GFDL allows for invariant sections.

The image is crown copyright, but let's for the sake of argument say that that's GFDL compatible.

The image has invariant sections.

CLUE: Do Not Touch The Invariant Sections. (That's illegal)

Ok, so invariant sections can be very annoying, true!

So maybe folks might like to argue whether to keep or delete the image in its entirety.

That's up to you folks :-P I'm sure I can leave it up to y'all. But please don't edit out invariant sections.

Kim Bruning 23:23, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

• a link regarding that issue ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me note here, so there is no confusion, that I just accidentally reverted the image in question to the original version that Mr. Harvey put here. I spite of repeated efforts, I can't seem to get it to go back to the version with the caption. This was completely unintentional, and not part of an effort to do anything bad to copyright or anything like that. If anyone can restore it to Mr. Harvey's preferred version, please do so. I will, however, once again ask why Mr. Harvey was allowed to put the image up for five months without a caption, but is now only allowed to put up the images with embedded captions. john k 18:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Have you cleared your cache? It looks fine to me... ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

That must be it. Good. john k 19:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Although I'm still seeing no caption...gah! john k 19:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

But I see the caption... what do others see? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 19:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I see it. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Defamation

Just to clarify a point please. The changing of the image I considered a copyright violation, not defamation. I had to; it goes with my work, protecting the property of the Regimental Archives. However the altered image was removed, so end of story on that point. My feelings as to defamation arise from the comment placed in the page history edit summary by Mr Kenney ie:- (cur) (last) 15:07, 7 July 2005 John Kenney (Wow, that Richard Harvey sure is a prick, huh?). Though please don't worry I am not going to instruct a lawyer to sue anyone, or even send in the FBI, or an A Team, to take action, as one see's in the Films. The somewhat vociferous comment:- I said on the description page that if you didn't like it, I would delete it, you asshole. You are a completely absurd person, fuck you. john k 7 July 2005 15:05 (UTC), though offensive and undeserved I put down to Mr Kenney possibly having a bad day, perhaps he had a flat tyre on the freeway, or he got his income tax demand, I don't know. If I had jailed every soldier I heard swearing the British Army would be at half strength, not that it isn't far off that now.

If Mr Kenney had dropped a note on my talk page asking why the Image had a caption embedded I could have given him the same information I e-mailed to Sam Spade, and therefore, hopefully, avoided this unfortunate series of events. Mr Kenney I bear you no ill will, If I met you in a pub I would happily shake your hand and buy you a pint. Perhaps I have missed a point somewhere in that I assumed an Encyclopaedia / Wikipedia to be a platform for providing factual information to the whole wide world. In the archives having a caption on an image avoids many identification errors. Could not a note on the article page have been placed to say that - the picture showed the 'Title used' by the 8th Duke, though it was believed to be 'xyz'.

Our small archives team have taken on a collection of 300+ years worth of boxes, trunks, cupboards and envelopes. The contents of which have never seen the light of day. We are overwhelmed by photo's, sketches, drawings, paintings, documents, maps and artefacts, with more turning up as former Regimental members and Officers pass away. Usually donated in their wills, but often brought in by their descendants. They find things as they clear out their homes, bring them in for information on them, and often leave them with us. Many of these are passed on to our Museum. But only so much can be shown. I hoped to make these items available for viewing through Wikipedia, on articles already there, to help enhance them. I am however restricted by a board of trustees, who do not wish to see items entrusted to them abused, hence the embedded captions, describing the image.

