User talk:Albrecht

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

/1 July 2005 - March 2006

Contents

[edit] Combatants list and stuff

Hey, I saw you are changing all the time the combatants list of the Spanish Civil War and the Spanish War of Succession articles. Stop changing it unilaterally please. At least talk about it in the talk pages.

About the War of Spanish Succession there are few things:

1) For some reason you unilaterally change the alphabetical arrangement I did for the combatants list.

2) A guy changed "Great Britain" for "England/Great Britain", which is historically correct: at the begin of the war it was England, but at the end of the war it had become the Great Britain. But for some reason, you also change that.

3) You also keep changing the terminology of "Austriacists" and "Philippists". Please, don't do that. I don't know where are you from but these are the names given to the two factions of the war in Spain since the birds can fly.

4) I've also seen that you change things like "Kingdom of Spain" for "Spain", "Kingdom of France" for "France", "Nazi Germany" for "Germany", "Fascist Italy" for "Italy", etc. Well, that's incorrect too: you don't change "Soviet Union" for "Russia", right? Why? Because the article "Russia" displays the information of the modern-day country of Russia while "Soviet Union" shows what was Russia and all the associated republics in the past. So it's the same with "Nazi Germany" and "Fascist Italy". And it's also the same with "Kingdom of Spain" and "Kingdom of France"... if you say "France" instead of "Kingdom of France" it redirects to the modern-day French Republic... and that's wrong...

That's all. So please, talk about it in the Talk Pages of the articles before doing those changes...

Oh, and please, don't use expressions like "Jesus Christ, fix everything"... like if you were the bringer of the mundial knowledge.

