Talk:John Brown (servant)
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
WikiProject class rating
[edit]This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
John Brown's body...
[edit]Author:
While you add the needed citations, please include information about the funeral and burial of Mr. Brown: where, how - simply or with more respect than that of the usual servant's, did the Queen attend, did she visit the gravesite in following years, etc. That information would be as telling to the nature of Victoria and Brown's relationship as the information you include about his portraits and busts being destroyed by her jealous son.
Thank you. Wordreader (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Their alleged daughter
[edit]This article contains two non-working links (currently References 2 and 3) to a Daily Mail article by Michael Thornton with the title 'Victoria's secret? New evidence shows Queen Victoria married her Scottish groom and bore him a secret daughter who was spirited to America'. Yet the text of the article makes no mention of such a daughter, which seems rather unsatisfactory, at least to me. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I have now managed to find and read a copy of the article at http://www.biyokulule.com/view_content.php?articleid=4605 . This makes it clear the headline is deeply misleading. Even the article's author, Michael Thornton, says the sources are unreliable and the stories (of up to 3 children) are virtually impossible, and probably began as republican propaganda almost 150 years ago, as quite likely did the story of the claimed secret marriage, and the claimed discovery of a marriage cert which was then promptly burned by the queen mother seems almost as far-fetched. But he does describe Victoria as 'almost a nymphomaniac', presumably implying that an affair was possible. It presumably would be possible even if she simply had a normal healthy sexual appetite (and a secret marriage would presumably also be possible to satisfy her Christian conscience, even if the alleged discovery of the marriage cert seems implausible). But I'm not entirely clear what should be done about any of this. Simply deleting the references isn't very helpful to those who have seen or heard about the headlines and want to learn more. But clarifying matters by adding what I've written here to the article probably violates several Wikipedia rules against unreferenced opinions, weasel words, etc. So I'd prefer to leave a fix to some more experienced editor. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
"no such thing as Scottish nationality"
[edit]John Brown's nationality was changed from Scottish to British in the infobox (Edit summary: “He had British nationality, he may of been Scottish ethnically.” This was reverted with a specific request to initiate discussion here. The request to discuss on the talk page was ignored and the change reinstated (Edit summary: “The guy was ethnically Scottish, but held British nationality. There is no such thing as Scottish nationality.”).
Four points: 1. Please respect WP:BRD; 2. Please read WP:UKNATIONALS; 3. That “There is no such thing as Scottish nationality” is WP:POV and will cause offence to those who do not share that view. 4. Per MOS:INFOBOX, its purpose is “to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears”. The article says John Bown is Scottish. Therefore, so should the infobox.
I will now reinstate Brown's nationality as Scottish in the infobox, which has been the stable version for several years. Please discuss here rather than edit war. Daicaregos (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- UK Nationals is an essay, not a policy or guideline. The fact that John Brown was, undoubtedly, Scottish is not the same thing as saying that his nationality is Scottish and it is simplistic to make that connection and then to insist on such a definition in the specific infobox parameter. Nationality, in common usage in the real world, outside of the usual tedious WP ethno-wars, usually refers to citizenship of a state. That would be British, for better or worse. N-HH talk/edits 22:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- That WP:UKNATIONALS is an essay does not mean it should be ignored. “The purpose of an essay is to aid the encyclopedia itself (by providing information, instructions, interpretations, or advice).” That Scotland is a nation is, I imagine, accepted by all but the terminally ignorant. Those belonging to that nation are of Scottish nationality. To argue otherwise would be to claim that that nation has no members. I also inhabit the real world. In that real world I have sometimes been asked my nationality. My answer is either Welsh or Cymro (depending on the language in which the question was posed) never British. This answer is accepted officially. Welsh is noted as my nationality on my marriage certificate, for example - evidence of common usage. Ask people round by here their nationality and you will receive the same reply. Nevertheless, this is OR and uncited ... as is the statement claiming “There is no such thing as Scottish nationality.”. I refer you to Article 15 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: “(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” My nationality is Welsh. John Brown's was Scottish. John Brown was defined by his Scottishness. Point #4 above appears to have been ignored. The point is pertinent: Per MOS:INFOBOX, its purpose is “to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears”. Nowhere in the article does it say he was British. The article says John Brown is Scottish. That is how it should appear in the infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just to be clear that I definitely wasn't endorsing the claim, used as the title of this section, that there is no such thing as Scottish nationality (or Welsh). My point is simply, as stated, that for all the fuzziness on these topics and categories, in my experience, the primary use of the term "nationality" – ie the objective response to the question "what nationality is this person?" – in such contexts would