It took me a long time to get permission to upload images. It would be a shame to now have that permission withdrawn. I shall have to speak with the 'Colonels'. Though if the Wikipedian gods feel this is not acceptable then it would perhaps be wiser to delete everything I have contributed to the project. You must decide this amongst yourselves. Should this be preferred, then have Sam Spade drop me an e-mail. I will draw up a list of what I have uploaded, from the archives, and e-mail it to Sam Spade for them to be taken off your database. Please note though that I have also uploaded a number of images I have created or photographed myself, without titles embedded. I am happy for those to remain as PD items. I note there is a request in for a photo of an Electricity Pylon, built over a canal, around 20 miles from my home, well; the brother of one of our staff has the UK contract to maintain the Pylons? Perhaps I can get access. Sam Spade, I don't know who you are and I'm sorry if I've dropped you in for a load of work, but thank you. Richard Harvey 09:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I am glad to be of service, in whatever way I am able. Officially i am a Wikipedia:Members advocate, and it appears I am acting in that capacity in this matter. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 13:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Harvey, I am glad you are so generous as to not pursue legal action against me or wikipedia. Your generosity is truly bountiful. In my turn, I shall apologize for any personal attacks I may have made against you. I hope that, in the future, we can continue discussions of this subject in a cordial manner. However, I still find myself in strenuous disagreement with you on this matter. I still don't understand the necessity for an embedded caption. In the first place, you yourself initially uploaded the image without a caption, suggesting that this is not simply a condition of your uploading of the images. You only added the embedded caption after people began to argue with you over your preferred caption. At any rate, an embedded caption is completely unnecessary. The description page on the image can describe what the image is of and insure that it is not misidentified. The caption should be part of the article the image has been put into, and should, like that rest of that article, be available to be edited. I fail to see having a caption for an image of the 8th Duke of Wellington which says "The 8th Duke of Wellington" could possibly be seen as abusive. While, I suppose abusive uses might crop up (although, given the level of interest in the 8th Duke of Wellington, this seems unlikely - who would go to the trouble of trying to insult him?), such things are normally dealt with quickly. It is simply not acceptable to have images with embedded captions on wikipedia - it would, indeed, be better to simply delete them. Now, if you could persuade your superiors (or whatever - I would like an explanation for why the image was originally uploaded without a caption) that embedded captions are unnecessary, and that the description part of the image page should be sufficient to identify the image and prevent abuse, that would be terrific. If not, the images are simply being released on unacceptable terms, and will have to be rejected. john k 17:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fairly certain that is not the case. Rather I believe the images will go to Wikipedia:Images for deletion, where I will vigorously campaign for their inclusion. That is assuming Mr. Harvey continues to generously attempt to offer these fine donations. If I am mistaken in any way, please explain where and why, and in detail. Thank you, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 17:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You're fairly certain what is not the case? john k 18:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

the images are simply being released on unacceptable terms, and will have to be rejected - That is what I'm fairly certain is not the case. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is a matter of opinion, obviously, and not a matter of fact. I will note that Bishonen and Proteus, at least, seem to support my position on this. john k 19:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, so we have again established that the image fails to violate wiki policy. So the next question is, do you think it needs to be deleted? Because if it is not deleted, I'll soon restore it, for the benefit of the readers. Keep in mind that our primary job here is to produce quality encyclopedia articles. I am firmly of the opinion that these images make these articles better, but if you disagree I suggest you nominate them for deletion and see what the community has to say about it. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Mr Kenney. Thank you, apology accepted, that subject I now consider closed. As for the time delay between images being amended. I am unfortunately between a rock and a hard place here. The archives are controlled by a 'Board of Colonels', who normally meet about 4 times a year. The archives staff are all volunteers who work 1 or 2 days a week for free. Due to current commitments it takes time to get them togther in one place, E-mail is only used by 25% of them and the internet is unheard of by half. I originally put up the images in good faith. It then took time for the effects to be seen, comments made and instructions given. Then I was to do the changes. Severe health problems delayed that, as I was not around to get the info, I've had a few enforced periods of being flat on my back, with the laptop out of use. I have been trying since May to sort out the copyright issues over the images, with another Sysop. I will not be able to see anyone now until Tuesday the 12th, after which I hope to get an answer ASAP. Then I will come back with their decision as to what to do. Please bear with me on this matter. I can't get a decision as fast as the people on this project would like. I have had problems trying to work out what to do, on this website, as Wikipedia seems to be full of lots of links to lots of different places, each with it's own idea on what to do. It's more complicated than reading the Russian operating instructions of a UK Forces Warrior APC. I've been off & on the project for about 8 months or so, but most of my edits are edits of errors I have made, or changes to images to cut them down to a more acceptable size, than when first uploaded. Richard Harvey 21:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Mr. Harvey. Let us know what happens when you can. I am, however, still a bit confused - did you amend the images to include the captions because you were told you had to? I notice that the change was made on June 14, at about the time Proteus and I were removing the original caption you put in in the text, and that in your edit you say specifically that you were reuploading the image to preserve the caption. I'd still like a clear explanation for what exactly happened there. Sam - I have certainly not admitted that the image violates does not violate wikipedia policy. I have merely said that it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not it does - it is not a clear cut issue. In my opinion, it would be a violation of wikipedia policy to include an image with an embedded caption - especially an embedded caption which is not derived from an old book, or something, but from a wikipedia user. (I will also note that I fail to see how a caption written by Mr. Harvey for wikipedia can fall under crown copyright). I think that because of this, these images should not be used in any article. Their presence on wikipedia is apparently not a copyvio, so I don't see any urgency in deleting them, unless it proves that the copyright status is such that they can't be here. If they were to be put up for deletion, I would, I think, support such deletion, although I'd really much prefer if we could get the images without captions. john k 23:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

We've established what?

