Talk:Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald/Archive 1

Quotes
My quote page of WikiQuote, that I created when I was once a user,was highly criticised and later by this articles 'chief editiors', users with a life ambition of 'power'. However, your Wikipedia perfection missed out mentioing and the possibility of removing the quotes link in this article!!!!! Deary me! Silly Wikiepdia....

Happy editing, if that's all you can achieve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.201.240 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

DAFMM, 1st December 2010

Edit Conflicts
Had two edit conflicts on Thomas Cochrane -- Mintguy (T)


 * Fine now, but needs a bit of copy-editing. Gdr 19:14, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)


 * yes, Gamo/Gramo blame "The Royal Naval Museum"


 * Actually there's more errors in this source. I changed the date of the capture from 1801 to 1800 as per this source, but it looks like this is wrong . Mintguy (T)


 * I relied on Cochrane's letter to the Admiralty which gives May 6, 1801. Gdr 19:22, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

This article states two popular fictional British sea captains (Horatio Hornblower and Jack Aubrey) were based on Cochrane. The article on Lord Nelson states both were based on NElson.

Which is correct?Johnwhunt 15:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The first book of the Aubrey-Maturin series, Master and Commander is basically a fictionalised retelling of Cochrane's exploits in the Mediterranean aboard Speedy. The Hornblower novels also include exploits similar to Cochrane's. Later tales diverge from the Cochrane model and Patrick O'Brian includes incidents that come from other people's lives. Nelson does not really offer much material for novelists as his career is too well known and started too soon in history, so I am surprised that he is listed as a model. Dabbler 16:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As Dabbler points out, there are a lot of similarities between the fictional career of Jack Aubrey and the real-life career of Cochrane. But I don't think its correct to say that Aubrey is based on Cochrane. They're completely different personalities, they come from different social backgrounds, and Cochrane had all the political and social connections that Aubrey always seemed to lack. ¶ If you compare Master and Commander with the relevent chapters of Cochrane's autobiography, you'll see almost exactly the same events, but completely different people. In general, O'Brian borrowed material from the real-life adventures of a lot of different people. Cochrane sort of dominates, simply because he got written about a lot. Isaac R 00:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

External links: not autobiography
The work on Project Gutenberg is the continuation of Cochrane's autobiography, written not by himself, but by an hired writer and Cochrane's son, the eleventh Earl of Dundonald (Cochrane was the tenth Earl).--193.175.194.60 14:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was no information about his lovely wife in the article, and only one bit on his south american adventures. A pity, I'll break open the books one day soon. As for hornblower and such i believe that it can be shown that the basic character is indeed based on cochrane. In the days of the war he became quite a popular man at home, as well as being feared among the spanish and french enemies of the day. watch the film - master and commander with russel crowe and you maybe able to remember the diversionary tactic used to escape a more powerful ship at night, by afixing a light on a float. It also appears in hornblower(if my memory is right). These were the actions taken by cochrane and can be directly attributed. just one example

Capitailization
If by BE you mean British English, then you are sadly mistaken. I am a native British English speaker and writer and I call upon my extensive collection of books by such authorities of British naval history as Brian Lavery, N.A.M. Rodgers and Colin White all of the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich who are all British English writers and all use lower case for ranks when writing of the position rather than using it as a title. Dabbler 17:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The Oxford Manual of Style disagrees with them, and I see no reason whatsoever why writers on naval history should be automatically considered authorities on grammar. The usage you're advocating also contradicts that found on the Royal Navy's own website. Proteus (Talk) 18:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And the Times (of London) style guide (among others) differs with your authorities See under A for admiral as do my British English dictionaries to hand, including the Oxford Shorter (in it Field Marshal is capitalized but admiral is not). In other words it is at best a matter of preference and not a compulsory rule. I prefer to follow dictionaries and knowledgeable and professional academics and their style who have no doubt consulted more books and documents on the Navy than the editors of the Oxford Manual of Style. I am not going to revert your changes because despite the rather infelicitous nature of your edits, it isn't worth fighting over with someone who knows everything. Dabbler 23:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I refer to the |Wikipedia style guide. In this largely naval article, following naval fashion seems to be the way to go, especially as anybody coming to this article is most likely going to be interested in naval matters.
 * Obviously the Royal Navy isn't interested in naval matters. Proteus (Talk) 00:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * |The Wikipedia style guide states clearly that titles should be only capitalized when a name is attached. The Royal Navy may be excellent at fighting and sailing ships but it is not the arbiter of style even when it comes to the writing down of its ranks. There are a lot more people outside the Navy than in it and English usage is the province of English users. The Navy may prefer an ugly style but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with them. Since this is a matter of preferred style and not a hard and fast rule of the English language, why do you want to overrule people who have studied the subject, been regular editors in this article while you are flying in like the proverbial seagull? Your persistent reverts of perfectly acceptable non-capitalizations smack of arrogance. Leave us to edit our articles in a reasonable and acceptable style while you play around doing what you want in yours. Dabbler 01:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Can't quite follow Proteus's logic. Wikipolicy is to use lower case in the general and upper in the specific. This isn't a matter of grammar, as he seems to think, and the opinions of naval historians are of extra relevance in an article based largely on naval history. Pete 01:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

KB or KCB
When Cochrane was first knighted, he would have been a KB, but then he had the honour removed. The Order then changed so that instead on one level, there were three; GCB, KCB and CB. Did Cochrane have his original KB restored or was he placed back in as a KCB or even GCB? Dabbler 08:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind found my answer, he ended up as a GCB (Project Gutenburg, title page of the continuation to his Autobiography of a Seaman). Dabbler 08:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Chile
I added some information realted to his stay inChile, is not much but i might add some more later. I also icluded the link to the Chilean Navy's Biography of Thomas Cochrane.

Francisco.

Cochrane
This morning the person using the IP Address 70.170.18.18 again vandalized the Wikipedia article on the Cochrane surname he wrote "Cochrans are desendants from the Jews and have what has now become known as "nigger blood". Cochrans have stretchy anuses and have no control of thier excretory valves". I think this guy needs to be blocked.

Bombardment ships
Added more information on Cochrane's bombardment ship plans, diagrams to follow

Pillory
Did Cochrane end up in the pillory or not? The article seems to contradict itself: "He was excussed from doing Pillory for fear that his supporters might riot." "His time in the pillory was more of a triumph than a humiliation, and was the last usage of the pillory in England." A quick search of other sites indicates that he didn't spend any time in the pillory. Also, according to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Pillory someone served in the pillory in 1830, so I don't think Cochrane was the last usage. I'll edit accordingly. Athenastreet 02:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Rank on Retirement
Cochrane is referred to as rear-admiral but I've seen references to his having retired as an admiral of the fleet. I can check DNB but perhaps others would investigate. The Royal Navy site lists him as an admiral bigpad (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He was a full Admiral, but given the honorary title Rear Admiral of the United Kingdom which is only given to very senior officers. Dabbler (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Middle Name
Thomas Cochrane did not have a middle name so I have changed Thomas Alexander Cochrane to just Thomas Cochrane. The following sources are consistant with this: ODNB, DNB, "The Fighting Cochranes" (a family history including a family tree written by family members including the 14th Earl), his obituary, and every single biography of TC including Fortescue, Vale, Harvey, Lloyd, Cordingly, and his own and his son's works. Brian Vale in his "The Audacious Admiral Cochrane" goes out of his way to make the point that TC was just plain Thomas Cochrane... although anything but an ordinary person. If anyone finds any valid source for him having a middle name, please post the information. I do see several web pages with Alexander, but no sources are listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timoneer (talk • contribs) 10:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Honiton
The first paragraph in the "Political Career" section needs to be revised due to the information revealed in David Cordingly's recent biography titled (USA) "Cochrane: The Real Master and Commander" or (UK) "Cochrane the Dauntless: The Life and Adventures of Thomas Cochrane" (2007).

Cochrane was defeated for MP from Honiton in June 1806 rather than 1805 as noted.

The reason that Cochrane stood for election from Honiton again so quickly (October 1806) was due to the dissolution of Parliament that Fall. Cochrane was still fitting out "Imperieuse" and was still available.

Honiton was not a "rotten borough" but a "potwalloper borough." In a "rotten" borough, the MP is appointed by several powerful persons (sometimes only one) in secret. Voters in a "potwalloper" borough are those who own their own cottage with a "pot" hanging over the hearth. In Honiton, like other such boroughs, these small property owners relied on bribes to pay their annual rents (taxes). Saying that Honiton was a "rotten" borough decided by bribing the voters is a contradiction in terms. Honiton is actually listed in the "potwalloper borough" list here in Wikipedia.

Cochrane lost the first election in June 1806 because he refused to bribe the voters. True enough.

However, Cordingly has found evidence that proves that Cochrane did bribe the voters in the October 1806 election which he won. The evidence came from comments made by Cochrane himself in Parliament 10 years after the event. During a debate on election reform, Cochrane described the bribery details and gave his reason for doing so. Mr. Townshend, local headman and banker, paid each voter £10 10s for Cochrane. During the debate, Cochrane stated that he still had the paperwork. I assume that the ten year difference between the election and Cochrane's confession is the reason that earlier biographers missed this.

Cochrane justified his bribes by saying that the only way for him to join Parliament to work toward governmental and naval reform was to do so. Cordingly felt that the ends justified the means in Cochrane's mind. Strangely, Cordingly remarks that Cochrane would have been elected without the bribes since one of the three candidates switched to another borough leaving just two candidates for two positions.

When Cochrane stood for election again it was for Westminster, a borough with a democratic election more suited for someone lobbying for the elimination of rotten, pocket, potwalloper, and etc. boroughs

If no one else attempts to rewrite the first paragraph in the next few days, I will make an attempt.

Timoneer (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted that information because firstly it was added by an anonymous editor, if that was Timoneer then you must not have been logged in, secondly it used a red-linked term "pot-walloper" that I had never seen before and looks pretty odd, and thirdly there was no reference given for what you must agree is a fairly radical change from the usual story. I have not read Cordingley. Dabbler (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dabbler, I thought that I only did a preview and forgot to save my changes, but upon thinking about it, realized that I needed to come to the discussion page first. I did not realize that I failed to log in also. I am fairly new at making changes here so I apologize for the confusion. I am just finishing a project of reading eight different biographies of Cochrane (plus separate biographical chapters in other books, obits, Internet searches, etc.) and am now resolving my notes and comparing them to the information here. Cordingly's prose might not appeal to everyone but he is, by far, the most accurate when it comes to basic facts. Cordingly appears to have read, not only Cochrane's speeches, but a lot of other supporting info not usually researched about TC. Timoneer (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Worth a link?

 * The Life of Thomas, Lord Cochrane, Tenth Earl of Dundonald, Vol. II by Bourne Jagdfeld (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Rank and progression
I thought this might help chart his rank and progress, but I'm really no good with tables. If anyone feels motivated to clean that up and format it a bit better. ps I accidently deleted the 'Rank on retirement' section, I'm working restoring that now... sorry ppl Proberton (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Proberton (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the table on rank/progression to my sandbox to include more commands, his commanding officers where appropriate and include things like vessel captures etc. I will post it back here for feedback later. Thanks for your help so far. Proberton (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a comment, once he was a post captain, he would not have been reduced in rank to commander, especially of ships like Pallas and Imperieuse which were post ships requiring a post captain as the commander. Dabbler (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do undersstand that... and all of sudden I realise my mistake! A commander in the navy is a rank equivalent to a Colonel or Major or something isn't it ? He was the commanding officer of those vessels .. should he be referred to as 'Commanding Officer' or Captain? ... What do you think of it otherwise? I appreciate your feedback! Proberton (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A navy Captain is equivalent to a Colonel; I guess that means a navy Commander is equivalent to a Major – nowadays. —Tamfang (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please help me with a table of rank and progression I've been working on here? I think if its useful, it might be best as an expandable/collapsable section? Ta. Proberton (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cochrane and Burdett- related
I have genealogical evidence that demonstrates that Cochrane and Burdett were related. I doubt that neither he nor Burdett knew they were related and for that reason I daresay this information becomes the realm of trivia, but might this be of interest to some people? Proberton (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Children
Can someone tidy up the Marriage and Children section to put his children in chronological order.

Using Cordingley's "Cochrane the Dauntless" His first child was Thomas Barnes Cochrane, who became the 11th Earl, followed by William Horatio Bernado Cochrane. His third child was Elizabeth Katherine, who was born in Chile and died close to her first birthday. And the fourth child was Katherine Elizabeth, born soon after his wife returned to England. Three years later he had another son, Arthur, who challenged his older brother Thomas for the title on the grounds of illegitimacy. His youngest child was Ernest. 91.108.8.103 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Admiral Lord Sir
The article begins
 * Admiral Lord Sir Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, ... styled Lord Cochrane between 1778 and 1831, ...

The first "Lord" is wrong; the footnote is partly misleading and partly debatable. The daughters of an earl (or higher) have the style Lady Jane, and some writers say the eldest son is Lord Thomas but others say not; in any case that form is rarely if ever used in practice, because the heir-apparent of an earl uses his next highest peerage as a courtesy title. The Earl of Dundonald also has the lower peerage title Lord Cochrane, so that's what his son is called; in the rare cases where there is no accompanying peerage, the heir is conventionally called Lord Surname (though perhaps this was not true in 1778). Lord Thomas is the form for a younger son of a marquess or duke. —Tamfang (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed it twice already. His courtesy title covered him almost from birth until succession - The addition of Lord Sir is wholly confused and against consensus policy editing for peers.AllsoulsDay (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He also did not have the middle name of Alexander which people also keep reinserting. See the Middle Name comment above for details. Dabbler (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My fault for rvting without seeing the middle name change. Btw seeing your hidden text the courtesy title is Lord Cochrane of Dundonald the senior title to the later lordship of Lord Cochrane of Paisley and Ochiltree AllsoulsDay (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Earl of Dundonald it's "Lord Cochrane, of Dundonald". According to Valentine Heywood British Titles (1951), all peerages are created with a territorial designation, whether or not it's meant to be part of the title; the comma indicates that Dundonald is not part of the title.  The later title contains "of P&O" to differentiate it from the first. —Tamfang (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm quite aware of that. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough an editor had changed the courtesy title from being "Lord Cochrane, of Dundonald" to 'of Paisley and Ochiltree'. Btw you'll find that both old peerages, those created for princes and some of those created later this century lack a territorial designation. See Duke of York and Earl of Stockton. AllsoulsDay (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Right Honourable
In Dabbler's edit at 17:47 on 24th April 2009 he says that because he was a Scottish peer. However, the article The Right Honourable on Wikipedia says that any "...barons, viscounts and earls..." in the peerage of the United Kingdom are entitled to it. This means that he was The Right Honourable Thomas Cochrane etc..

With compliments.

DAFMM. —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 25 April, 2009 (UTC).


 * Just a guess – perhaps a peerage of Scotland is different to a peerage of the United Kingdom? Anyway, Manual of Style advises that honorific prefixes such as "The Right Honourable" should not be used. BarretBonden (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think though he did have The Right Honourable in front of his name.

With compliments.

DAFMM. —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 6 May, 2009 (UTC).

Titles Box
How do you get a titles box for the Peerage of Brazil?

With compliments.

DAFMM. —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 6 May, 2009 (UTC).

