Jump to content

Talk:Military career of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Note for Editor/GA review

This sentence could do with rewording:

  • "In cases where the direct lack of his presence is established or unconfirmed, such engagements are not included in his battle record."

Makes it sound like cases where the direct lack of Wellington's presence is unconfirmed aren't counted i.e. times when he definitely was there. Maybe be better to say "Engagments where the direct lack of his presence is established, or where his presence is unconfirmed, are not included in his battle record."? 129.11.76.229 (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that is somewhat clearer wording and has been applied. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 12:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
As a list this article is not eligible as a Good Article see Wikipedia:Good article criteria.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Have already discussed nominating this article for GA, long ago, with a MilHist coord. It's not a full list, anyway, only half the page constitutes a list - making it an article supported with a list. We'll let an independent reviewer decide. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 17:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've had an initial quick read through of the article. It is well referenced, the vast majority those references are books and they can be regarded as WP:Reliable sources and there is also a small number of websites used as references. It is also well illustrated. There is a large list, well more of a large table in this article. Lists are not liked in GAs (potential GAs): I'm going to regard it as a table forming part of the Battle record section. The table itself appears to be well referenced. so my comments about referencing are equally applicable to this table.

I'm now going to work through the article in more detail section by section, but leaving my review of the WP:Lead until the end of the sections. At this point, I will be mostly looking for "problems", so if I have little to say about a particular section that probably means that it is OK, i.e. complaint with WP:WIAGA. I will be producing an Overall summary at the end of this process. Pyrotec (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Military career -
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC) - Fletcher's 2005 book is used as a citation for the statement: "....Wellington was in command of 17 of those engagements", but no page number or numbers is given for that statement. Can that claim to narrowed down to a set of pages, or a chapter, rather than a whole book?
Well, the Battles chapter covers pp. 17–117 and I simply tallied them up, Fletcher didn't conclude that total, if that helps. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 23:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Commissions and promotions-
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC) - Possibly a trivial point but "gazetted" aught to start with a capital "G" since it refers to The London Gazette. He, the Honourable Arther Wellesley, is certainly mentioned by name in the edition covering 6 March to 10 March 1887 as can be seen here, I checked the Gazette.
I'm not sure - books do not use a capital 'G' (Holmes, p. 21.) - I think in this case it's a common noun, not a proper noun because its definition is "promoted" and does not refer to a specific newspaper (i.e. how many "Gazette titled papers were there in the 1800s?), but any newspaper official journal. You're probably right that the London Gazette was the primary paper for announcing promotions, but I don't think "Gazetted" is right, only based on the fact I've never seen it written that way on any reference, to date. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 23:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I checked the Concise Oxford Dictionary 10th ed. and that agrees with your comment above. I'd always worked on the basis that "gazetting" in this context was listing in the London Gazette, (and/or its equivalent in Scotland & Ireland) which is why I checked the fact(s). However your secondary source, (Holmes, p. 21.), is to be preferred over The London Gazette. P.S. Thanks for correcting my spelling, I don't like spelling mistakes (I can't always see mine, but I do see those made by others, and spell checker is not working on one of the computers that I use; however, on grounds of wiki etiquette typos made by other editors on talkpages do not get corrected by others: in articles, yes. (I'm not complaining, however, nor am I asking for the errors to be reinserted). Pyrotec (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah sorry, Firefox highlights typos Office-style (wavy red underline) in the wikEd editing box, and I've been in the habit of correcting typos for so long, I don't always pay attention to the fact that I'm doing it as I read. Didn't realise it was against etiquette - I would have thought as long as the errors weren't made a fuss of "spelling-Nazi" style, it wouldn't matter too much. Of course I wouldn't intentionally edit an editors user/talk page just to correct their typos, only articles. We all make minor typos from time to time and don't notice. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 13:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
No Problem. As an aside: its Firefox that is my problem. When I upgraded to version 5.0 on the two Vista machines (desktop and laptop) it removed the Google toolbar, which is what I used used to call up for spelling checks. I've also got 5.0 on an XP machine, again no Google toolbar, but it highlights those typos Office-style (wavy red underline). I can't see any configuation differences, but I do miss the wavy underlines on the Vista machines. Pyrotec (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, not sure - I have PC/Laptop setup too, but both using Windows 7 (Vista was awful, imo, so I bypassed it) - using the laptop primarily which has Firefox 7.0a (Aurora) on it - seems to show spell errors, no problem, as did 6.0 beta versions. Can't recall back to 5.0 but I can't recall a time spell checking did not work, and Win 7 is based on Vista coding. I don't use Google toolbars either, so I'm not sure where your issue lies. Firefox 6.0 is scheduled to go Final on 16th August though - so you don't have long to wait for the next upgrade, as it sounds like you don't bother with beta versions.
Regarding your last edit on the article - adding the Battle of Waterloo wikilink. It has been my practice to only wikilink the first instance of things, excluding infoboxes, image descriptions, tables/lists - i.e. the prose portion, except maybe in the case of extremely long articles when a fresh wikilink might be appropriate much further down - mainly because I realise a "sea of blue" isn't too pretty sometimes. As this articles prose is not extremely long I wondered if there was a different requirement for using wikilinks to meet GA, that I am unaware of (eg all instances vs first instance), or is that just your method of wikilinking? Thanks. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 16:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
That wikilink was not necessarily a GA requirement, but I could invoke WP:Vagueness: i.e. what is "Waterloo", a London railway station, a road and a close less than 1/4 mile from where I am now, the former probably built just after the battle, the close a 1960s(?) infill? Type in "Waterloo" and you get Waterloo, a disambiguation page. I've not yet read the Lead (intentionally). The first indication of "Waterloo" I got by clicking on "Waterloo Campaign" in the right navigation box, that took me to an article Hundred Days and that has a nice picture by William Sadler II with a wikilink in the title to Battle of Waterloo. There are guidelines covering too much linking (See WP:Overlinking) which suggests a maximum of once per section - obviously things like "road" don't need wikilinking. I think that link is useful. If you disagree, remove it: I will not fail the article just because you've removed "my" wikilink. Pyrotec (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see WP:REPEATLINK more or less covers the practice I use. If you haven't covered the lead yet, then you probably missed the first link. I'd personally be tempted to leave it at that (the first instance) as well as the one in the table, because they're only 3-5 lines apart, excluding the content list. Not sure if you agree or not.. I'll let you decide, you have the experience. When I say I only winklink again on long articles I really think of browser scrolling - I don't think the same thing should be linked twice or more within the same "window frame" - but if you have to scroll back to find the original link, then it's quite a wide gap on a standard 768px height monitor and is possibly worth linking again. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 17:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
If you prefer, the wikilink could be removed provided that "Waterloo" is changed to "battle of Waterloo" or "Waterloo campaign", etc. That demolishes my argument that "Waterloo" is vague. Out of interest: Peninsular War is linked in two consecutive subsections. Its in the fourth paragraph of Commissions and promotions and the first para of Allied commander. This breaks at those "guidelines" (and its on the same screen page). Pyrotec (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Didn't notice the Peninsular War was linked twice - corrected, thanks. I've edited the Adkin bit into a quote, his exact wording - means it'll have to stay "Waterloo", because I couldn't think of a better way to word it without potentially changing the meaning of his words - battle and campaign are 2 different things, and he didn't state which - so if that means the wikilink needs to remain also, so be it, no problem. Have copy-edited a few other numbers into cardinal-numerals also, to match in with the quote - to maintain consistency per MOS. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 20:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks! Ma®©usBritish [talk] 23:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Commissions and promotions & Allied commander -
  • The start of Allied commander section backtracks in time from the previous section. In Commissions and promotions section (3rd paragraph) the death of the current head of the British forces in the Peninsular in Jan 1809 is mentioned, followed by Wellington's memo to the Secretary of War sometime in January-April 1809, and his return to Lisbon in April 1809. The 4th paragraph is about Wellington's promotions in 1811 & 1913. The Allied commander we backtrack to April 1809 and Wellington's appointed as head of all British forces. Presumably that was to replace Sir John Moore, who is described as "head of the British forces in the Peninsular".
hmm, yes - during the BCR or 1st ACR (I forget which) I was asked to prove Wellington's ranks stated in the Rank column of the table. If I recall, initially I wrote about his commission history, and from there I expanded it into his expedition in The Peninsular thus creating a larger prose section than I had expected, but not an unwelcome one as it presented some good history behind the man whose battle record is given, rather than just making him out to to be some "great British commander who won 60 battles" it reduced the POV to a softer approach by giving his experience that led to his success. You are correct that he replaced Moore, who died was killed at the Battle of Corrunna some months earlier. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 17:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC) - Its the back tracking in time that I'm not too keen on. I've also spotted another one in Commissions and promotions: re-embarked to Lisbon on 16 April 1809, promoted to L-G on 25 April 1808, finally we are back to that memo (possibly I'm miss-reading this) but it seems to be the same point of lack of seniority, so I'm not sure whether is 1809 or 1808.