Onofre Bouvila 04:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


Yeah, well, in the case of the Spanish Civil War it's pointless that you put "Germany" and "Italy" as combatants, because these names link to the modern day countries. Maybe they didn't call their country "Nazi Germany" or "Fascist Italy" by those times, but everyone knows these countries in that period with these names, and actually there are articles named Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy that show what these countries were by those times, and they were a different thing than what they are today. And putting this in the combatants list is much more clarifying than putting the modern day countries, because it wasn't the Federal Republic of Germany who fought the war, it was the Nazi Germany, and the same with Italy. Or take the example of Russia: you don't put Russia in the article because it wasn't just Russia who fought the war but the whole Soviet Union. So what I did wasn't wrong, and you can't disagree with terms like "Nazi Germany" or "Fascist Italy" because they are vox populi and a proof of this is that, as I said, they have their own articles.
Then you put Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union as "subordinated forces" of the Second Spanish Republic // the Spanish Nationalists. Well, they were not a branch of the spaniard factions, they were allied powers, and I think it's much more clarifying if you put in the combatants list "Second Spanish Republic" vs. "Spanish Nationalists" and then "With the support of:". With the way you did it, putting them as "subordinated forces" it seems that they were sub-factions of the main combatants. Anyway it was much more wrong before I changed the combatants list some weeks ago: someone had put the trade unions and the international brigades and more stuff that was totally wrong. And by the way, linking the "Spanish Nationalists" to "Spanish State", or directly putting "Spanish State" in the combatants list is not very appropiate because the Spanish State came after the Republic was defeated, and if you directly put it in the combatants list you are legitimating and giving official recognition to a bunch of rebels who did a coup d'état. The real Spanish State of those times was the Second Spanish Republic.
Then you say that we should remove "Austriacists" and "Philippists". I don't think so, because putting that not only shows which were the factions of the war and helps to clarify the conflict but it is also a way to include all those supporters of one or the other faction that fought because they believed on the cause, but were not flagged under any combatant state. And they were hundreds of thousands just in Spain. In addition, this is the name that has been always given to the factions of the war, here in Spain, but I can understand your ignorance about this as you seem to be an anglo. It's almost offensive not to mention the austriacists and philippists (or borbonics, or however you wanna call them) who fought the civil war in the Spanish territory, because it was a civil war, and sometimes it seems that this war was just fought by the british. And about putting the Crown of Aragon maybe it's okay, I had consulted wrong sources. But if you don't put "Austriacists" and "Philippists" you are removing from the history all those individuals who fought for one side or for the other.
Onofre Bouvila 01:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
About the problem with the combatants of the Spanish Civil War, there are two ways to do it:
1) You put Germany linked to Nazi Germany and Italy linkted to Fascist Italy.
2) You directly put Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, linking to the articles with the same names.
Both options are correct. Maybe using the words Nazi and Fascist is redundant like you said, but it is redundant only when you are already linking the countries to these terms through the articles that make reference to the situation of Germany under the nazism and Italy under the fascism. It is not redundant but completely necessary when you are linking Germany to the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy to the Italian Republic: because that is what you did, and it is wrong; what do you say to that? You don't regonise your own mistakes. In addition, it emphasizes on the strong political character of the war (freedom against tirany, reason against dogmatism, a free republic against a totalitarist and fascist state).
So we can argue what is better: if Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy or Germany (linking to Nazi Germany) and Italy (linking to Fascist Italy), which is clearly the same (instead the terms Nazi and Fascist may be redundant in the first case). But we cannot argue if Germany and Italy, which are linking to Federal Republic of Germany and to Italian Republic, are more appropiate than what I did, because these terms are wrong. And that's what you did.
I didn't make any historical mistake when I put Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, but you did when you put Germany (linking to Federal Republic of Germany) and Italy (linking to Italian Republic).
That was the first point.
Then you say that the case of the Soviet Union is different. Well, it is not, because it is right that while Soviet Union was the official name of country by those times, Germany and Italy were not called Nazi and Fascist oficially. But when you are calling them with these names, you are capturing the characteristics of these countries during the 30s. The territories that Germany and Italy had during that period were much different than the territories they occupy today. For example, if you just say "Germany", you don't show that Königsberg was a part of Germany. They were the same countries, but much different. And to show this difference it's much more clarifying to put Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in the combatants list than Federal Republic of Germany and Italian Republic, which is what you did. And don't come with stuff like that saying "Nazi Germany" is the same than saying "Marxism-Lenninist Russia" or something like that... it's obvious that Nazi Germany is vox populi and defines the state of Germany during those times, while "Marxism-Lenninism" defines a political theory that may be applied to multiple situations... so what you are saying is pointless.
Then you say that "Subordinate is obviously meant in terms of the scale of the forces". Well, subordination is what it is; in the Second World War article, the US had x10 the forces of UK and UK is not in a sublist under the US. Anyway it's much more clarifying if you put "With the support of", because you show that the two real combatants were the Second Spanish Republic against the Rebels, while the other forces were unidirectionally helping the two mentioned factions. Putting all the combatants at the same level means that all the combatants of the first faction fought against all the combatants of the second one, and it is not so. And using the sub-bulleted list shows subordination. And as I don't think there is any "special symbol" to show "unidirectional support" (like the bulleted list showing subordination) I think the best that can be done is to write "With the support of", which is what I did.
And about the "Spanish State", it is wrong to say that the combatants of the war were the "Spanish State" against the "Second Spanish Republic": "Spanish State" not only refers to the state that Franco created, but it is also a way to define the structure in which the country is organised; and this structure, in 1936, was a Republic. Putting them at the same level creates a conflict of legitimacy: you are generating two legitimate states for Spain: (1) a Republic and (2) a totalitarist state (which was then named "Estado Español" and to which you are awarding official recognition, a thing that did not have in the bulk of the international community). If they had not won the war, you would never say that "the Spanish State fought against the Republic", because the only state that everyone would recognise when talking about that period would be the Republic. Moreover, no one says that the Spanish State fought against the Republic; a bunch of rebels, did a coup d'état and after overthrowing the legitimate government they created their own state. Finally, when you are generating two states for Spain in the combatants list you are confusing the reader, and it must be clear that Spain had a legitimate state (the Republic) that was overthrew by the rebels that then created what they called El Estado Español.
And finally, about the War of Spanish Succession it's okay that the catalan austriacists fall under the Crown of Aragon but as I said there were austriacists and philippists (or borbonics) both in Castile and the old Crown of Aragon, and if you don't use the term Philippists you are missing the hundreds of thousands of individuals who supported the Bourbons, and if you don't use the term Austriacists you are missing the hundreds of thousands of Austriacists that were outside of the Crown of Aragon. Furthermore, when you are linking these terms to the articles of the aspirants for the crown, it's totally clear what do they mean. And it's not pointless to mix flags with coats of arms, because the factions of the war were about two kings, and each one had his own coat of arms, and the people supported the individual more than a nation or a state. It was a civil war, and the civil wars are not so simple. When you, from your personal point of view, disdain these issues, and call the people who fought the war in Spain "a bunch of opportunists" and reject to mention them in the combatants list you are not only being historically unaccurate but also showing a lack of respect for what happened here. And the fact that you had never heard about terms like "Philippists", "Austriacists" or "Borbonic" shows that you are not as well informed as you think.