Marquess of Maranhão
He was not succeded by his son in this title. Most of Brazilian titles were not hereditary, and this is, for sure, one of this case. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is true shouldn't it be Thomas Cochrane etc. Marquess do Maranhao and not Thomas etc. 1st Marquess do Maranhao? What do you think? I will research it.

Thanks.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 10th August 2009.

P. S. I have just come accross this on Clan Cochrane article. What do you think? http://www.burkes-peerage.net/familyhomepage.aspx?FID=0&FN=DUNDONALD


 * my reference gives the current Earl of Dundonald as Marquess do Maranhao, and as wiki is about refernces that matter is clear to me. Do you have a reference to say Brazilian titles were not hereditary, and for this title in perticular? Where did you get the information that Most of Brazilian titles were not hereditary? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I may ensure you that almost all Brazilian titles, created after its independence, were not hereditary, marquessate of Maranhão included. Basically, only royal titles were hereditary. You may check, for instance, the Archivo Nobiliarchico Brazileiro, one of the main works regarding the Brazilian nobility. There is no 2nd Marquess of Maranhão, and the book was edited in 1918. As well, as you may check along the book, almost all titles had just one noble. The reason is that these titles were, in general, bought by rich people. The titles with more than one entitled are just because they were bought. Both emperors were not favorable for hereditary titles because the Brazilian nobility was, somewhat, new-born and artificial (most were not from really noble families). I will try to find some references appart the Archivo, but this is a good one, indeed. Cheers. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In time: this assumption of the marquessate by the earls of Cochrane is really, really surprising for me!!!!!! --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not very good, but GeneAll states just one marquess. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This reference is used in the Portuguese article about Brazilian nobility: ("Diferença das 2 nobrezas: portuguesa é hereditária e a brasileira não tem hereditariedade")
 * I think, by what this article implies, who started the tradition of non-hereditary Brazilian titles was John VI, when he scaped to América and entitled many of the rich men of the colony. Makes sense, since the titles he created, by what I could verify, had just one entitled. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More: this site is a digitalization of the Archivo with some additions of genealogists and enthusiasts. No mention about the title being herditary.
 * Carlos Eduardo Barata e AH Cunha Bueno. Dicionario das Dicionário das Famílias Brasileiras, articles: Maranhão, Marquês; família Cochrane. No mention that the title was hereditary.
 * I really think someone should call the clan Cochrane to reason... --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some more references
 * Almanak Laemmert (last one, edited 1889): no new Marquess of Maranhão.
 * As barbas do imperador (ISBN 85-7164-837-9): pages 166, 177, 180, 192 – Brazilian titles given to nobles were not hereditary.
 * Heráldica (ISBN 86-2295): no reference to hereditary titles.


 * I may just assume that the marquessate of Maranhão certainly is not a hereditary title, since it would appear in any of these references, seen the exception it would be among other Brazilian titles.
 * What the clan Cochrane may allege to be their titles cannot be stronger than specialized works of the theme (the Brazilian nobility). They would not be the only case of false claims about some title.
 * The best reference would be the register in the Cartório de Nobreza, but I cannot say if it yet exists, neither how to reach it in the Arquivo Nacional.
 * I am going to remove the succession box until better references can state that the title is hereditary. --Tonyjeff (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the research. DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.


 * DAFMM, I am really interested in research this subject a little bit more – the Cochranes would be the only descendants from Brazilian nobles who would be using a Brazilian title nowadays (appart from the imperial family). This is really interesting and, by the other hand, would imply in a greater discussion involving other articles – like this. If the title is not valid, being simply alleged by the family, than it should not figure in Wikipedia the way it is. Could someone enter in contact with them, trying to understand the validity of the marquessate? All the best. --Tonyjeff (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will also help you. I won't have much chance for the next two weeks but after that I will have a look. It would definetly help a lot of articles. DAFMM (talk), 17th August 2009.

Navy
Should the Navy be spelt with capitals?