Minor rewrite and rearrangement of the text to chronological event order - see if that makes more sense? Thanks, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 20:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Lengthened last part, with refs: "He returned to British politics and became a leading statesman. Despite being appointed Master-General of the Ordnance (1819–27) and Commander-in-Chief of the Forces (1827–28/1842–52), Wellington did not fight again." Ma®©usBritish [talk] 16:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Generalship -
- I've had a look at them, but neither accurately covers Wellington's logistical ability. There's a minor reference in the first "Until the Napoleonic wars, the military supply was ensured by looting, requisition or private companies. In 1807, Napoleon created the first Train regiments, entirely dedicated to the supply and the transport of the equipment." But to me it gives the wrong impression and is too "modern" compared with 1800s warfare logistics. It's also the reason why expeditionary force leads to a diambig page, because the lead text there is more accurate in relation to this article than expeditionary warfare, which again, doesn't quite cut it in terms of the Peninsular War (which is not even mentioned). A lot of Wiki articles use modern terms, rather than historic methods, making the wikilinks lead to somewhat questionable pages, if that makes sense? Ma®©usBritish [talk]
    • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC) - In the second paragraph, French troops are "tied up" in garrisons ... Not literally, with e.g. string, I presume: "tied up" aught to be replaced by a better synonym.
- done. Ma®©usBritish [talk]
    • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC) - In the final paragraph, the first sentence gives a time frame of August 1808 to April 1814. The second paragraph gives dates of 12 April and 6 April. I'm half tempted to make the assumption that this is April 1814: this uncertainty needs to be removed - the first date could easily be changed to 12 April 1814, or whatever year it is.
- done. Ma®©usBritish [talk]
  • Battle record -
  • My understanding of the Manual of Style is that since this article is called "Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington", that precludes "Battle record" from being used as a section (and/or subsection) title.
Really? That's a weird Style policy - do you have a link to that, please? Ma®©usBritish [talk]
The short cut link is WP:HEADINGS and I quote: "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated)" - there are get out clauses so it not completely back and white. Pyrotec (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Well just looking at your quote there "unless doing so is shorter or clearer" - Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington vs Battle record seems like a shorter description - or get out clause, as you say. I can't think of any other decent heading. "Military record" for example would seem to encompass ALL his actions, not just the battles he specifically attended. Would see to me best to go with the shorter heading. What do you think? Ma®©usBritish [talk] 20:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh wait, it says "the subject of the article" using "his" as an example, so the subject here is "Wellington" so to me that means don't name the section "Welington's battle record", but "Battle record" would be the same as "Early life" in contrast. I think.. too many grey shades in that MOS section. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 20:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I would tend to interpret that as precluding the words used in the title of the article (arguably not "of"), the sting in the tail is that unless ..... I'm not going to make a decision tonight. Pyrotec (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I would imagine that MOS requirement becomes difficult to keep to when writing article sections where an album is named after the band, a book after the author, or similar circumstances - so I imagine there's either room for flexibility and/or it needs clearer examples to help editors/reviewers make sense of it. Not that it's your fault - seems we're both at odds as to what it means. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 21:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I can, and will have to before I close this review (with a pass/fail decision), decide whether this section title is compliant. I could decide that it is compliant, but future editors could disagree and change it to something of their choice. The "no change" option is certainly one way of completing this review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit clash) checkY Pyrotec (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC) - That block of text before the "table" is unreferenced. Referencing is need, according to WP:WIAGA, 2(b) for "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons ...". This is not my area of expertise. It might fall into "published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged". Can it be referenced or broken down into a series of quotable statements?
Tricky - the text is not meant to be a historical statement, but a precursor to the table to explain to the reader what "is and is not" included in his record. I thought it best to put before the table, because some people don't always look to footnotes. The text is more my wording than a direct quote, based on what the table displays, but not OR. It would be hard to source, because it states what Wellington did "not" do, whereas any book is going to be about what he did do. Yet the trouble is, it's important to explain the tables content, to refrain editors from adding all sorts of battles from the Napoleonic Wars what he did not physically attend or command. Will have to think about this one - I do not know how it could be rewritten to a more unchallengeable explanation. I also want to avoid the words "the following table includes.... but does not include...." as this sounds too "science paper" and not very suitable for a historical article. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 21:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