be in respect of, in effect, citizenship and hence should be British. I also think it would be clearer and better for consistency if we stuck with that, for all British people, when it comes to this specific infobox parameter (I'm less fussed about the primary description in the opening sentence of leads, where I think we need more flexibility – nor do I see any problem or contradiction arising from saying "John Brown was a Scottish .." as the first words there while having "British" noted as nationality/citizenship in the infobox. That first sentence doesn't say his nationality was Scottish). Plus this isn't just me making it up as I go along - see here, for example, which deals with the semantics of nation vs nationality, or here. N-HH talk/edits 15:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- That WP:UKNATIONALS is an essay does not mean it should be ignored. “The purpose of an essay is to aid the encyclopedia itself (by providing information, instructions, interpretations, or advice).” That Scotland is a nation is, I imagine, accepted by all but the terminally ignorant. Those belonging to that nation are of Scottish nationality. To argue otherwise would be to claim that that nation has no members. I also inhabit the real world. In that real world I have sometimes been asked my nationality. My answer is either Welsh or Cymro (depending on the language in which the question was posed) never British. This answer is accepted officially. Welsh is noted as my nationality on my marriage certificate, for example - evidence of common usage. Ask people round by here their nationality and you will receive the same reply. Nevertheless, this is OR and uncited ... as is the statement claiming “There is no such thing as Scottish nationality.”. I refer you to Article 15 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: “(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” My nationality is Welsh. John Brown's was Scottish. John Brown was defined by his Scottishness. Point #4 above appears to have been ignored. The point is pertinent: Per MOS:INFOBOX, its purpose is “to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears”. Nowhere in the article does it say he was British. The article says John Brown is Scottish. That is how it should appear in the infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- ps: It seems to me as if you are reading the category as if it said "national identity", which is more subjective a concept, rather than "nationality". The problem with that is: a) it doesn't; and b) even if it did, we have no way of knowing or verifying whether John Brown would have thought of his national identity as primarily "Scottish" or "British" anyway. Plus it would leave the field open for pretty much any description being put there for any British person; especially, say, for more recent immigrants. We could I guess lose any ambiguity by entering a "citizenship" section instead but then we can just have arcane discussions instead about the distinctions between being a citizen and a subject and between nationality and citizenship in the context of Britain. N-HH talk/edits 16:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are mistaken in your premise that the objective response to the question "what nationality is this person?" relates to citizenship and hence should be British. As I said above, the British Government accepts that my nationality is Welsh. Do you really think you know better? You may, but that would be WP:OR. Talking of semantics, thanks for the links. Stephen Tierney's book Accommodating National Identity: etc certainly states “... there is no Scottish nationality … ”, but one needs to read more than just one small phrase contained within a work (which may seem to confirm one's prejudice) to grasp its full meaning. The sentence actually begins, “A lawyer's first thought might be that, to judge from the criterion of citizenship laws, there is no Scottish nationality …”, and the rest of the paragraph goes on to explain why that first thought was wrong. Paul Weis' confirms his book Nationality and Statelessness in International Law relates only to the narrow concept of law (see the beginning of Chapter 1, p 3, which says “The term “nationality” in the sense in which it is used in this book is ...”. Wikipedia is not a law manual. It reflects real world usage, and Scottish nationality is used in the real world; witness the 9,450 Google Books links (both my emphasis). Re your ps: we neither have to know nor verify whether John Brown would have thought of his national identity as primarily "Scottish" or "British". He is frequently described as Scottish. I found no descriptions of him as British. Some may exist, but even if they do, they will be completely overwhelmed by his descriptions as Scottish. Furthermore, as the vast majority of Scots are British citizens, describing their nationality as Scottish provides additional information to readers, than would describing their nationality as British. Daicaregos (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- But that is the understanding of nationality on WP. See WP:OPENPARA, for example, and the notes for the actual infobox in question. As I say, there is a distinction between "nationality" in terms of the more subjective and moveable concept of "national identity" and "nationality" as the objective and objectively verifiable issue of what nation-state one is a member of. Unless we are clear about what we mean here, we're just opening everything up to arbitrary choices and inconsistent application across the site, on two levels. For example, some Scottish people will be set up as "British" nationals – whether because the editors who happen to be on the page are relying on the former definition, and we are talking about a pro-Union individual, or because, conversely, they are relying on the latter definition – and some as "Scottish". Are Indonesians, for example, going to be a random mish-mash of "Javanese", "Chinese" or "Indonesian", depending on the whims of individual editors and which sources randomly happen to be being cited at any one point in time on the page?
- As for the books I cited, I was aware they deal with the complexity of the issue and the terminology; that was kind of my point. I have also been quite explicit that I am not denying the existence of the concept of Scottish nationality or the use of the term. Nor am I insisting on using strict legal terminology (and I'm not sure that's the issue here anyway). I am simply asking for clarity and consistency – and for us to follow current standard WP practice – when it comes to what we mean by the term when used as an infobox parameter. And doing a Google poll of how often particular adjectives are used to describe someone in order to determine what their nationality is surely not the way forward. Even if no Google-able sources ever describe him, however casually, as "British", that really doesn't mean that he wasn't, as a matter of simple definition. And finally, as for providing additional information to readers, it seems rather obvious to me that using Scottish in the lead sentence and British in this infobox slot conveys more information than using Scottish in both. N-HH talk/edits 10:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- But what is the understanding of nationality on WP? Neither of your links prevent Scottish being used here. The WP:OPENPARA section on nationality says: “In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.” So Scotland is a perfectly acceptable use, unless you contend that Scotland is not a country. If you are unsure what nationality to use, read the essay WP:UKNATIONALS, the purpose of which is to “aid the encyclopedia itself (by providing information, instructions, interpretations, or advice).” Nationality is defined as the sense of belonging to a particular nation. As you agree that Scotland is a nation, and John Brown is verifiably Scottish (i.e. a member of the Scottish nation) what can be gained by describing his nationality otherwise? You say: “Even if no Google-able sources ever describe him, however casually, as "British", that really doesn't mean that he wasn't, as a matter of simple definition.” Of course it doesn't, but two points. Firstly, as no sources describe his as British, that implies it is not notable; and secondly, (and once again, as the point has yet to be addressed), MOS:INFOBOX states its purpose is “to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears”. Nowhere in the article does it say he was British. The article says John Brown is Scottish. That is how it should appear in the infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- But that is the understanding of nationality on WP. See WP:OPENPARA, for example, and the notes for the actual infobox in question. As I say, there is a distinction between "nationality" in terms of the more subjective and moveable concept of "national identity" and "nationality" as the objective and objectively verifiable issue of what nation-state one is a member of. Unless we are clear about what we mean here, we're just opening everything up to arbitrary choices and inconsistent application across the site, on two levels. For example, some Scottish people will be set up as "British" nationals – whether because the editors who happen to be on the page are relying on the former definition, and we are talking about a pro-Union individual, or because, conversely, they are relying on the latter definition – and some as "Scottish". Are Indonesians, for example, going to be a random mish-mash of "Javanese", "Chinese" or "Indonesian", depending on the whims of individual editors and which sources randomly happen to be being cited at any one point in time on the page?
- You are mistaken in your premise that the objective response to the question "what nationality is this person?" relates to citizenship and hence should be British. As I said above, the British Government accepts that my nationality is Welsh. Do you really think you know better? You may, but that would be WP:OR. Talking of semantics, thanks for the links. Stephen Tierney's book Accommodating National Identity: etc certainly states “... there is no Scottish nationality … ”, but one needs to read more than just one small phrase contained within a work (which may seem to confirm one's prejudice) to grasp its full meaning. The sentence actually begins, “A lawyer's first thought might be that, to judge from the criterion of citizenship laws, there is no Scottish nationality …”, and the rest of the paragraph goes on to explain why that first thought was wrong. Paul Weis' confirms his book Nationality and Statelessness in International Law relates only to the narrow concept of law (see the beginning of Chapter 1, p 3, which says “The term “nationality” in the sense in which it is used in this book is ...”. Wikipedia is not a law manual. It reflects real world usage, and Scottish nationality is used in the real world; witness the 9,450 Google Books links (both my emphasis). Re your ps: we neither have to know nor verify whether John Brown would have thought of his national identity as primarily "Scottish" or "British". He is frequently described as Scottish. I found no descriptions of him as British. Some may exist, but even if they do, they will be completely overwhelmed by his descriptions as Scottish. Furthermore, as the vast majority of Scots are British citizens, describing their nationality as Scottish provides additional information to readers, than would describing their nationality as British. Daicaregos (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- ps: It seems to me as if you are reading the category as if it said "national identity", which is more subjective a concept, rather than "nationality". The problem with that is: a) it doesn't; and b) even if it did, we have no way of knowing or verifying whether John Brown would have thought of his national identity as primarily "Scottish" or "British" anyway. Plus it would leave the field open for pretty much any description being put there for any British person; especially, say, for more recent immigrants. We could I guess lose any ambiguity by entering a "citizenship" section instead but then we can just have arcane discussions instead about the distinctions between being a citizen and a subject and between nationality and citizenship in the context of Britain. N-HH talk/edits 16:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
John Brown's nationality was changed from Scottish to British in the infobox once again. Discounting the rudeness of the edit summary (“Nationality refers to citizenship. If you do not understand defintions [sic] like this you shouldn't be editing.” - please read WP:NPA and WP:WAR), its premise is misleading. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of nationality is:
- citizenship of particular nation: the status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization
- people forming nation-state: a people with a common origin, tradition, and often language, who form or are capable of forming a nation-state
- ethnic group within larger entity: an ethnic group that is part of a larger entity such as a state
Scotland would not be excluded by any of those definitions and, as it is the only nationality cited in the article, it should be noted as Brown's nationality in the infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Brown (servant). 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/20070312220228/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1655_283/ai_112095011/pg_3 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1655_283/ai_112095011/pg_3
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) 06:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)