OK, again I'm baffled, Sam. John Kenney points out that I and Proteus support his view that the caption-embedded image violates wiki policy, and you respond "OK, so we have again established that the image fails to violate wiki policy"? Who's "we"? Are you really planning to put the image back (and the captioned pictures for the other articles, too?), in a situation where two people on this talk page (you and Richard Harvey) think it should be put back, and the other three, out of five people who have argued the point, are opposed? Both sides have argued carefully and given reasons, and neither has convinced the other, because it is, as John Kenney says, a matter of opinion. That does not mean that I have an opinion and you have the Truth. You say it's for the benefit of the readers, I say it's not. I won't repeat my reasons, I laid them out above, and they're essentially the same as John Kenney has proposed. How can you justify putting the picture(s) back? I'm genuinely curious. Bishonen | talk 00:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The truth is that the image is available (not deleted), and that it improves the article. If you disagree, propose the image be deleted. I am happy to wait for Mr. Harvey to consult with his associates, but if the image is not deleted, I most certainly will restore it. I have yet to see anything approaching careful reasoning for removal of the image. I'll refrain from summing up the argument as I see it, and instead will defer to you, asking that you make your case more clearly between now and Mr. Harvey's awaited informations. Out of respect to the regiment, I will of course refrain from restoring the image until at least the 13th. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Aha, you have direct access to the truth, so consensus for what you want to do is not an issue? Nevertheless, your statement that you "have yet to see anything approaching careful reasoning for removal of the image" is pretty offensive. I'm sorry to see you using up all your store of respect for "the regiment", and sparing so little of it for fellow wikipedians. Looking through this page, this is what I find in the way of argument from you, for retaining the captioned image:

"IMO this image caption doesn't violate wiki policy".

"the images are simply being released on unacceptable terms, and will have to be rejected - That is what I'm fairly certain is not the case."

"OK, so we have again established that the image fails to violate wiki policy. So the next question is..."

That's it, and you invite me to make my case for removal more clearly? I'm sorry, that's unreasonable. I'm not prepared to give any more time to such thankless arguments. If you have any interest in seeing careful reasoning about the issue, please read this page: there's some of it by me, a lot of it by John Kenney, and none by you. I must apologize for being disingenuously polite in saying that "both sides have argued carefully", it was rather transparent attempt at courtesy, I'm afraid. At least you can't be accused of reciprocating. Bishonen | talk 01:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll interpret that as "no, thank you, I have nothing else to add". ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That's right, I don't, and since you have no care for my charge of incivility and disrespect, I won't have anything else to say to you on the rest of Wikipedia, either. Bishonen | talk 10:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you do as I have done, and ask a neutral party to review the above. Their interpretation might give you food for thought. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It certainly wouldn't give you food for thought, since nothing ever seems to make the slightest impression on you once your mind's made up about something. john k 01:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd take that as a compliment if it were more accurate. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Caption Amendments

File:The Hook Korea July 1953.jpg

Mr Kenney, The images were amended 'under advisement from above', as & when I got the chance. It was coincidental that you and your colleague were changing them at the same time. I thought I had made a cockup replacing the images, so redid them again, I had not noted the Edit history at that time. Then when they kept dissapearing I assumed it was due to some vandalism. I had previously noted the 1st DoW's article attracted lots of that type of attack. Though this does raise a side issue here to me. All users on this system are identified the same way. ie:- User:name, it would be better for us 'newbies' to know that changes are being made by Sysop's, and not abusers. Could not Sysops have a different title to basic users, it may help to prevent this problem in the future?, as if I had seen a Sysop was involved I would have queried it. I also note from a message on my talk page you could get a 'Punishment'. I would like it to be known that I do not want that to happen, this was down to an unfortunate series of events. let's leave it that way. This project is too important to the community as a whole. Also just to clear the decks, so to speak, on the 3rd of july I created an article to a blank link, on another article, in which I inserted an image with a built in caption. It's had a couple of edits since, but no comment about the caption. The image is of a hill feature, meaningless without the caption. Perhaps you could take a look and kindly advise if that image is also a problem, that we can deal with at the same time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_the_Hook . Richard Harvey 08:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I must say I'm a little surprised that the 'colonels' require a specific caption. I've had some past experience in requesting pictures from regimental sources for academic publication and not been bound to such terms. Presumably they have allowed various paper reference books to use pictures are they under the same terms? Or is this rule because it's the Internet and they are more nervous. [Unsigned comment by User:Alci12, 12:20, July 11, 2005.]