...stopping for now. To be continued tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can understand that. Pyrotec (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Its not clear why the table stops at the Battle of Waterloo. Wellington could have: died (no he lived until 1852), resigned, took a desk job, perhaps there were no more battles. For "closure" that needs an explanation (a brief one, if relevant). Pyrotec (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Second paragraph of Allied commander did that? Ma®©usBritish [talk] 14:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing my attention to that paragraph. I think it can be summarised as "he returned to politics and became a statesman". I don't see any reason what it should not be put that precisely in this section. Pyrotec (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not 100% clear on what you're asking to be done here. See detailed reply in Lead comment... Ma®©usBritish [talk] 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
In reviewing, I'm only looking at one section at a time. The Battlefield record section looks incomplete without a statement/note stating why the table stops at Waterloo when it is clear from the lead that it was not the end of his life. That could be addressed by something as simple as a footnote 5, in the last line of table, stating: "his last battle" - it could say more (and arguably it is merely "stating the obvious"). It could say "his last battle, he returned to politics". Pyrotec (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Added a bit to Lead to cover this. I think a footnote might be a bit verbose (like a CV saying "this was my last job"), when it should make sense that naturally every commander is going to have a first and last battle. Perhaps the reason "why" they didn't fight any more, eg retirement, injury, death, peacetime, etc is more important than the simple fact they didn't fight any more. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • New "Opponent" column added to the table using {{flagicon}} and {{flag}} templates to make it more visually interesting, plus a few small rewrites, edits and extra refs hopefully to strengthen the "flow" of his background rather than jump from event to event, as I see you take note of the cadence of the prose and I see how it might be harder to follow by jumping a bit too much in places. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 02:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The function of this section of the article is two-fold to introduce the topic (of the article) and to summarise the main points. It should not "tease" by including material that is not covered in the article.
  • It (the lead) is generally compliant. However, there are a few minor points:
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC) - It starts chronologically with the statement: "Starting his career as a commissioned officer in an infantry unit during the Flanders Campaign, Wellesley ....", which is 1793 onwards. Well yes, but he started as an ensign in 1878 and progressed up to captain and then major. The full detail is not needed, but a few words are needed to clarify that he had "worked up the ranks", if that is the correct term for this period.
I'm assuming you mean that as an ensign he would be an NCO? But if you look at ensign (rank) which you linked earlier, it opens with: "Ensign is a junior rank of commissioned officer in the armed forces of some countries, normally in the infantry or navy." - Making him a CO from his first rank. I could be wrong, I don't know much about ranking systems, to be honest - just going by what that says. Books don't normally go into detail about it either, they just assume we know, also. Holmes never refers to him an NCO, however. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 15:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I might have gone down the round road on the NCO/CO thing. A quick backtrack: he had five years service before Flanders campaign. The sentence could state something along the lines: "Starting his career as a commissioned officer in an infantry unit in 1878, some five years before during the Flanders Campaign, Wellesley ....." Pyrotec (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- done and expanded by a few words to strengthen case. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 15:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC) - The statement: "His greatest defeat was at the Siege of Burgos in 1812;[4] after losing 2,000 men and causing only 600 French casualties he was forced to retreat, calling it "the worst scrape I was ever in."[5], "teases, as it gives more detail than the body of the article. The only information, perhaps I've missed it, is the table, which has: 19 Sep – 21 Oct 1812, Peninsular War, Siege of Burgos, France, French, Siege, Spain, General, Defeat, [93].
That's right. What do you suggest? At present none of the other sections leaves room to move that bit into. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 15:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- done, I've cut/paste a bit. It floats a little uncomfortably between the two paragraphs for my liking, and will probably need expanding a little, later, just to make it fit a little better into that section. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 15:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Replied earlier. "Second paragraph of Allied commander did that?" Ma®©usBritish [talk] 15:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing my attention to that paragraph. I think it can be summarised as "he returned to politics and became a statesman". As the WP:Lead is intended to be a summary, its relevant. Pyrotec (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not 100% clear on what you're asking to be done here. This bit has got muddled with the other comment, I think. The sentence in question is in Allied commander no the Lead. Do you want me to close the Lead by mentioning that he never fought again after Waterloo? Ma®©usBritish [talk] 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
In short, Yes. Pyrotec (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- done Ma®©usBritish [talk] 15:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An informative and well reference article on the battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    There is a large table in the final section of the article. I consider that it would not be realistic to require the contents of this table to be converted to prose. On this basis, I regard the presence of this table to be both acceptable and a positive contribution to the article.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  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:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm delighted to be able to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on your first GA.