All in all, I agree that the stuff of the combatants list must be simplified, but it cannot be done from a distant, partial, simple and simplifying point of view like yours. You rudely disdain important issues that must be considered.
Statements like "the Warbox only needs to tell you that (Italy) it's that country in the Mediterranean shaped like a boot show your high level of reasoning.
Onofre Bouvila 00:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
“ Let me clue you in on something, chief: Franco won. And even if his side had lost, it would still be more proper for us to use the name they called themselves than to come up with post-facto demonising labels. We're not in a position to judge whether a combatant is an "extremist insurgent" or a "hero of national liberation." Were the Fenians who invaded Canada "terrorist dupes" or "Erin's noble crusaders"? Who can say? That's why we don't rely on the consistency or veracity of any group's description. So you can continue to smother my talk page with talk of "freedom against tirany, reason against dogmatism, a free republic against a totalitarist and fascist state," but when you pollute the articles with your biases, we have a problem. ”
“ Judging from your comments above, there's obviously nothing to be heard from you on this point besides the rote tirades of an outraged nationalist. Unfortunately, I'm more concerned with arranging these articles in conformity with the guidelines of WP:MILHILST than with debating the legitimacy of the Franco regime. So, what I would suggest is this: Go convince the editors of "American Civil War" to change "Confederate States of America" to "southern rebels and traitors," and then I'll be happy to hear your case. Get going, and good luck. ”
Ok, I've already discussed with you about this and you seem not to understand it. Calling the fascist combatants of the Spanish Civil War article "Spanish State" is simply stupid, because what they called "Spanish State" was something they created when they had overthrown the Republic. But when you are talking about the war, you can't say that it was the "State" against the Republic because the Second Spanish Republic was itself the state. I have already told you this, and it's quite obvious; are you kidding me?
Here [1] you have the constitution of the Second Spanish Republic. You can see that the words "Spanish State" appear 9 times in the text. How can you say that the "Spanish Republic" was fighting against the "Spanish State", if the Republic itself was called "Spanish State"?
And this is not the same case as in the American Civil War: the Confederated States of America were a group of confederated states in opposition to the United States of America, which were another ones. The confederates didn't say they were the American state: they took their part of the country and they segregated from the whole.
By the way you also mention the WP:MILHILST policy. If you go to WP:MILHILST/MCI, you can read "combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly (not always) the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding".
So all this is totally pointless. You are not right. You are wrong. What can I say if you don't even assume such simple things?
“ Your point about linking to Nazi Germany is understood. But in your zeal to specify regimes with minute historical precision, you've closed your eyes to some pretty severe restrictions and limitations to your approach: sometimes, articles on the former country do not exist. "Fascist Italy" does not link to a former country, but to a political and social ideology. ”
Fascist Italy links to this:
"Italian fascism (in Italian, fascismo) was the authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini".
Italy links to this:
"Italy (Italian: Italia, IPA: [i'taːlja]; officially the Italian Republic; Italian: Repubblica Italiana, IPA: [ɾe ˌpubblika ita 'ljaːna]) is a country located in Southern Europe, that comprises the Po River valley, the Italian Peninsula and the two largest islands in the Mediterranean Sea, Sicily and Sardinia".
You must be blind if you don't understand the first one is the correct one.
“ In these cases, it's universal practice to link the combatant to its current successor state. ”
Huh? Where is that stated?
“ And it's patent sophistry to claim that the word "Fascist," by itself, gives any indication of how Italian foreign policy affected the course of the war. It doesn't. No reader will infer the political programmes of Hispano-German relations from the word "Nazi," nor is it the purpose of the Infobox to describe them. ”
Not only it gives an indication of how the Italian foreign policy affected the course of the war but also links to the absolutely clear sentence that I mentioned above: "Italian fascism (in Italian, fascismo) was the authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini".
“ Likewise, your argument on the basis of territorial differences doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny: Canada is today the same constitutional state as it was a hundred years ago—notice anything different? Now, if you'd consider adding substance to the article instead of just screwing around with the Warbox, you might be able to touch on the subject. ”
Ok, you seem to be kidding me again. So you are comparing the extense of an Empire with the different reforms that Canada has performed on its internal provinces?
“ It's strange, I've done a lot of reading on the War of the Spanish Succession, (maybe not as much as our friend Raymond Palmer, but enough), but I must have skipped the part where hundreds of thousands of Spaniards fought on either side (Spanish generals had trouble scraping together armies of 10,000-20,000). Perhaps you could point me in the right direction, amigo? In brief: ”
First of all two things: I don't know who is Raymond Palmer and I'm not your amigo. After this:
“ 1. You can go ahead and claim that I'd never heard of these terms. Or you can listen to what I actually said, which is that they mean nothing to the average Anglophone reader. Like it or not, this is an article on a major European war in an English-language encyclopedia, not a treatise on Spanish dynastic history. ”
Your lack of information about the article is not my problem. I have listened to "what you actually said", and your statement "they mean nothing to the average Anglophone reader" strongly violates the WP:NPV. In addition, remember that you are not an anglo, you are québécois.
“ 2. Even if one were to recognize these factions as coherent political entities (which, as explained above, is extremely problematic—they were morphous monarchical loyalties and nothing more), they would be far fewer in strength than many other states that are not represented, i.e. Prussia, Hungary. ”
WP:MILHILST/MCI: "combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly (not always) the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding."
“ 3. Throwing coats of arms in with flags looks ridiculous. ”
OH RLY?
WP:MILHILST/MCI: "smaller groups (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding": if these groups do not have a flag, because they don't belong to a country or a nation, but they are fighting for an individual (such as a king), what's wrong with adding the coat of arms of this individual?
Anyway WP:MILHILST just mentions the word "flag" once, and says that "in general, the use of flag icons is not recommended", while WP:MILHILST/MCI doesn't even mention the word "flag".
So as you can see, WP:MILHILST gives a lot of freedom in all these matters and it is not so strict as you want to make it look like.
“ 4."Kingdom of Spain," with a Bourbon flag, represents 90+% of Bourbon supporters, while "Crown of Aragon" represents 70+% of Peninsular Habsburg loyalists. ”
Again, OH RLY?
As I and my good friend WP:MILHILST said, "smaller groups (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding".
Anyway, to conclude: it's totally pointless to discuss with you. My edits in all these matters are correct, when I edit the articles I always create a topic in the talk page and if you have any problem with it I also come to your talk page and I justify my position. The fact you don't want to accept all this is not my problem. We've been discussing about these issues for too long, and I'm tired of it. In the conversations we've had I always replied the problems you raised, and you still not understand it. I just upgrade the articles, adding additional information and explaining and clarifying lots of issues, and all what you do is to revert my changes in these matters taking WP:MILHILST like a preacher takes a Bible, with the difference that while the Bible probably supports what the preacher is saying, while WP:MILHILST does not support you. So you can keep trying to revert my edits, but you won't get anything because like a cucumber, I will keep my WP:SC attitude, and will keep changing the articles again and discussing about it in the talk pages.
And here ends this discussion, because since right now, I will definately ignore your complaints and keep doing my own way.
Onofre Bouvila 01:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question strength numbers for Siege of Tenochtitlan

