Talk:Francis Beaufort

message: I became interest in Beaufort in 1941, as an Army Air Corp weather observer at
Kelly Field, Tx, while plotting daily synoptic wx maps using the beaufort scale.jonhays 17:38, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The following are named after Henry Somerset, 2nd Duke of Beaufort, Lord Proprietor of the Carolinas. If this is from Friendly's biography, it is worthless, except to suggest claims to be confirmed by real evidence. 
*Beaufort, North Carolina 
*Beaufort County, North Carolina
*Beaufort, South Carolina 
*Beaufort County, South Carolina 
Septentrionalis 16:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beaufort as eponym

message: I don't know if this is the right word to use abot Beaufort's relationship with this tool of measurement. Scott Huler (Defining the Wind: The Beaufort Scale, and How a 19th-Century Admiral Turned Defining the Wind: The Beaufort Scale, and How a 19th-Century Admiral Turned Science into Poetry. ) makes a very persuasive case that Beaufort did not create this scale, but he encouraged its use on the ships of the British Admiralty -- which led to his name being attached to one specific numeric scale. Case in point: this article succeeds in providing a useful sketch of the man without once mentioning the scale after the opening paragraph. -- llywrch 18:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Inventor" of the Beaufort scale? 

message: "Biography" first paragraph mentions contact with Herschel. There are so many Herschels - please specify which one!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.238.107 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 8 March 2008
:Thanks for pointing that out, I've disambiguated it to John Herschel who must be the right one. Good point! .. dave souza, talk 22:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: Was he born on the 24th of May or the 27th of May. One of them's wrong.--The Master of Mayhem ROAD AHEAD CLOSED 19:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Birth