It is not usual, in my experience as a GA reviewer, to have such an interactive review with the nominator. I have enjoyed this experience.

You may be interested to hear, perhaps you already know, that some 100,000 of Wellington's papers are held at the Library of the University of Southampton (here). Pyrotec (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! :) I have also enjoyed this review very much - it was much less, if at all, "adversarial" like some MilHist reviews can be, and had no POV or COI disputes. I enjoyed your reviewing style also, very thorough and logical - it has helped me in planning my next article better.

I was not aware of the Southampton Uni database, but thank you very much for the link, it could be useful, especially "WP 9 Miliary archives" for developing this and/or other articles in the future if they're scanned for online use - Southampton itself is about 300 miles from me ;).

Hope to see you next time round!

Regards, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 20:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Scum

Wellington's "scum of the earth" comment is "a well known opinion" because it has become a cliché, as have many dicta ascribed to Wellington, and ought properly to be set in context. To quote it in a short, passing generalisation gives a skewed impression of Wellington's opinion of his troops.

The juxtaposition with the reference to volunteers just seems odd. It implies that the soldiery being 'mostly volunteers' was the reason Wellington thought they were scum. The reference to volunteers is itself is a curious oversimplification of a complex situation. The use of 'Volunteers' in the context of the British army in this period relates to forces raised primarily for home defence. Do you mean to say that, unlike the French, British troops were not conscripts? -JF42 (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)JF42 (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Scum

Wellington's "scum of the earth" comment is "a well known opinion" because it has become a cliché, as have many dicta ascribed to Wellington, and ought properly to be set in context. To quote it in a short, passing generalisation gives a skewed impression of Wellington's opinion of his troops.

The juxtaposition with the reference to volunteers just seems odd. It implies that the soldiery being 'mostly volunteers' was the reason Wellington thought they were scum. The reference to volunteers is itself is a curious oversimplification of a complex situation. The use of 'Volunteers' in the context of the British army in this period relates to forces raised primarily for home defence. Do you mean to say that, unlike the French, British troops were not conscripts? -JF42 (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)JF42 (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)JF42 (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

I disagree partially about the recent revert. The reverted edit had removed an entirely out of place quote, "scum of the earth", which was said in 1813 after vitoria in anger at looting (Wellington to Bathurst, dispatches, p. 496) not in 1809 as implied by the text. Point being that it was said after a specific incident late in the war. The inclusion of it in the context it is being used gives the impression he landed in Spain with the words on his lips. He later added that "it is really wonderful that we should have made them to the fine fellows they are" (Haythornthwaite p. 7) which puts it in an entirely new light.

Also, as to the line that there were never more than 40,00 British troops in the Peninsular War how to account for the 57,000 British troops at the Battle of Vitoria?