Back on July 20, 2005, you apparently developed some numbers for the strength box for the [Siege of Tenochtitlan]. I think these numbers (150,000-300,000) are way off and have made the changes that I think are appropriate. However, in the edit summary, you quoted some sources (Hanson and Prescott). If you have time, could you document how you arrived at your numbers in the Talk page for the article? I have already put the justification for my revised numbers in the Talk page. I'm more than willing to discuss and be convinced that your numbers are right and mine are wrong. I just would like to understand what yours are based on. Richard 18:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Civil War Image

Hi Albrecht,

Regarding Nationalist_soldiers_capture_Republican_troops.gif, I don't know anything more about it. I would put more, but that's everything that the Hispanic Society gave as a caption.

Best wishes,

Primetime 00:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cenepa War

Hello there! Maybe the first exchange of words that we had here in Wikipedia was not the most appropriated one. Hence, a little explanation regarding my actions should be stated: The main reason I was only able to add the "NPOV" tag and not modify that much the article is due to the fact that I'm currently involved in a RFC against my person dealing with this Ecuadorian-Peruvian related articles.

Having explained this, I encourage you to take a look at the talk page. I'm now providing (slowly, but steady) some points that need to be rectify before declaring the article as "neutral". Cheers! And hope to hear from you. Messhermit 03:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the comments made by the Ecuadorian Wikipedist involved in the "Cenepa War" articles may sound a little out of context... and that is the main reason I didn't want to get too involve with the article. The fact that this user clearly attempts to impose its will is disturbing, specially regarding this conflict. Therefore, I have to state that this user clearly portrays only one side of the story. Thus, I invite you to express yourself in this RFC against my person that is more like a "political trial" (based on conveniently presented evidence). My patience has limits, but I don't go around proudly proclaiming them like the example below. Cheers! And I hope to hear from you. Messhermit 05:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alcázar on DYK

You may have a good point, but it's one that anyone may readily deduce from a reading of the article. The original suggestion on the DYK talk page referred to howitzers and sappers which do not appear anywhere in the article. Facts mentioned in a DYK entry should appear in the article so, as the updating admin, I changed it to reflect the actual wording used. The artillery bombardment and aerial bombing are mentioned and demonstrate the disproportional balance in the fighting that you think has been lost. The only specific that is missing is the reference to tanks, which the reader of the article can quickly determine were a factor (albeit there were only "2 or 3" of them). I think the essence of the article is still well represented on the DYK page and will hopefully inspire a large number of readers to visit. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaignbox

Sorry about that; I didn't realize someone had blanked it. Kirill Lokshin 20:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough (although the broader issue of present-day material being included within "military history" is one that I don't think we've fully resolved yet). I suspect part of the problem is that people who work exclusively on the current events may not have had enough interaction with us to recognize our templates; maybe leaving links to WP:MILHIST in the edit summaries would help here. Kirill Lokshin 01:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello Albrecht. I wanted to thank you for your kind comments on the work I did months ago on the Cenepa War article. To be honest, there is still little coverage of some very interesting operational & tactical information from the Peruvian side (what I do know, comes mainly from talks with Peruvian friends, so it is not citable). I know you'll understand if I say that it would not be wise for me to get involved in what is taking place there right now. As for patience, well, mine has limits too!: [2], [3]. Best Regards. -- Andres 03:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Yo

I see that you have encountered Kurt Leyman (talk • contribs) Your pages are not the first that his has vandalised or the last and the things he did to your pages were rather mild in comparison to the other acts of vandalism he has commited. If you want to stop it go here and add your views to the topic go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation (Deng 00:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC))


[edit] Hello check this out

Hello I have made a request for comment on Kurt Leyman and I need people to sign the request and also to sign on the specific page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kurt_Leyman

(Deng 03:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lokshin 18:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:The Battle of Vimy Ridge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Battle of Vimy Ridge.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the attribution - his name was Richard Jack, not Jack Richard. I've attached an article URL for a Legion Magazine article on him as a source, on the talk page for that image.Michael Dorosh 21:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major power

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major power. I think I made a good case. Please add your thoughts to improve the case for deletion ASAP. —thames 03:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Power Afd

Hello, I've just noted your comment of the 11th:

I dislike the antagonistic approach to deletion; I had thought to persuade the article's editors of the validity of my concern. If their consensus is against me I will annul my vote and leave the rest to their judgment. But I'm not touching that article again.

I do hope that you haven't percieved me as being unduly antagonistic, it certainly wasn't my intention (although, I hope you understand, that a note on the talk page before initiating the afd would have been appreciated). Contributing here should be fun (in the broadest sense of the word), I apologise if I've caused you any disquiet. I must say issues raised by the Afd have changed my feelings towards the article (and the whole int power series in fact). What they need is the attention of people with a background in the academic side of it. It looks like we are about to get into an argument over Italy on the Major Power page and an argument over whether Russia is an emerging superpower on the superpower page - all very tedious and messy.

Essentially these articles need informed editing, please do reconsider your decision. The enthusiastic amateur has his place, but needs to be guided from time to time. As for this enthusiastic amateur, I'm going to take a break from this series, to those areas in which I can claim a little expertise; primarily to articles on South African history - an area which doesn't attact the attention of too many other editors, thank god!

Best wishes, Xdamr 12:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 05:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military conflict infobox on Eighty Years' War

If you get a chance, could you perhaps take a look at this discussion on the Eighty Years' War talk page? I know you've had some concerns about how the military conflict infobox was used before, so you might be able to better judge if I'm pushing bureaucratic consistency at the expense of quality. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 14:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Madrid

Hi, I see that you are interested in the Spanish Civil War. Perhaps you might be interested in helping to expand the Siege of Madrid (1936-39) article? Its currently a work in progress.

Jdorney 13:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just letting you know that I've finished my work on this article (though I'm sure it can still be improved). I wonder can we get it re-assessed from being being a stub class to at least start class?

Cheers,

Jdorney 14:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.   — ERcheck (talk) @ 23:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 19:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Antonio Castejón Espinosa

Hello Albrecht: I would like to know where did you find the date of dead of Antonio Castejón Espinosa because I have been unable to find it in any Internet page. I think that 1969 is correct (I lived in Seville when he was general lieutenant of that military region) but I am not sure. I am loosing memory with the age ;-)). Thanks for your response. PACO 11:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Albrecht, thanks for your response. I also have the book of Hugh Thomas (in Spanish), but maybe I passed too quickly over the data ;-)). I am thinking to create the page about Castejón in Wikipedia in Spanish, but now I have a lot of familiar problems and I don't know when I'll have enough time for that. Thanks a lot again. PACO 11:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Legion

It seems someone copied the Spanish Legion page into Spanish Foreign Legion last month and turned the original title into a disambiguation page. I have requested permision to move the page back to Spanish Legion but a controversial editor has opposed in the talk page (it seems this person has a long history of edit warring on other articles -currently banned for 3RR breach- and it definitely is not my intention to engage on this sort of activity against him or anyone). As you had contributed greatly to the article before, I would appreciate your comments at Talk:Spanish Foreign Legion. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 22:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Campaignboxes linking wars

