Talk:Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts

message: Charles Hardinge also had eight. William Avery 21:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lord Kitchener has 9 according to his article. He was as "royal" as Roberts. Peter1968 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lord Mountbatten of Burma also had eight (though he could possibly be considered royalty, having been born as a German noble but relinquishing his titles as a teenager), and I'm sure there are others who have as many; the factoid should really be removed from the article. By the way, Peter1968, you should really pipe your links on talk pages; Lord Kitchener takes you to a dab page. TysK 20:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Removed. William Avery 13:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-nominal 

message: Recently the file :File:Frederick Sleigh Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts by George Frederic Watts.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 07:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now used in the article. Dormskirk (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New file [[:File:Frederick Sleigh Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts by George Frederic Watts.jpg]] 

message: I presume Robertsganj in India is named after him. If so, this should be noted. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now noted and referenced. Dormskirk (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robertsganj 

message: As a broad outline this article is an excellent introduction, but much is left out that could be included in a biography.  Not everything need be left to the article on the South African War.  The death of his son trying to rescue British guns from capture at Colenso was an important part of his motivation in travelling to South Africa and deeply affected him.  Captain Congreve reported him bursting into tears -- which field marshals did not do in those days, if ever -- when Congreve described his son's heroic death.  South African historians, Nasson, Scholtz and especially Wessels have written of his brilliant strategy of deception at the outset of his campaign in February, 1900.  The capture of 4000 Boers under Cronje at Paardeberg, nearly a tenth of Boer strength then mobilised, was the major turning point of the war.  On the relief of Kimberley the Daily Mail crowed, 'There is no one like Bobs!' [Roberts was known as Bobs throughout his career.]  I hope it might be possible for the editors to include some of this detail to bring Roberts to life. ----
Assessed as C-Class. Just weak referencing letting it down. Ron2K (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Referencing now improved and some additional colour added. Dormskirk (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SAFRICA]] assessment 

message: there is no talk about outrage by public? did it exist then, or ever?  20,000 women/children died in concentration camps like the holocaust? Roberts set example for HITLER to followJuror1 (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  outrage 

message: I earlier put a visual display of Roberts's ribbon bar on the page, and had it removed for reasons of "historical nonsense".
I have noted several other articles on British general officers with their respective ribbon bars displayed; if someone could provide a good reason for not including a ribbon bar on this page, do let me know.
Aumnamahashiva (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: there is some discussion on the subject here: Talk:David Richards (British Army officer). There seems to be a consensus that such ribbons are not helpful. Please note that the article has recently been re-assesed as B class. Dormskirk (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ribbons 

message: Might be worth adding a footnote or a link to another article to explain what "second captain" and "supernumerary general" were. It's non-obvious even to someone (me) with a reasonable knowledge of military history.Paulturtle (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And answer came there none. Since writing the above, I've learned that "supernumerary" meant an officer who was allowed to tag along on an expedition despite not being formally part of the command structure. Normally it applied lower down the ladder, eg. to captains. But in this case, perhaps to a general as well. I think "second captain" might have meant second-in-command of a company (a company commander being normally a captain in those days, which remained true into the twentieth century in other armies but not in ours) and was sometimes treated as a formal rank, but that's with a bit of guessing on my part. Paulturtle (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reforms were brought in just before WW1, in which infantry battalions comprised four large companies commanded by majors (divided into platoons, which were a new formation). Before that each battalion had eight small companies commanded by captains. But that doesn't conclusively prove what the mid nineteenth century organisation was, or what a "second captain" was.Paulturtle (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victorian Ranks 

