Jump to content

Talk:Mediterranean campaign of 1798

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMediterranean campaign of 1798 has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 23, 2010Good article nomineeListed

British Isles Terminology task force

[edit]

This followed by This Warrants a new Topic Here Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first comment is Wow! Jackyd101 Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 1798, we should use Kingdom of Great Britain & Kingdom of Ireland, in place of British Isles (if we want it political) or use the island articles Great Britain & Ireland (if we prefer the geography). GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For my part I think HK is trying to say something Here. It is just not clear to me what it is. Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's trying to say he doesn't like British Isles, I'll wager. Mister Flash (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the Thread Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, inconclusive. British Isles is still in there, so I guess he thought he could come at it from behind, you might say. Mister Flash (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James, p. 113 Does not mention British Isles - He refers to The overthrow of England Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what? What's your fixation with this? It's minor. Try looking for something that does have British Isles - bet you can find one. Mister Flash (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop looking. I've found one [1] Mister Flash (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like James was published about 200 years ago. What are we to make of that? Mister Flash (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William James (naval historian), You're right Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Ohhh, I thought you were on about this geeser. No matter. Mister Flash (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 1827 British Isles was not yet in common usage Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One further Irony. In 1798 The Times did not mention the British Isles once - in a whole year - You would think they might. Enlightening? Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware this bizarre obsession with removing the term "British Isles" from Wikipedia was still going on. As I have explained to HighKing before (see Talk:Battle of the Nile), historians of the Georgian period frequently used the terms England, Britain and British Isles (or variations thereof) interchangeably. Don't forget that at that time there was no controversy as the entirety of the British Isles were ruled from London, and so they were all "British Isles" in the political as well as the geological sense. The term here is used (and I have sources to back it up, it'll just take a bit of time to produce them, I'm very busy in real life at the moment) because one of Bonaparte's plans was to invade both Britain and Ireland simultaneously - also remember that the French did invade Ireland just five months later in the Irish Rebellion of 1798 and that an invasion of Britain was practiced in May (Battle of the Îles Saint-Marcouf). It is there for a reason.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was easier than I thought. The James reference p. 113 was to source Bonaparte's appointment, as I did not imagine that the British Isles issue would really be considered as a serious one requiring a seperate source (as mentioned, Britain and British Isles were used interchangably by historians of the time). However, given the comments above, I have added a reference to Donald Come's article, in which he describes proposed invasions of Wales, Ireland and England (when coupled with James' reference to a plan to invade Scotland on p. 112, this illustrates French ambitions to invade all four of the British nations). This should put the issue beyond doubt.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted an edit that substituted "British Isles" for "England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland". It is a more verbose and less wieldy way of saying exactly the same thing and therefore not a useful change.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You state historians of the Georgian period frequently used the term... British Isles. William M. James did not use it once in his book. Indeed The Times does not mention the term once in the period 1784-1803 - hardly a frequently used term. The first use in the archive was July 9, 1804 - Ironically a little piece of War proganda regarding the threat from Napolean. I do think you have a blind spot; your use of the term BI is not more accurate. Yes it is simple in the same way that The Sun is simple but the term is increasingly irksome to the Irish. ref Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable and the term itself remains unreferenced in the main text Þjóðólfr (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied generally on Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples#Mediterranean campaign of 1798. I think we should centralise the discussion there. Can everyone please refrain from making further edits to this section of the article until the problem is resolved. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Napoleon Bonaparte

[edit]

Why is General Bonaparte described as successful? It seems a un-needed discriptive, IMO. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the successful 28-year old discriptive. His age is irrelevant in this article & his past military successes shows he was successful. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought it back, his success is important to establishing why such a young officer would be given command of such an important expedition and the age is a relevant addition to this theme. It doesn't in any way detract from the article, so I see no reason to remove it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His success is already in the article. The version you reverted to, is like saying General Doe's army defeated 5 countries, he was a successful General. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. What is your point?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He defeated the Austrians in Italy (1797), therefore we already know he's successful. His being 28-yrs old is more relevant to his own article. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it certainly is relevant there, but that doesn't explain why is it irrelevant here, and to such a degree that you think it should be removed. I can see that "successful" is perhaps a little redundant there and will remove it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This article needs to be better connected to Napoleon's campaign in Egypt. At the moment, we learn that Napoleon was dropped off in Egypt with an army, but there's no indication of what happened and what the consequences of losing the fleet were for the land campaign. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the land campaign has its own page: Napoleonic campaign in Egypt, so what you are suggesting it better covered there. I'm going to do some work on this article once I've finished the project I'm currently working on and I'll look at ways to improve this then.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mediterranean campaign of 1798/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive article, I would have through, well on its way to being a WP:FAC

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. congratulations on producing a well-research article. Pyrotec (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much!--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mediterranean campaign of 1798. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

esses artigos tem muita imagem e nenhum mapa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.211.79.58 (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mediterranean_campaign_of_1798&oldid=1207566530"