message: The reason for the recent deletion of the nationality in the info box was to avoid a conflict. The info box was wrong because in Beaufort's time he was a British national and there was no such thing as Irish nationality. Irish nationality didn't come into existence until 1935. The info box described Beaufort as a British citizen yet British citizenship didn't come into existence until 1983. So both entries were wrong. I could have deleted the Irish bit and changed the nationality to British, but I chose to remove both as is customary where disputes arise. If we're going to keep it accurate then he was a British national, but if that is going to cause a dispute, then we leave it out altogether. There is a difference between nationality and citizenship and by removing these themes from the info box we avoid getting drawn into those details and all the disputes that would follow.
As regards the description on the lede, it's rather unfair to describe him as Irish considering he was very much a member of the Anglo-Irish tradition. Anglo-Irish is a well understood description and there is a wikipedia article on it. Why wouldn't we use Anglo-Irish to describe Beaufort in the lede? To describe him as Irish would identify him with the modern understanding of the term Irish and that would hardly be accurate. Everything about his background suggests that he would have identified as British. He was protestant of English descent and he held a senior rank in the British armed forces. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you get it? You are the one creating the conflict. The nationality question was stable going back as far as 2011, until you decided to change it "... to prevent conflict...". When Beaufort was born, Ireland was an independent country, not part of the UK. The Act of Union took place after his birth, in 1801. He had his first command in 1800. So he was still Irish when he first commanded a Royal Navy vessel. Think about that. I have no particular objection to Anglo-Irish, providing you can find a reliable source which ratifies it. But I don't find it very collaborative for you to make that change without discussion. Thats not they things work around here. There are plenty of instances of calling people Irish or English or British befoire those nationalities existed in law. Its a handy description. Checkout one of Beauforts categories and click through a bunch of them and see how they are described. It is very normal. He is categorised as protestent but that is irrelevant when it comes to identity. Theobald Wolfe Tone and Robert Emmett, both contemporaries of Beaufort, were protestent and proudly Irish. You need references if you want to change long-standing stable copy. If you continue to change without citing sources, then you are the one creating conflict. Fob.schools (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling him Anglo-Irish is erroneous considering his origin as a French Hugenot. And indeed as  indicates he was Irish at the time of his birth and, unless he specifically states himself not to be, would normally be considered Irish throughout his life. He could also be British since the Acts of Union came into effect while he was still in the Navy. Being Irish is not a modern concept nor is putting it in the lead an anachronism. Please return the article to the more accurate description of the man.   ☕  Antiqueight chatter 14:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from any debate about when Irish people could be both Irish and British and ignoring the established manual of style relating to Ireland and Irish topics, Irish is generally preferred over British as it is more specific and granular information much like how English/Scottish/Welsh/Manx etc are all subsets of British but give the reader more specific information. And I agree with Antiqueight, Anglo-Irish is a very specific group of people, and Beaufort is not Anglo-Irish. Smirkybec (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: He was Anglo-Irish. You need to read up on what Anglo-Irish means. The Huguenot connection changes nothing as regards the definition of Anglo-Irish. He ticks all the boxes. As regards his nationality, the reason why I removed the information in the info box is because it was inaccurate and there is no sure way of making it accurate since there was no Irish nationality law in those days and there was no citizenship at all, either Irish or British. So I removed that information to avoid a conflict. As it stands now, it is wrong because Beaufort was neither a British citizen nor an Irish national. May I ask a question? Why are you so keen to avoid the use of the term Anglo-Irish? You know that he was not part of the native Irish community. He would have been seen as an Anglo. Why do you want to play this fact down? It always amazes me how Irish republicans resent the interactions of Englishmen in Irish affairs over the centuries yet when it comes to matters of achievement they are very quick to claim these Englishmen as their own. Would you describe a Turkish general who was born in Acre in the days of the Ottoman Empire as being an Israeli because Acre is in modern day Israel? The situation is the same with Beaufort. Beaufort was not an Irishman in the sense that is understood today so why do you wish to claim him for Ireland when he was British as in the best it gets? Yet I removed the reference to British and you still weren't happy about it. Check my original edit again and you will see that I was acting to avoid a conflict. I removed both the Irish and the British. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Smirkybec, Here is a reference describing Beaufort as being of Anglo-Irish stock https://www.petersommer.com/blog/archaeology-history/beaufort-bodrum You said that you preferred descriptions in the lede that are more specific and granular. Isn't that exactly the reason why I changed it to Anglo-Irish? I think that when you look at my original edit again and study the details carefully, you will realize that I was acting perfectly in good faith. I did not want the readers getting wrong information about citizenship when British citizenship didn't come about until 1983 and Irish citizenship didn't come about until 1935. Meanwhile changing it to British nationality, which is what I would have preferred, would likely have started an edit war so I just removed both entries. But Fob.school reverted it back again and so now it's wrong. You all need to read up on the distinction between citizenship and nationality. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Scolaire, I see that you changed it from Anglo-Irish to Irish despite a reference having been supplied which described him as Anglo-Irish and which judging by his background he very obviously was as per the very definition of the term. You said that this change was pending discussion. This further reference here http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1730.htm being the British Nationality Act 1730, which applied in Ireland, leaves no doubt that his nationality was British. So is it the case that false information is to remain in this article just because I am outnumbered four to one by people who want to claim the achievements of Englishmen for Ireland? Or is it the case that false information that has survived in this article since 2012 must remain indefinitely because of some statute of limitations on rectifying false information? Centuryofconfusion (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Again you are confusing citizenship (or in this case subjecthood) with nationality. And you are confusing nationalities. You have started to refer to him as English now. No one I think has argued that he might not be called British since he was a British subject, he is still Irish. Nor is it necessary for a British law or even an Irish law to exist to identify someone as Irish. You are not simply outnumbered. You are not making a valid claim. A blog post doesn't prove the man to be Anglo-Irish, a British law doesn't prevent him being Irish and none of those make him English at all. You made a bold change- as you can and should as an editor. It was reverted. Again, the appropriate action by an editor who doesn't agree your position is correct. Now you must build a consensus or prove your position to make your change be taken. You have not. The consensus is that he was as stated; Irish.   ☕  Antiqueight chatter 19:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Antiqueight, You mean a consensus for the moment. Three of the four contrary editors have identified as Irish, and the fourth, judging by their edit topics more than likely is too. Do you not find it a matter of great shame that Irish people would claim credit for the achievements of Englishmen that once inhabited their island? Beaufort was an Anglo. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Just to clarify that it wasn't Bold, Revert, Discuss. It was Bold, Attempt to engage, Wait, Revert, Revert, Discuss. Fob.schools (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Again with the English - He was more French than English.   ☕  Antiqueight chatter 21:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Any consensus on Wikipedia is capturing a moment in time. In your own arguments here you can't seem to decide if he was British, Anglo-Irish, or English. The fact of the matter is that if we were to follow your logic no person from the island of Ireland who was born before the middle of the 20 century could be called Irish, which just highlights the major flaw in your reasoning. Regardless of your inferences based on our own edits, we are all in favour of describing someone as accurately as possible, based on their place of birth and how they are described in most reputable sources. Smirkybec (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As an addendum, you should perhaps read the definition of the Anglo-Irish in the article: "members are mostly the descendants and successors of the English Protestant Ascendancy." Looking at the article on Beaufort's father and the details on his mother clearly show he was not from this group, not even with a more than generous flexibility in that definition. Smirkybec (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: With regards to the contents of the article Irish and the article Anglo-Irish and considering the national origins of both his parents and the entirety of his own career, which of these two designations most accurately applies to Francis Beaufort? 14:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be far more inclined to engage with you more rigorously if you offered any high quality references backing up your assertions. These kind of discussions are just about throwing it open for opinions, they need to backed up with sources, just as Fob.schools has done above and you have decided to ignore. That said, he is not called English or Anglo-Irish (a term the DIB often employ) in the Dictionary of Irish Biography, the ONB don't call him either English or Anglo-Irish, neither does the Royal Museums at Greenwich.  Smirkybec (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed already. There are lots of citations for Irish and it matches the article better.    ☕  Antiqueight chatter 18:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

text: The Encyclopaedia Britannica merely states that Britannica does not currently have an article on this topic. So it would be hard for that Encyclopaedia to make reference to his nationality.    ☕  Antiqueight chatter 18:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Antiqueight, I was talking about this Encyclopaedia Britannica article. https://www.britannica.com/science/Beaufort-scale It doesn't specify his nationality. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of that - there is no reason they would talk about his nationality in an article about the scale. So it's a meaningless citation for this purpose.   ☕  Antiqueight chatter 18:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

text: I presume you have read m:The Wrong Version? Fob.schools (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on National Origins