Personally, I don't think it's a good idea, since the conflicts don't really form a logical sequence, but merely a geographic one. One rule of thumb that might be useful is to consider whether a coherent article about the "group" of conflicts could be written; in other words, would Spanish-Moroccan Wars be a mere list of conflicts, or could it be dealt with as a single larger "conflict" that happens to be broken into stages. If it's the former, having a navigation template is probably not all that useful; the last thing we want is to have a campaignbox for every pair of countries that has found themselves on opposite sides of a war (e.g. {{Campaignbox Anglo-French Wars}}). Kirill Lokshin 21:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok; something like "Spanish colonial wars in Morocco" seems rather more reasonable, since there's actually a common theme beyond the two sides involved. The fact that the participants may vary shouldn't play into it too much; even for the obvious series of wars (e.g. the Napoleonic Wars), there tends to be a lot of variation in that regard. Kirill Lokshin 22:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish-Moroccan wars

My apologies You were afraid that you were vague, and I have to admit the same - my edit summary may not have been explanatory. The Green March had nothing to do with Spain, except as a proxy, or only in asmuch as Spanish Sahara was a province of Spain. The conflict was between Morocco and the Polisario Front; so it seems misleading to characterize it as a Spanish-Moroccan conflict (Spain, of course, rolled over and sold out the Sahara, so there was clearly no conflict between the Spanish and Moroccans.) I suppose that since the Sahara was a province at the time, you could justify re-adding it; I won't object. I hope that clears up what I was doing - otherwise, nice template, by the way. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surrender of Montreal (1760)

If you concerned about the ratio of articles dealing with French victories to British victories, why not flesh-out more articles dealing with French victories or created some stubs on battles or skirmishes that aren't yet a part of the 'pedia? Blanking and redirecting pages that don't fit with your agenda smacks of WP:POINT, and I would ask you to stop because it's a bit disruptive and not very constructive. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is fairly ridiculous, I must admit. It speaks of a "siege," but nothing notable actually happened. If you want a real siege, see the Siege of Paris in 1870-1871. I don't see why someone could not use this article as precedent for creating other articles with the harmless fall of cities.....like "Surrender of London (1066)" or "Surrender of Berlin (1806)." Just opens up an uncomfortable can of worms. I'd personally support for deletion if it came up, but I don't think it would succeed.UberCryxic 04:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great power peer review

Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Great power and comment. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 18:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crown of Aragón

Hi, I see you reverted many of the changes I included in this entry. I can't see why. I am really not trying to leaden anything when I mention that the institutions were kept for some more decades (centuries, actually) after Spain formed: this is just a fact and I think it is interesting to know that the Crown of Aragón kept functioning basically the same way even when Spain was already existing. Is it not? Since I mention this fact, then I mention the moment when these institutions are finally abolished. I would be trying to load this politically if I mentioned some sort of continuity with present day self government, which I do not. I am no nationalist of any kind.

It is true that Barcelona and Valencia shared the economical primacy. I don't have the citation, neither does the present version, so? Then the reference to the Consell de Cent does not fit in there, for this is an article about the Crown of Aragón, not an article about Catalonia's municipal regime.

Again I am surprised at seeing reverted my mention to the Fueros ¿? I am not trying to load anything politically here, just mentioning the well known process in medieval Europe of kings trying to strenghten their power by getting allied with cities or territories which they granted self governemnt.

Last, but not least, I am really against of the use of "Empire". That was no empire. How can someone call Empire a loose confederation of three Peninsular territories? They ruled lands all over the Mediterranean? ok, but again this was a loose one which, besides, didn't last that much anyway.

Please, mate, look into my reasons and let me know what you think: I am hoping you reconsider this matter. As I say above, I am no nationalist of any kind and I am only trying to add some interesting information here, really. Mountolive 03:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast feedback, Albrecht. Well, indeed I think your revert was quite drastic, but I see no problem -and actually agree- with your point of taking things out of the introduction. Also you are right that, to some extent, a few of my remarks were a bit redundant, even though I still wish to make clear the interesting fact that the Crown of Aragón institutions kept working after uniting with Spain (this is an interesting fact which, besides, proves the Catalan nationalists that "Spain" doesn't necessarily mean lack of self-government, as they want to stress). I may come back to this article again with similar views, but detailed in a different way. I hope you will agree with those, since, as I said, I am actually not trying by any means to endorse the Catalan nationalist view. Mountolive 04:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I have made a zillion little edits trying to make the history section more lineal and consistent than the previous version, hope that you agree. I guess it could look better, but it's time to go bed now. Mountolive 06:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defeats

Cool category huh? They killed off Famous American defeats, but this should work. Amazed they don't have this yet. --~~

[edit] Nine Years' war

Thanks for your comments on the Nine Years’ War article. I must add though that my use of Churchill was very minor.

I’m not sure I agree entirely with your reservations of Churchill as a historian but I understand your concern which is why I use Churchill sparingly - if at all. Chandler quotes him throughout his work – although he does say when discussing Marlborough that Churchill was ‘more than a little parti pris’ ie: Predjudice

Its been some time since I read his Second World War – I have an abridged version. I shall take another look at it taking into consideration what you said.