With compliments.

DAFMM. —Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 9 May, 2009 (UTC).


 * I think it is a matter of context. If it is an abbreviation of the Royal Navy then it should it be capitalised as a proper noun. Example:

British people think that Admiral Nelson is the best known sailor who ever served in the Navy.
 * If it is a general noun used to indicate the naval armed force of a country then it should be lower case. Example: Strategists believe that having a navy to exert sea power is vital to promote a country's military interests. Dabbler (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
In the Arquivo Nobiliárquico, it is stated that his blason has three black boar heads -- not blue, like the ones in the private arms of the earls of Dundonald. However, it has been found many "errors" by specialists regarding the blazons registered in this book or even at the Cartório de Nobreza -- the Brazilian Imperial institution for titles and blazons. Some were uploaded at Commons already "corrected", since there is additional literature with the opinion of other specialists, but this is not the case for Maranhão. I am going to look for other references for his Brazilian coat of arms. --Tonyjeff (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Stock Exchange Scandal
Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.

Let us start with the first paragraph:
 * Cochrane was tried and convicted as a conspirator in the Great Stock Exchange Fraud of 1814, ''
 * That is true
 * although he maintained his innocence throughout his life.
 * but putting this next to the first part casts doubt on his guilt - note the complete lack of citations
 * The summing up of the presiding judge, Lord Ellenborough, was biased against Cochrane.
 * Where is the evidence?
 * Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against Cochrane indicated that possibly he had been the pawn of his uncle Andrew Cochrane-Johnstone, a conspirator.
 * Some historians believe = weasel words
 * In 1830, Charles Grenville wrote how much he admired Cochrane, despite his guilt.
 * Citation
 * Who was Charles Grenville?
 * Why is this of any significance?
 * What kind of bias might he had have?
 * By the Victorian era, however, he was widely believed to have been innocent.
 * he was widely believed = weasel words.

See Avoid weasel words

Note that the first paragraph is entirely slanted one way - Cochrane though convicted, much admired and probably innocent. This might be the case for the defence, but other side is not mentioned. Perhaps we could do the same for other convicted criminals...
 * Rosemary West was tried and convicted for murder, although she maintained her innocence throughout her life. The summing up of the presiding judge was biased against West. Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against West indicated that possibly she had been the pawn of her husband Fred West. In 2019, Bill Smith wrote how much he admired West, despite her guilt. Many years after the crime, she was widely believed to have been innocent.

--Toddy1 (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

The evidence that Lord Ellenborough was biased is obvious throughout the trial notes and the history of Thomas Cochrane. Please see 'The Autobigraphy of a Seaman' and 'Cochrane the Dauntless' for more details.

The fact that he maintained his innocence throughout his life can be easily found and recognised in his autobiography and the internet is also littered with information.

I also can't understand why 'some historians believe' are weasel words. You will have to do better in your explanation.

Et cetera.

Overall I can't beleive why it is biased. You yourself in your explanations have given away your biased opinion against Cochrane and so makes your decision incorrect. You have also missed the obvious and known fact that ever since 1832 he has been proven not guilty. However, you seem to think that this decision wasn't made and that everyone should go along with it. Why don't we rewrite the first paragraph about you? Maybe it would read as though you are not innocent of being nasty. However, because you have formed this opinion about the structure of the paragraph you now make everyone go along with the fact that you are! Tough luck!!!

I have now removed the banner until you can present more eveidence. I think that most people are on my side.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.


 * I disagree DAFMM, I think Toddy1 has written a very clear explanation why this section is biased and does not need to provide any further evidence. Click on the link he has given (Avoid weasel words) if you need more explanation about weasel words. I will attempt to re-write this section shortly in a more neutral tone with inline citations which I hope will resolve any issues with neutrality and verifiability. Barret (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the section, addded inline citations and hopefully removed any weasel words. Barret (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is now a really good section, which explains things in a way that is understandable, and is backed by citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)