Richard - most acts of vandalism are going to be done by users who are not logged in - they are identified only by an IP address, rather than by a user name. Also suspicious are users where the User name shows in red - that usually means they are relatively new, and haven't created a user page. While users who do have user pages can also often be problematic, it is relatively rare for them to be outright vandals. Personally, I wouldn't want to be given any extra deference because I'm an admin, just because I don't really want to have too much extra responsibility. The only admin powers I regularly use is the delete pages ability, since I like to move pages and sometimes that's necessary to do so. There are plenty of good users, who deserve the benefit of the doubt, who are not sysops. I'd suggest that if a change is not being made by an IP address or a red user name, the benefit of the doubt should be given. (Not that you should just accept the change, but that you should accept that it was made in good faith. Remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith, as well - this can be abused, but should generally be the first position, unless someone has given reason to distrust them). On the Battle for the Hook issue, as with the others, I don't feel like embedded captions are appropriate. john k 15:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Summary of debate

File:Brig Arthur Valerian Wellesley KG LVO OBE MC BA DL 8th Duke of Wellington.jpg

Due to reticence on the part of the opposition, I will attempt to sum up the debate in as neutral a manner as possible. Feel free to edit the below. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Against image

• The image violates wiki-policy (a policy thusfar unmentioned)
• The caption is unacceptable regardless of policy, and does a disservice to the reader. We would be better off without these images than in agreeing to their use with captions.

For image

File:LtColonel Gerald Wellesley KG 7th Duke of Wellington.jpg

• The image does not violate any wiki policy
• The image provides a service to the reader, a benefit vastly greater than the postulated inconvenience/offense/violation of principle the caption presents to some.

Separate issue

• Administrators on this site should be more respectful towards representatives of charitable interests, as well as fellow volunteers. The behaviour of wikipedia certain administrators in this matter has been unfortunate. User:Sam Spade has also been accused of incivility and disrespect.

discussion

File:Henry Valerian George Wellesley, 6th Duke of Wellington.jpg

• (regarding the policy said to be violated)
  • The principle at stake here is that all text in wikipedia should be editable. john k 15:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

~*(regarding postulated admin misconduct)

• • This is not an argument in favor of the images being on the page. It is an argument in favor of me being disciplined in some way. I also question whether I can be considered an "official representative" of wikipedia. Wikipedia:Administrators says Administrators are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility. I may be an unofficial representative, but that is not at all the same thing. john k 15:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the specific policy you had in mind? AFAIK were not supposed to edit quotes, for example. I think its pretty clear (from your actions in this matter) that the text is editable, the discussion rather is in regards to the copyright holders ability to say it should not be edited, and/or if any image w caption imbedded should be allowed in any situation. Regarding the misconduct allegations, I agree, and have made them a separate catagory. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

To all involved in this debate: As far as I am aware, there is no legal impediment in the Copyrights, Designs & Patents Act that specifically states that Crown copyright images must maintain their captions. I am not aware of any other legislation in UK copyright law that states either that the maintenance of captions is essential, nor that any "only the Queen can strip titles" issue affects Crown copyright images. I am writing a letter to Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO), the government department that administrates Crown copyright, for further clarification on this matter. If anyone wishes to check the issue out, more information is available on the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) web site [1]. --NicholasTurnbull 20:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

There are all kinds of images on Wikipedia that include text. Yes, it's better to have images without built-in captions. But I don't see why we should exclude an image, simply because it has a built-in caption.