message: I have removed a few words, a link and a footnote from the intro. Here is why. I don't think you need to say he was distinguished since being commander in chief speaks for itself. Anglo-Indian is confusing because nowadays it is usually used to refer to someone with both British and Indian ancestors and I can't see any evidence that either of Roberts' parents had any Indian ancestors. On the Kipling page which is used as a source (unpublished?) it does say he came from an Anglo-Indian family but the author may be using the term with its other meaning - British but born in India. It is clear from the next section that he was born in Cawnpore. Southdevonian (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The Anglo-Indian comment does not add anything. Better removed. Dormskirk (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Also agreed. The article lead should really be a summary of the article and should not introduce any new material. In my view no footnoted material should appear in the lead. Dormskirk (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Didn't Roberts win a VC? One would hardly know it reading this article. Perhaps those with a proprietory concern for this page really should remedy the situation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.213.3 (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a whole section on the Indian Rebellion of 1857 and Roberts' VC. Dormskirk (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  VC 

message: There is nothing under this heading except the post's abolition.
Roberts achieved a good dealPaardeberg (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - I have now added a bit on the Short Magazine Lee Enfield Rifle, the 18-pounder Gun and improved education and training for soldiers. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commander-in-Chief of the British Army

message: I don't see how the information added by myself to create a 'Styles of address' section is unsourced. I did not randomly trawl the internet to find the said information; all of the information from that section is based on previously existing information already present on the page.
Sdrqaz (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - Quite a lot of work goes into getting an article like this assessed. To achieve such an assessment everything in the article needs in-line citations. I have, on a number of occasions, seen editors downgrade assessments as a result of unsourced material being added. And I have certainly seen tables of "styles of address" subsequently marked as "unsourced section". Tables of "styles of address" also seem to be frowned upon because, as you say, they duplicate previously existing information already present on the page. I hope this helps. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm confused. Should I re-add the styles of address section with source citation?
Sdrqaz (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - Basically, no. When an article gets assessed this sort of thing tends to be removed as it is not prose (see WP:PROSE). It duplicates previously existing information already present on the page. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Styles of address 

message: This section begins with the following text:
"On 23 December 1899 Roberts returned to South Africa on the RMS Dunottar Castle to take overall command of British forces in the Second Boer War, subordinating the previous commander, General Redvers Buller. His appointment was a response to a string of defeats in the early weeks of the war and was accompanied by the despatch of huge reinforcements.[36] For his headquarters staff, he appointed military men from far and wide: Lord Kitchener (Chief of Staff) from the Sudan, Frederick Burnham (Chief of Scouts), the American scout, from the Klondike, David Henderson from the Staff College, Neville Chamberlain from Afghanistan..."
Neville Chamberlain is hyperlinked to Fld Mshl Neville Bowles Chamberlain, who retired in 1881, and would have been 79 at the time of this "call up". I have no idea who the correct Neville Chamberlain is, but evidently this must be a wrong one! Hope this helps...
86.141.249.103 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have de-linked Chaimberlain. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Anglo-Boer War section 

message: Re the earlier, I've just searched Wiki, and it would appear that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Francis_Fitzgerald_Chamberlain is the correct man. "He rejoined Lord Roberts in South Africa in December 1899", says part of the article on him. Apologies, I should have though of this first time round. Amusingly, Neville Francis & Neville Bowles appear to have exactly the same photo on their pages - the gods only know which one it is!
86.141.249.103 (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. I have inserted the link to Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain in the Roberts article. I now think the photo is of Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neville Chamberlain hyperlink 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Frederick Sleigh Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts by John Singer Sargent.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 30, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-09-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Frederick Sleigh Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts by John Singer Sargent.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Roberts is commonly regarded as being the introducer of the martial race theory to India, a now-discredited notion of scientific racism that still has disruptive ramifications in Indian/Pakistani military and society generally. I'm working on other stuff and had always assumed that this would figure prominently in his bio but in fact I cannot see where it is even mentioned. There are loads of sources out there (eg: ). Does anyone have the time to cover it in this article? It's a major omission, unless I have completely misread what we have written. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the category "scientific racism"; the "martial race" page makes no mention of "scientific racism" and the theory seems to be based on Roberts' long experience of India, rather than on "scientific" theories. It should be included in the article but I would point out that in Roberts' Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry, the "martial race" theory is mentioned just twice and in passing.--Britannicus (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist