Talk:John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) at 20:18, 14 September 2007 (closing move request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

career

Hi:

It doesn't really touch on the two factors of Fisher's career that make him a figure of interest. First are his many reforms, often shoved through against the resistance from the powers that be, in munitions, operations and training methods. Second, was this flamethrower personality.

There's quite a lot that can be added. Here in no particular order, is stuff that comes to mind: The current article goes from 1898 to 1902 without mentioning the entente cordialle; Fisher's work habits (his "I have nothing to do" sign"); the period of technical innovation from sail to steam; the innovation of the submarine threat and the torpedo threat; the Naval acts of both England and Germany (ie the general context -- Kaiser' William's idiotic foreign policy).

To psychologists the most fascinating aspect of Fisher's life/career is its illustration of how much personality counts for in human affairs. Fisher had the energy and personality of a speed addict before there was speed (or its accompanying tooth loss), and utter devotion to his work and to Great Britian. As a result he rose from a nothing son of a nothing born on the fringes of the British empire to becoming not only one of the dozen or so most significant people in the world by 1900, but also perhaps the only person in the world who could, at the very hight of the empire's power, shake his fist in the face of King Edward the VII without reproach (yet be considered one of the King's good friends before, and after), be invitied to dine with Kaiser Whilhelm and with Tirpitz, and dance with the Grand Duchessess of Russia. Fisher was truly a remarkable man, and if he were in an American school today, without doubt he would be put on Ritilan and would never be heard from again. A true human volcano!

From the "Last modified on" date of this page, as of this writing, the above unsigned entry dates from March 15, 2006. It is possible that all the suggestions have been addressed by now.--?? Zaslav 03:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Early reform efforts" is the phrase "during which he split it off as Vernon." I ask anyone who can understand this to rewrite it. What does "it" refer to? What does "which" refer to? What does "split off" mean in this sentence? What is Vernon? Could the intended meaning be "During this time, he established something as a separate something under the name of Vernon"? Zaslav 03:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original HMS Vernon was a frigate operational from 1832 to 1848; she was laid up until 1867 as a floating coaling jetty, then in 1872 she became a hulk anchored to HMS Excellent as a tender. In 1876 the hulk of Vernon together with ex-frigate Ariadne and the lighter Florence Nightingale were commissioned as HMS Vernon, the Royal Navy's Torpedo Branch, separate from HMS Excellent, the Torpedo and Mining Training school. Over the next 30 years or so the various hulks were renamed, and moved about, and finally in 1923 the organisation moved ashore with the original ship names being applied to various buildings. This site may better explain the rather complex history. -- Arwel (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded that bit in the article to make it clearer. Jll 14:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

The following quote is currently credited to Fisher in this article:

The moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance which no man could have dreamed would have come his way. Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now. Never contradict. Never explain. Never apologise.

However, I've found that the bolded part of the text above is often credited to Goethe, who died nearly 9 years before Fisher was born. Of course, Fisher may have been quoting Goethe, but if so, this should be noted. Or maybe the Goethe credit isn't correct. (Internet quote sites are almost universally devoid of any proper sourcing, and even Wikiquote's Goethe article is currently lacking a source.) Does anyone have a source for this quote? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.goethesociety.org/pages/quotescom.html
http://german.about.com/library/blgermyth12.htm
Whoever it was, it wasn't Fisher. I've removed that whole section. — ciphergoth 13:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the links! I've updated wikiquote:Johann Wolfgang von Goethe to reflect this as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Inflexible's armament

Hi, I just noticed your recent edit to Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher. The statement which you deleted about HMS Inflexible's armament was not particularly bizarre, as it took between 2.5 and 4 minutes to reload the muzzle-loading main guns. -- Arwel (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might have done, but that's no reason to say the guns were "useless for naval warfare". The Land 20:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

I have deleted second part of the following statement.

Inflexible was a very prestigious appointment, the most powerful warship of her day, although in practice the four huge muzzle-loaded guns took so long to load that she was almost useless for naval warfare.

It was true that the rate of fire of the 16in MLRs on Inflexible was slow. According to Astley Cooper Key they could do 1 round every 4 minutes.

This compaeres with:

  • 1 round per 2 minutes for the 12.5 in MLRs on the Dreadnought. (Source: Astley Cooper Key)
  • 1 round per 3 minutes for 13.5 in BLRs on the Admiral, Trafalgar, and Royal Sovereign classes. (Source: Fred Jane)
  • 1 round per 5 minutes for the 16.25 in BLRS on the Benbow, Victoria and Sans Pareil. (Source: Fred Jane)
  • 1 round per 8 minutes for the 13.4 in BLRs on the French Brennus. (Source: Fred Jane)
  • 1 round per 15 minutes for the 17 in MRLs on the Italian Duilio and Dandolo. (Source: papers translated from Italian into English in the Public Record Office.)

So what is wrong with a rate of fire of 1 round per 4 minutes?--Toddy1 21:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then I take your point. -- Arwel (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

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

The result of the proposal was no move. -- tariqabjotu 20:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC) At 19:35, 24 August 2007 Franz-kafka renamed this page from Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher to Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone. The reason for doing so was given as "Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone is the correct full name of his title."[reply]

Err!!!! No, it was not! Jackie was his nickname. His correct full name was: John Arbuthnot Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone, GCB, OM, GCVO.

Well in that case the article should be called that then, and have jackie marked like this "Jackie" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz-kafka (talk • contribs) 07:26, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

That we rename the article: John Arbuthnot Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone. Reasons given above.--Toddy1 07:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed 'Jackie' was just a nickname and certainly should not be in the title of the article Dormskirk 11:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's what he's almost always called. If this page is moved, it should go to Jackie Fisher, like Bertrand Russell. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - the correct form of the title is "Baron Fisher"; "of Kilverstone" is the territorial qualifier and putting it in the title is completely wrong. And "Jackie Fisher", as the name he is known by, is as valid a title name as Frank Pakenham, not "Francis Pakenham". Timrollpickering 16:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The consensus seems to make the most common name the official article title, and the first sentence of the article to give the full name.(see Augustus, Sting, Blackbeard , etc. - all nicknames) That's what we've done here. Mike Young 20:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The proposed name is consistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), which the existing name certainly is not (see note below). One cannot mix nicknames with formal titles. Regards to all, John Moore 309 14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the change to "John Arbuthnot Fisher" as that was his real name, although it is clearly important that people typing in "Jackie Fisher" should be automatically directed to this page. The nickname "Jackie" is shown in the very first sentence of text (although I suggest it should precede the 'Arbuthnot' rather than follow it), and I would also suggest that the "of Kilverstone" should be inserted after "1st Baron Fisher" in this first sentence, obviating the name for it to appear in the article's title. Remember that he did not become Baron Fisher until 1909, just a few months before retirement, so it may only in his latter year that people would refer to him by the peerage; for that matter, he did not reach flag rank until 1890, so people investigating his career as Director of Naval Ordnance may seek him out under a lower rank. Rif Winfield 08:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose He's universally known as Jackie Fisher. I have no problems with mixing and matching the title:, thus: "Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone", if you must add the territory. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about John Arbuthnot "Jackie" Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone? Mike Young 16:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine linking to it ... --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am for changing it to Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone though. This would move it inline with other articles such as Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope. (It must be noted that his full title is included to disambiguate from other Andrew Cunninghams). Woodym555 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To throw my six pennyworth in... I am new to contributing to Wiki so may be missing some subtle naming convention but I would go for John Arbuthnot Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone. As an aside, I'm not sure where Jackie has come from. I thought it was Jacky. A check of the biographies that I have - Hough, MacKay and Ollard all use this spelling. I'm reading a bio of Beatty at the moment (Roskill) and in his letters to his wife Beatty uses Jacky too. SirLancelot
  • Oppose. Common names policy mandates "Jackie" rather than "John" or "John Arbuthnot", and "Baron Fisher" is the correct title. "Baron Fisher of Kilverstone" is totally wrong. Proteus (Talk) 21:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though, funnily enough, "Baron Fisher of Kilverstone" is exactly how The Times referred to him in their obituary (Jul 12, 1920; pg. 9; Issue 42460; col A} --ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then they got it wrong. It's hardly unknown for the media not to know what they're talking about. Proteus (Talk) 09:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My information is that the use of the name without the territorial designation is mere shorthand and that territorial bit is used to disambiguate if more than one peer of that name exists. Now, rather than blithely claiming that the The Times has got it wrong, why not produce a reliable source to confirm what you say? (FYI, the House of Lords interests register uses territorial designations. This, I suggest adds more credence to my version than to yours. Further, the Maritime Museum frequently calls him "Fisher of Kilverstone".) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the House of Lords uses correct titles. The fact that some peers are "Lord Smith of Somewhere" doesn't mean they all are. See territorial designation for an explanation of how these things work. In this case, Fisher was created "Baron Fisher", with the territorial designation "of Kilverstone in the County of Norfolk". Lord Fisher of Lambeth, on the other hand, was created "Baron Fisher of Lambeth" with the territorial designation "of Lambeth in the County of London". See this list for the titles concerned: the bit in bold is the actual title, the bit in normal text the territorial designation. Proteus (Talk) 11:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. By convention (the "shorthand" I referred to earlier} the territory is usually dropped in everyday use UNLESS there are two peers with the same "surname". (In which case, the earlier creation uses the surname-only form and subsequent creations surname-plus-territory form.)
Since you seem so keen on sources, provide one for that assertion. Proteus (Talk) 12:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is how the Times Style Guide does it. But, in fact, I don't think that what we are saying is tremendously different. The forms of address in the letters patent and the writ of summons don't have to be identical (cf. Bernard Wetherill.)--ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've lost me. Lord Weatherill? Proteus (Talk) 14:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I need a source for your assertion that he was created "Baron Fisher". The Times' Court Circular for Dec 14, 1909 refers to him as "Fisher of Kilverstone in the County of Norfolk" (no comma) and refers to him thereafter as "Fisher of Kilverstone". This is also how the Churchill Archives call him Fisher of Kilverstone] too. The Parliamentary Review in The Times of Mar 11, 1910, reports the taking of a seat in the House of Lords by "Lord Fisher of Kilverstone".
These are no more reliable sources than the ones you've been citing already. The London Gazette, however, quotes a Royal Warrant naming him "Our right trusty and well-beloved John Arbuthnot, Baron Fisher, Knight Grand Cross of Our Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of Our Royal Victorian Order, Member of the Order of Merit, Admiral of the Fleet on the retired list of Our Navy" Proteus (Talk) 12:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The National Dictionary of Biography] says "he was raised to the peerage as Baron Fisher of Kilverstone". However, to drag this discussion back to the original point, I have produced ample evidence to demonstrate that he was commonly known as "Fisher of Kilverstone", and that for Wikipedia purposes is sufficient.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When did the ODNB become an expert on peerage law? And being known as "Fisher of Kilverstone" is different to being known as "Lord Fisher of Kilverstone". Kitchener of Khartoum was simply Lord Kitchener. Also, what he was commonly known as is not enough: the common names policy (a) doesn't apply "in the case of naming royalty and people with titles" and (b) doesn't apply when the common name is incorrect (which is why we have Diana, Princess of Wales rather than the much more common but incorrect Princess Diana). Proteus (Talk) 14:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The House of Lords Archive people referred me to the ODNB as authoritative. They also pointed out that names peers use in the house often vary from those used on the letters patent. Otherwise, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) is more flexible than you suggest: "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". This also seems a good moment to suggest that if The Times did indeed make a mistake in referring to him as "Lord Fisher of Kilverstone" it is absolutely incredible that they should persist in this error for twelve years.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I asked you for a reliable source (the College of Arms, House of Lords, Whitaker's Almanach, Buckingham Palace etc would do). You have provided a completely unreferenced wiki-article and an amateur genealogy site.
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You, on the other hand, have just made stuff up and rattled out your flawed "understanding" and what you've somehow come to believe is "convention" as if it's indisputable fact. Proteus (Talk) 12:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oi! Aren't you supposed to be assuming good faith around here? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Proteus (Talk) 14:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. The "you have just made things up" bit must have been a typo then. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, people with incomplete knowledge often make thing up to fill in the gaps. It may be subconscious making things up, but it's still making things up. The guideline is "assume good faith", not "assume knowledge" or "assume intelligence". Proteus (Talk) 16:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, though if the only way you can deal with this discussion - despite copious references - is to impugn falsehood, ignorance and stupidity, I think that as far as you and I are concerned it's best left where it is. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hestitate to join this discussion again... The London Gazette of 14 December 1909 gives the the full title - 'the names, style and title of Baron Fisher of Kilverstone in the county of Norfolk.' If my Wiki coding is up to speed (which is doubtful) this link might work. Anyone any thoughts on the Jackie / Jacky issue? SirLancelot 19:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on naming conventions for biographical articles

The following quotations come from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles):

  • Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem.
  • For ... peers: use the dignity in the title, unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name. For example: "Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone" (not "Quintin McGarel Hogg"), but "Margaret Thatcher" (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher.")
  • In general, use the most commonly recognized English-language form of the name. Create redirections or disambiguations for other plausible links. A good way to find this form is to look up the subject in a few reliable English works of general reference. For example, Alexander von Humboldt is so called in the New Cambridge Modern History. Where this leaves a choice among common names, the simplest unambiguous one is often preferable.

This guidance is not wholly consistent (since "most common" is not consistent with "exclusive") and could be used to support either the proposed title or Jackie Fisher. The drawbacks with Jackie Fisher are that it is ambiguous, and that is not used in many resources and indexes relating to Fisher, (unlike, say, Babe Ruth's nickname, it was little used in the subject's lifetime). What is certain is that the current name of the article does not tie in with Wikipedia convention at all.

Regards to all, John Moore 309 14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<comment by first closing admin removed>

I don't mind your delisting on the grounds of lack of concensus but I take a dim view of your POV remarks about the territorial designation. Further, as a point of information, an early and major biography of Jackie Fisher is entitled Fisher of Kilverstone (Mackay, Ruddock F. OUP, 1973 ISBN 0 19 822409 5). --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKiernan (talk • contribs) 11:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one is just Lord Fisher because he's the senior Fisher (the other ones are subsequent creations). Britannica call him Fisher of Kilverstone, I see (Fun this, innit?) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Fisher,_1st_Baron_Fisher&oldid=157916715"