As to the quality of french troops in the Peninsular, this is a highly debatable subject but stating that they were a "second line" in terms of everything is far too simplistic a viewpoint. There were many excellent units in Spain even after Napoleon, a real decline in terms of quality was felt after Napoleons Russian disaster as troops were creamed off in order to make up for the enormous losses in Russia. But sources are indeed needed for any contention of the source used here that generalises Peninsular French troops as low quality. As it stands however the impression is given that from 1809 onwards the French in the war were of uniform low standard, an obvious falsehood.

I have removed the "scum of the earth" quote as it is entirely irrelevant in the context it is being used here and fixed some overuse of commas but left the French quality sentence alone.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There were no overused commas, but thanks muchly for the mistaken critique of my use of English. Removal of those commas resulted in running sentences, which is not a good standard of English, and affects quality and sometimes meaning becomes ambiguous. As for the "scum of the Earth" quote.. he didn't say it just the once, it was an opinion he upheld often, which is now cited from Longford. It is a common misconception that he said it in one time and place, it would seem, and that leads to debates over the time, place and meaning. Generally speaking, such an opinion is not "time sensitive" in terms of context.. if he apparently said it in 1815, for example, it doesn't matter if it's mentioned earlier, as it's a notable opinion, not an event. I see no need to eradicate a view he held, as though it were a dirty word, or offensive remark against his troops. It is a well known opinion, despite it being related to one incident.
As for the 40k vs 57k discrepancy, I shall look into it. No idea why he would claim that, if a battle had more. Maybe an error in the book and he missed it, perhaps he meant 60,000 but typed 40,000 accidentally. These things do happen. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 17:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
"Also, as to the line that there were never more than 40,00 British troops in the Peninsular War how to account for the 57,000 British troops at the Battle of Vitoria?" – I expect this relates to "40,000 British" nationals in the War, and your total refers to 57,000 in British uniform, which doesn't account for nationality. The sentences after refer to Brits at Waterloo and British politicians, so it seems clear that it refers to nationality, not allegiance. Rothenberg is not particularly clear on the matter, though he does talk a bit about voluntary enlistment from "England and Scotland" a few pages earlier, which hints at his meaning of "British" here being 40,000 from Britain, not just in British uniform from any old place. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 17:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Just been looking over Digby Smith's Data Book breakdown of Vittoria. A great number of those listed under "British Army" are either Caçadores or Brunswick companies. Whether by fault or design, I do not believe, given the order of battle, that "57,000" actually represents the British-born contribution to the total, which may well be far less.. once you discount those two groups, and possibly militia. Historians are often lazy in their provision of numbers, throwing out whole totals without a detailed breakdown of what that total embodies. Wikipedians are often just as lazy to cite those totals, and IMO it's a disregard for absolute accuracy and amounts to synth, and there's often some motive behind it. Given that Rothenburg's claim of 40,000 is citable, I'll stand by it for now unless something else comes up.. I've dug through a half-dozen books, and no one has given an alternative figure to contradict the claim. As for the comments on the standard of French troops in Spain, again, your opinions seem more personal than factual, and I see nothing that proves an "obvious falsehood" on my behalf, so I'll take that to be poor wording on your behalf.. I choose my sources carefully, and without bias or personal feeling towards the British or French, because I respect both. The impression that the troops left in Spain were poor comes directly from the source. The source even goes on to say that Napoleon re-equipped his Guard with newer "Year XI model" guns and that the Gribeauval cannons used in the Peninsular were old. That kind of sums it up.. yes, they were crap in some regards, there's no generalisation at all, and he states why. I don't see the need to go into specific details of French weapons, however, given that the article is about Wellington's role, and that with claim cited readers are free to verify and expand on their knowledge from the source. If and when I return to this article to expand it ten-fold with a longer prose section, as I am with the lengthy Napoleon battle record I'm working on, it may be more important to the context. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 04:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Biased article

Hi. This is an amazingly biased and jingoistic article, marked by that peculiar brand of jingoism that distinguishes the British Empire. Someone who is not British and not an advocate for war and murder needs to vet this article line-by-line, so that it can achieve an encyclopedic quality... It currently has no objectivity at all. Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_career_of_Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington/Archive_1&oldid=1151013855"