Also, there's no good reason why we can't removed the captions in an image editor and claim fair use on the resultant text-free images. The images are copyrighted (Crown Copyright), but fair use applies to these images as much as to any other copyrighted images. Simply note on the image description page that the image is crown-copyright, and make a fair use claim. (No free images available, used in an encyclopedia for non-commercial purposes, et cetera.) It seems to me that that would be the best solution. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 11:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Quadell - I think that if the captions were reasonable, it would not be a terrific problem, although I'd still be uncomfortable with it. The forms of the captions, though, are unacceptable, and were the subject of an edit war before Mr. Harvey uploaded them as part of the image. Although he says that this had nothing to do with the fact that there was a dispute over the caption, I'm still dubious, and I don't think that this kind of thing should be encouraged. Furthermore, how many of the built-in captions that we have are due to images being scanned in from books? How many built-in captions were actually created by the uploader? john k 14:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Outside view from PeteSmiles

Hello -i've arrived here from the RfC, and ploughed through the debate above. This is obviously an issue people are passionate about - which seems to make the discussions prone to distraction / obfuscation - the very terms of the argument seem to get clouded all too easily. At the risk of repetition, perhaps here are some points all parties agree on;

• The article is better with an image of the Duke of Wellington
• The best picture available has been contributed by Richard Harvey - who we also accept represents the copyright holder of the image.

Ok - now it gets a little more difficult;

• Richard Harvey wants The Duke of Wellington's full title displayed in a particular way.
• John Kenney (and other/s) strongly disagrees - and cites a lack of consesus in this decision.
• There is a brief revert war, and people start getting upset.
• Richard Harvey informs Wikipedia that it is a (new) condition of using the image that the title is now integrated (see current image)

It seems pretty clear that Richard Harvey has modified the image specifically to ensure that the Duke of Wellington's title appears in the encyclopedia in the given format. So, as I see it, the only key questions are (with my two-pennies worth......);

• Is this a 'back-door' avoiding of consensus?
  • Clearly.

• Does this violate Wiki policy?
  • No. The article is clearly better with the picture - and as copyright holder Richard Harvey is perfectly entitled to control the manipulation of the image (ie. to include a caption and make the whole inviolate)

• How should the title be displayed?
  • I would agree here with Richard Harvey - that there really is no debate. The Duke of Wellington has a specfic title, which can be displayed correctly or incorrectly - the caption on the image is the correct display of the title, and any variation is incorrect. Possibly Richard Harvey sees this as a simple matter of fact - something along the lines of 'If I chose to refer to George W Bush's political position as BigBoss Man USA - I am not presenting a valid viewpoint, I am just plain wrong!'. I would agree - and add that Wiki should of course aim to get things right!

• Can we remove the caption?
  • maybe / probably - though claiming 'fair use' (or 'fair dealing') works slightly differently in the UK - it would likely be a stretch for a court to find against.

And finally (phew!) - what do i think should happen?

• The image looks silly with the caption, it should be removed, and the correct title inserted as a caption.

then of course the article needs expanding........... Petesmiles 00:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree, and would further say that representatives of organizations charitable to the Wikipedia (i.e. donating images) should be better treated in the future. This was a shameful matter for the wikipedia. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok - agree with Sam - the picture is undoubtedly a useful contribution to the article - seeing as its been quiet for a little while - i've gone ahead and done what i think's the best solution - article is looking better to my eye.... Petesmiles 03:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh Dear

Oops! - I've cleary upset Richard Harvey (sorry - no upset intended!) - and now he requires wikipedia delete all of his images - i guess because he can't be sure that someone like me might come along and change them. This is indeed a great shame - having arrived here from the RfC, I'd grown rather fond of the 8th Duke of Wellington - and the article is clearly worse without the pic - anyone got another pic? Petesmiles 05:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Pete Smiles; Thanks for the above message and one one my talk page, (no offense taken). It isn't so much that I am upset, In this instance I am only the agent for the copyright holders. The Copyright of the Images I uploaded, over a period of time, belongs to 'The Duke of Wellington's Regimental Archive Collection', which is overseen by a board of trustees, it is not, as such, Crowncopyright. I have been instructed to have the images removed. The images were originally uploaded with permission for use, free of charge with certain restrictions, IE: no altering of the images and no commercial use allowed. Regrettably in this day and age British military units depend on income derived from their archived media and other sources to fund a great deal of the 'None Military' aspects of regimental life, such as adventure training, sports training and the associated equipment, travel costs for sporting teams etc. Even the uniforms and instruments of the Regimental Bands and Drum Corps are owned and funded by the Regiments themselves, not the Government. The replacement costs of the Dukes Honorary Colours 2 years ago was over £40,000 and the associated parade and activities over £100,000 again funded by the Regimental funds and donations by past members, as are the costs of providing troops and bands for the various 'Freedom Parades' and Town Gala's etc. Every soldier of a regiment gives a days pay and officers a weeks pay to these Regimental Funds. The archives dept of the regiment also depends on these funds to provide archive services for independant researchers. I and others each work, free of remuneration, several days a month to run the archives and It took me a long time to get permission to upload the images, now it has been withdrawn and I am now, regrettably, unable to obtain permission to allow the images to be used. Richard Harvey 08:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Richard - it is a shame - but the best of luck with all your duties - if you should come across a copyright free image it would be fantastic to get one back on! Petesmiles 09:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just come here from RfC too and spent ten minutes trawling though it... Since the debate now appears to have run its course perhaps it could be removed from RfC? (I would have agreed with PeteSmiles summary.) The cause of this dispute appears to have been the correct form of title. Although I appreciate Richard Harvey's point of view, I think we must have some form of consistency so users can find articles. The advice of someone like Proteus (who seems to have a lot of experience in this area) should stand. Ironically the Duke's post nominals are wrong: the BA, if it must be included, should come after the DL. :D Wiki-Ed 14:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Post Nominals

I have removed the BA, as we seem elsewhere not to bother including accademic qualifications - the BA was in any event in the wrong order and should have been behind DL not infront.Alci12

The Dukes own letterheading, should you ever get one list the BA and he prefers the title His Grace, The Most Noble is no longer used, check Debretts. 86.2.136.115 08:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

New Image

The 8th Duke of Wellington in the robes of a Knight Companion of the Order of the Garter

Hi all,

I have uploaded a new photo of the current Duke of Wellington, taken at the Garter service a few weeks ago. Having seen the controversy regarding the previous image and caption I thought I'd post it here first for discussion. If no-one objects within a week or so I'll add it to the article. Dr pda 21:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Prince of Waterloo

Is not the Duke also a Dutch(?) prince and as such recives rent on land that the first Duke was given? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Waterloo should this not also be included in article

intro image of the duke

I have put in the cropped image of the duke because it only shows him. The other version [2] has another person standing next to him, which is confusing because someone not familiar with his appearance will not know who is who. Gryffindor (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this image back to my original image, which is a better representation of him in that format. When you see a photo of a person next to some text that states he is a retired Brigadier born in 1915 and thus 84 years of age, then you are hardly likely to mistake him for a 2nd Lieutenant who is obviously in his early 20's, more so when there are additional images of him on the same article. Additionally if you note the centre wording of the colours carried by the 2nd Lieutenant you will see that it states they are the colours of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That is besides the point. The image in the intro should always show the person itself and not others. If there any explanatory images, they can be put below at some other area of the article. See the biographical articles of other people for example. Gryffindor (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Duke and the 1999 Reform of the House of Lords

Does anyone know what the Duke's position was on the 1999 reform of the House of Lords? And did the Duke continue to sit in the House after that, or was he one of those effectively expelled from it? Kevin Nelson (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

See this article:- List of hereditary peers elected to sit in the House of Lords under the House of Lords Act 1999. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see his name there, so I presume the answer to my second question is "no." Any word on whether he had any public comment on the matter? Even if he chose to maintain public silence, that itself might be notable enough for inclusion in the article. Kevin Nelson (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Duke's medals

I have updated the table with the ribbons of duke's orders and medals. Please do not revert it! It is based upon earlier information in the entry + three ribbons clearly seen on the photo of duke's medal bar (Order of St. John + Defence Medal + EII Coronation, cf. http://geneanjou.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/07/05/his-grace-the-duke-of-wellington/). Besides, it is not stated anywhere in the text that the table should contain only the ribbons from duke's ribbon bar. Should it be so, the ribbon of the Order of the Garter will have to be removed, too (the Order of the Garter is never denoted by a ribbon bar). LukGasz (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 January 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for several weeks. Jenks24 (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Arthur Valerian Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington → Valerian Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington – It's clear from the sources, for instance The London Gazette, that he was known by the name Valerian. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

move of 8 January 2016

With refering to The London Gazette as source: in those of before 1946 he was named "Valerian Wellesley", those of after 1946 he is named "Arthur Valerian Wellesley".Dr. D.E. Mophon 09:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the underscoring of "Arthur" yours, or does that appear in the sources too? HandsomeFella (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

He was styled Marquess Douro from 1943 and succeeded as Duke of Wellington in 1972, so after 1943 he would not have been commonly known by his Christian names at all. Any source giving his full name after that date would of course include his first name too. Opera hat (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with HF that he was almost certainly called "Valerian" by his buddies at school, friends in later life, etc, is his WP:COMMONNAME not Arthur Valerian Wellesley?