Thanks again for the comment – coming from someone as yourself, who clearly has knowledge and interest in early modern warfare, it was certainly much appreciated. Raymond Palmer 13:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


  • I try to only include information that can be verified with another source. The sentence that you refer to:

Although Marshal Luxembourg, with superior numbers defeated William’s army at the bloody Battle of Landen on 29 July, it had little effect beyond attrition; despite suffering enormous casualties, William was able to maintain himself in the field.

The quote that Landen had ‘little effect beyond attrition’ was taken from Lynn. Lynn goes on to say ‘William gathered back dispersed elements of his forces to restore his army’. I used the Churchill quote - ‘was able to maintain himself in the field’ because it is more economical with regards to wording.

If I can’t verify a ‘fact’ from another source I usually don’t put it in the article.

I am currently updating the WOTSS article to bring it up to modern FA status. The existing article is missing plenty of history and is completely unsourced. When its finished I’ll let you know, and if you feel its deficient eg: too anglo-centric, particularly regarding the Duke of Marlborough, I can make the necessary ammendments . When it comes to Marlborough I certainly won’t use Churchill.

Thanks, Raymond Palmer 20:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not pestering me at all, please comment/discuss as often as you see fit, it's very helpful. Raymond Palmer 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peninsular War References

I have created a references section instead of further reading section in the Penunsular war article. I added Chandlers Campaigns of Napoleon and Gates The Spanish Ulcer, because I assumed this is the two books you use in the notes. Carl Logan 20:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your request. I've now given the article a copyedit. Look over it and see if you like it.UberCryxic 22:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Restigouche

You've got a point about style, since the battle only ended when the French left. But it ended the (albeit faint) hope that France would come to the aid of her colony. So i just changed it to read 'British victory' instead. Sbmcmull

No worries. This is one of the more obscure events in Canadian Military History, so I'm glad you even bothered to notice! Sbmcmull

[edit] Re: A question of etiquette

Well, that depends on whether you're content to leave the article in its current state. If you are, then simply ending the discussion may be the best approach, as continuing the debate may provoke a defensive reaction from him. In my experience, such questions of national pride and such tend to blow up into fairly time-consuming fights more often than not. (Which is not to say, of course, that he may not be willing to have a perfectly civil intellectual discussion on the point of significance of contributions and so forth; but, if things get out of hand, you'll likely be forced to spend a lot of time on the issue.) Kirill Lokshin 21:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cicero at the gates

Meh what are you gona do....I just regret having to go up against a teacher's pet who hasn't read two lines on Waterloo.UberCryxic 03:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Copyright violation?

Commons seems to go through these bouts of copyright insanity every so often; they're really caused by inconsistent copyright law across national borders, and Commons generally choosing to go with the most restrictive possibility even when it's fairly absurd. (I believe they recently deleted their entire stock of photographs of the Bismark.)

Unfortunately, I don't really have any influence on Commons policy, so there's not much I can do at the source of the problem. My advice would be to simply upload the image(s) directly to en:Wikipedia, where the Commons admins can't get to them. Kirill Lokshin 18:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that, when the image was moved to Commons, our local copy was deleted; you may need to upload it here again if we want it to stay regardless of what happens to the Commons one. Kirill Lokshin 21:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Jarama

Hi, nice work on this article so far. Three small points I want to address.

Firstly, it is not customary to begin a battle article with a quote from a poem or song. I'm not sure where the quotation comes from (Hugh Thomas obviously quoted it, but where does it originate?), but it surely belongs either somewhere within the article or at the end?

Second, the context of Charlie Donnelly's "even the olives are bleeding" is the recollection of a Canadian veteran as follows, "We ran for cover, Charlie Donnelly, the commander of an Irish company is crouched behind an olive tree. He has picked up a bunch of olives from the ground and is squeexing them. I hear him say something quietly between a lullin machine gun fire:'Even the olives are bleeding' (quoted in Joeseph O'Connor, Even the Olives are Bleeding - the life and times of Charles Donnelly, p.105). O'Connor goes on to say, "a few minutes later, as Donnelly was covering the retreat, he was caught in a burst of gunfire. He was struck three times, in the right arm, the right side and the head. He collapsed and died instantly. thre was no time to retrieve the body. So I think the wording in the Jarama article should be changed accordingly.

Third, the title of the sub-section, "Suicide Hill". This hill (though emotively named) was only one of a series of positions which saw fierce fighting on the Pingarron and Pajares heights on February 12-14 1937. The title of the sub-section should reflect this and not magnify the importance of just one of these actions which involved British volunteers.

That's it. Well done again, on your contributions so far. I await your response before making the changes.

Jdorney 17:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, some more thoughts on improving the article.

First, I think a map would be a big help, as the descriptions of the fighting are surely very confusing to someone who has not seen a map of the positions in question. Beevor has a good one in his book. I may be able to do one based on his and upload it.