Argument supporting him being referred to as Valerian by close acquaintances: the earlier Gazettes refer to him as Valerian or V, but not A. V. I'd wager school records in Eton do the same.

Argument supporting that his commonname, for WP purposes, is A. V. W: it's impossible to find him referred to in modern press as plain Valerian. So anyone bumping into him in the press, online, etc. will know him as A. V. If this is the case, the article title needs to be rolled back. Bromley86 (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's impossible? It's very easy. Stroller (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That's true; should have checked the refs more thoroughly. The Indi ref I've added does likewise. So, clearly a poor choice of words! I'd done a quick Google News search, and scanning the results indicated that he's not referred to that way in RS. Bromley86 (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Just started going through the refs and the Spanish gazette refers to him as Valerian Wellesley. Of course, that's unimportant in determining his commonname, as it's not English language, but it does give a more recent confirmation that that was how he was addressed. Bromley86 (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: some sources have a tendency to use all given names when referring to people of the nobility, and that might of course have a certain impact number-wise (or google-wise), but generally, people are not commonly known by all their given names. In most cases, only one of the names is used. In the reliable sources I've found, the 8th Duke was referred to as either "Valerian Wellesley", "Arthur Valerian Wellesley", or "V. Wellesley". Some, less reliable (tabloid-type) sources say "Arthur" only, but my guess is that this stems from poor research and is only due to the fact that "Arthur" comes before "Valerian", and possibly also because "Arthur" is a much more common name now – but maybe not in those days.

@Bromley86: will you self-revert if and when we arrive at the conclusion that the article is currently correctly named?

HandsomeFella (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I take it you mean Bullingdon Club one? Sure, if I change my position on his commonname. That seems unlikely though, mainly because:

(a) I don't think, except on WP, he's been referred to as as Valerian Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington, and

(b) he is most commonly referred to, admittedly in more casual articles (i.e. one-off mentions vs. obits), as AVW. Obviously, if others think his commonname is VW, then I wouldn't block consensus. Bromley86 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Although, as mentioned above, there are some Gazette entries just using Valerian Wellesley. His correct name is Arthur Valerian Wellesley, as per his birth certificate (which anyone can obtain to check from Somerset House). When younger, and at school, he had a family nickname of Val, not Valerian, then later Douro. Gazette notices published for his military promotions and awards, including from Buckingham Palace and the National Archives. His Obituary notices, on The Duke on Wellington's Regiment website, and his obituary from Royal Horse Guards, use Arthur Valerian Wellesley. Below are some reference links, so you can check these easily:-

• His Grace Arthur Valerian Wellesley - http://www.dwr.org.uk/news.php?id=2&nw=273
• Arthur Valerian Wellesley - http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D7621419
• Second-Lieutenant Arthur Valerian Wellesley MC (31 December 1941)- https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/35396/page/7334
• Major Arthur Valerian Wellesley (18 March 1952)- https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/39494/page/1544
• Lieutenant-Colonel Arthur Valerian Wellesley (4 February 1958)- https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/41304/supplement/839
• The Most Noble Arthur Valerian Wellesley (24 April 1990)- https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/52120/page/8251

Also note that Jane Wellesley's book:- Wellington a Journey Through My Family, Wiedenfeld and Nicholson, 2008, states 'Arthur Valerian' in the Family tree on the fronticpiece of the book.

Hopefully you can now revert the article title back to his correct name of Arthur Valerian Wellesley.which will help prevent some confusion with his son, the current 9th Duke, whose middle name is also Valerian. 86.3.74.8 (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Valerian Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington. 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/20141231142638/http://www.dwr.org.uk/news.php?id=2&nw=273 to http://www.dwr.org.uk/news.php?id=2&nw=273
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/month/july/4377/Arthur%20Valerian%20Wellesley+WELLINGTON.aspx

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) 14:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)