Also, reading through the article, it seems strange to me that the Republicans seem to have used their Soviet armour extensively and the Nationalists seem not to have used their German tank corps at all. Are we missing something? perhaps they just weren't practical for the job of taking bridges and then establishing bridgeheads on the far side? I don't know.

Re Suicide Hill, I decided to leave it there, despite issue raised above, as it does sound better. Until we can come up with another title at least.

Jdorney 21:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French and Indian War

Hi I'm new here. But I stumbled over the article for the French and Indian War/Seven Years'War/The Great Conquest. Being from the area I thought I might be able to contribute. I left a message on the discussion page. Seems there might of been a slight POV issue there. I would like to dicuss a few things I thought might make the article feature class. I think the original article misses a few key points on the geography of the area and how that might escalate into the conflict that accurred in Europe. Thank you when you get timeDeedee19482 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creating maps

I saw the maps you created and would like to know whether you are interested in creating some more?

We have lots of requests for maps showing areas under different political control. One issue that is likely to rise are the Muslim, Indian and African political entities which often lack maps (there are lots of editors lacking the know-how to create maps, but knowing what should be in it. Also territorial changes like during the Second Punic War are only available as external images while they would be essential to show the progress. Quite a good example is the First Punic War, although I don't approve of the style. As long as there is no sufficient group working on maps we are unlikely to create any guidelines. Wandalstouring 18:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have An Award

The Epic Barnstar
{{{For military history related articles}}}

Dermo69 14:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Monte Cassino edit

You've taken out Algeria and Morocco There were in fact 2 Moroccan Divisions (plus the Goumiers = another Division, so three in all) and an Algerian Division at Cassino. This compares with only 1 Free French and 1 New Zealand Division, which continue to be listed. Admittedly both Algeria and Morocco were French colonies at the start of the war but the legal French government was VIchy. I think these two should be reinstated and India added because of the major roles played by 4 and 8 Indian Divisions (although an issue here is that it was colonial India which included modern day Pakistan and Bangladesh) Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 02:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm relatively new to all this so I guess my thought is it is fine as long as it is consistent across all Wikipedia articles. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 13:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure Philippists and Austracists are helpful terms

Albrecht, you quoted - "Not sure Philippists and Austracists are helpful terms" re:the flags on WOTSS articles. I Agree. I think its simplistic and misleading. Should be removed. Raymond Palmer 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You'll be proud

Looking through my old talk page archives I ran across our former collaboration on an AfD for Major powers. You'll be happy to see this then Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/China_as_an_emerging_superpower_(fourth_nomination). I'm just sorry you weren't there to see it unfold. You might consider joining up over here Wikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relations to help set things back on course.—Perceval 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] José de Canterac

Hi there,

I noticed that you added information to José de Canterac. The article is currently unsourced. Could you add a source for your information or even better the article as a whole? Thanks--Thomas.macmillan 23:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Get to work, you lazy rogue!

Translate: San Juan San Payo Alhucemas [4]

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World War II Mediation Case

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/World War II, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Krellis (Talk) 21:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Battle of Teruel

Thank you for your compliment and the fine edits on Battle of Teruel. Pehaps you might look at my article on the Seige of Oviedo, also in the Spanish Civil War. I know it could use some editing. I see Wikipedia needs an article on the Aragon Offenive, and parts of the War in the North including the Seige of Bilbao and maybe the Fall of Asturias and Gijon. When I get some time I plan to work on those.

GenghisTheHun 21:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun


[edit] comments on your revision of Battle of Teruel

The addenda on the casualties should be removed. As you know a casualty is more than just killed or wounded. at Teruel, we had missing, captives, and sick for casualties as well.

The flags of the combatants should be restored. The International Brigade was never really under Spanish control nor were the Soviet fliers. On the other side the Germans and Italians were always semi-independent.

GenghisTheHun 03:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun


[edit] OK on casualies and maps at Teruel

OK, I'll revert the casualties and leave out the maps. Many thanks.

GenghisTheHun 01:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:1733_Spanish_Dollar.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:1733_Spanish_Dollar.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 talk 04:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Battle of Santander

I am working on the War in the North and the battles that occurred during that camapaign. I think this is an area where the German and Italian flags could be added to the forces available as they were very prominent in those campaigns.

GenghisTheHun 15:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Toulon (1744)

Hello Albrecht. Albrecht, if there was ever a naval battle that was inconclusive it was this one. From a British point of view the battle was shambolic, Lestock was courts martialled for cowardice (he deliberately ignored Mathews signals but was acquited because of his friends in high places), but it was wholly indecisive. I can of course back this up with many sources but I thought I would consult you before making changes. What do you think? Raymond Palmer 21:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/b/User_talk%7EAlbrecht_dadd.html"