Talk:Atlantic campaign of May 1794

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atlantic campaign of May 1794 article.
Article policies
Good article Atlantic campaign of May 1794 has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Featured topic star Atlantic campaign of May 1794 is the main article in the "Atlantic campaign of May 1794" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] GA

I will list potential problems as I "venture" into this article, so far I have read the lead and see these problems:

  • I think it's slightly too long,
Compared to what? Do you mean there are irrelevant parts?
Compared to the rest of the article, being relevant is not significant, if you copied the entire article into the lead, it would still be relevant, would it be too long? hell yes.--The Dominator (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I see, I misread your comment and thought you were referring to the article in general.
  • I think some of the sources should be copied into the lead,
This is actively discouraged at FAC and is not usual in Wikipedia articles. Why does this lead require citations especially?
People who are doing quick research for general information may only read the lead, if they would like to confirm it with sources, it would be better, but it is not a major issue and is up for debate, so if you wish just leave, I personally would at least source each paragraph.--The Dominator (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The first sentence doesn't really specify what the title refers to.
The first sentance "During May 1794, the Channel Fleet of the British Royal Navy and the Atlantic Fleet of the First French Republic engaged in a series of manouveres and operations designed to contest the passage of a 117-strong convoy carrying vital food supplies from the Chesapeake Bay to Brest." describes exactly the article title, what is the problem with this?
I think it would be better if the first few words were the title, something like "The Atlantic campaign of May 1794 was..." or "The Atlantic campaign of May 1794 refers to a...".--The Dominator (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Why would that be any better?

Fairly minor issues, and I'll continue to read.--The Dominator (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The prose definitely has its own problems and I suggest putting it up at the League of copyeditors. It could use a good copyedit. As for sources: It is fairly well sourced, but seems to rely heavily on a few pages of one book, I suggest finding some more online sources, but I think I would pass this in the "References" criterion. The article is NPOV, that doesn't seem to be an issue, neither are edit wars. Overall I don't think this is a GA yet. I'm putting it on hold until it gets a good copyedit.--The Dominator (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Rather than wait the weeks that a request at the LoCE would take, I have attempted to address the article's prose myself. This has been done, but I'm afraid your review has provided me with very few pointers regarding areas for improvement. I have addressed your individual points above but please provide a more thorough review of the problems within the prose, with examples. Thankyou for looking at the article but I need more detailed commentary before I can do more to improve the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
One more point, you mention sources, yet there are five academic books which are regularly referenced in the article. What sort of online sources do you suggest would improve on these?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think the sources are fine, but you can always use more sources, I think 1. Some sort of link to a site that describes the events in detail, 2. A few more intext citations to clarify (even if you're using the sources already in the article) I think it's better if each paragraph has a source. I have been busy, so I haven't deeply re-read every sentence. I think the lead needs some general improvements, like sources, I know it's referenced later in the article, but it's better if you add the sources to the lead as well. I also think that the lead goes to deeply into the history and is slightly too long in proportion with the rest of the article.--The Dominator (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Found a specific issue: One of the sources John Hutt biography, #21 currently, requires login to access which is not allowed in Wikipedia, so I suggest removing that reference and finding a substitute.--The Dominator (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Also #2 and #40, so I don't mean to sound harsh, but all your online sources are useless.--The Dominator (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't think you understand either the Good article criteria or the reason Wikipedia has sources. GA (and FA) criteria requires sources beacause a) Wikipedia cannot supply all relevant information and thus they give readers a chance to look up further information at their own effort, but most importantly because b) in instances where there is a dispute over factual accuracy, a reliable source is avaliable to back up the article's assertion. There is nothing in the criteria to assert that sources must be accessible online, and in fact the vast majority of online sources are completely useless anyway because they have no scholarly reputation; they lack what on Wikipedia is referred to as reliability. Published academic texts, in particular here the work of William James on which (as you noted) much of this article is based, are far more encouraged because they have been accepted by their academic peers and represent a respected branch of scholarship on the topic. For the same reason, the online Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is considered a reliable source and the ability of you or anyone else to access it (all you need BTW is a UK library card) is irrelevant in judging its suitability.
I'm afraid that if this is the issue on which you are going to fail the article then I will be taking it to WP:GAR to gain a wider perspective. I'm also afraid that your comments regarding the lead have also given me concern that you do not fully understand the nature of the GA criteria. I do not mean any of this personally, you seem a nice person and a concientious editor, but I don't think you've quite grasped this process yet. I do accept your point about the prose quality to a degree. I have in the past been criticised for my prose style and was expecting it to be something of an issue here. However without a more in depth criticism of specific problems within the prose, there is a limit to what I can do. Please state more clearly exactly what you think is wrong with the article, why you think that these things are wrong (based on GA criteria where possible) and what are the specific problems preventing this article becoming GA. If you feel unable to do this then please take it to GAR where other editors can participate and assist this process. Thankyou again for your interest and all the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I admit that I don not have a good understanding of the criteria as I have never done it before. Your concern of me failing the article over sources: don't worry, I said I consider it a minor issue. There is in fact nothing that says sources have to be accessible online, but using common logic, it's better for the reader to have them at their disposal. There is a policy, that online sources that are cited have to be accessible without registration, all I need is a UK library card? I've never even been in the UK. There are almost six billion people that don't have a UK library card, I suggest removing those. And to address your concern, I am nowhere close to failing this article, I wouldn't say it's a pass at the moment, but pretty close. I apologise for my idiocy and rest assured I will ask for the second opinion of a more experienced editor, but the nomination page encourages nominators to review an article themselves, how else am I going to grasp the GA criteria if I don't practise. Again, I will not fail the article and will an experienced reviewer for a second opinion. I might be stupid, but not as stupid as to fail my first article without asking someone with more experience.--The Dominator (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I never meant to indicate you were stupid and I'm sorry if that is what you got from my comments. You do seem to be inexperienced in this field but we all start somewhere and I made similar errors in my first few reviews. Please don't believe I was accusing you of idiocy or anything similar. You make a valid point about the UK library card thing, that was a little tounge in cheek and I apologise, but these sources are still valid and I firmly believe they should stay in the article. My problem here is that I still do not fully understand your problem with the article beyond basic prose issues, which I cannot further address without clearer guidance: If you or another editor can provide this information, then this GAN can move forward but at the moment, beyond the copyedit I did today, I'm not sure what else to do. I am sorry if you thought I was rude, I did not mean to be and I admire you for tackling such a complex article for your first GAN. This article is a daughter article of Glorious First of June which I will be nominating for FA in a week or so, with this to follow once that is dealt with. If this article doesn't make sense, then that is why and I must work to deal with the problem. So again, thankyou for your interest in the article and please keep up the good work, nothing I said was meant personally and I hope you continue to review articles in the future, GAN needs as many reviewers as it can get.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken. Sorry for not giving you specific concerns, but I haven't had time to fully analyze the article since I was busy with AfD discussions. I'll take a look at it properly within the next day or two.--The Dominator (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see a problem with the lead in general, the lead is not supposed to include new information or even be an introduction to the history, but is supposed to summarize the article. "The food was desperately needed to sustain France during the difficult early years of the French Revolutionary Wars, during which she declared war on all neighbouring countries." Maybe it's just me and I don't know if it's standard practice, but the use of "she" seems peculiar to me. I think it's a great article and according to the GA criteria this is my unofficial review, do not take this as my actual assessment, which I have said I won't give until I ask for a second opinion:

  • 1.Prose, has minor issues, I'm not an expert, but I know what flows well and what doesn't. The prose is probably of GA quality but not yet FA, weak pass.
  • 2.Verifiable, the sources used are reliable, but I would like to see more in the future, five books is good, but not perfect, weak pass.
  • 3.Broad, no problems here, article explains everything very well, and I realize this is a daughter article, pass
  • 4.Neutral, again, no problems here, the prose is neutral as is the presentation of the facts, pass
  • 5.Stable, good there, pass
  • 6.Images, the ones that are used are used well, and I congratulate you on finding good images for this historical event, pass.

Again, that was my unofficial review and I am reluctant to give an official one as I am inexperienced, good luck with this and please tell me what you think of my concerns, are they legitimate? I know you disagree with me on the sources, but you have to admit that 5 books can be improved upon.--The Dominator (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanksyou, this is much clearer. I take your point about the lead absolutely and will rework this area of the article. Its odd I never noticed this problem before you pointed out, but you are quite right. I get the problem with referring to France as "she", but will have to think on this as there obviously is no correct synonym for France and the word has already been used in that sentance. As for sources, I think that as long as all relevant points are covered by several reliable sources and those sources are not seriously contradicted elsewhere, then five is acceptable for an article of this length. However I accept your criticism and will attempt to include more before taking this to FA. Thankyou again and I will work on this article for a couple of days and then let you know when I think its ready. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There are two things I'd like the article to mention, I didn't read the main article, but a person shouldn't have to if this is a GA: I'd like the article to include the military strength of the British and the French, the size of the navy, the quality of the battleships, the experience of the commanders. I feel that needs further mention near the start of the article. 2. I'd like to see some information on what impact the battle had in latter months, years...--The Dominator (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, I have provided an expanded and revised lead and background section which deals with the first two problems you raised. I think however that the final paragraph does explain clearly what the long-term implications of the action were, what information seems to be missing? Does this work better or are there any further problems? Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The lead is much better now, although I think the lead could use a sentence or two describing some of the aftermath (which I admit is adequately covered, guess I missed it). It seems that the campaign had quite an impact on the navies of both sides, so I think it's worth a mention in the lead. The prose in the lead could use some help and I've attempted to address it a bit. Otherwise, good luck with taking this article all the way, if you feel that you trust me enough to give my review of this article, just say the word.--The Dominator (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do review the article. It wasn't that I didn't trust you of think you were capable, it was just that some of your comments seemed to indicate you weren't fully aware of the GA criteria. Your more recent suggestions are both better explained and closer to the criteria and have been very helpful. Thankyou.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review

PASS

  • 1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • The article has some minor prose issues mainly to do with the general flow of the writing rather than concrete grammatical errors. I'm passing it as GA quality prose, but I suggest either putting it up for a copyedit or simply asking a good experienced copyeditor to go over it before you take it to FA (if you'd ever want to do that). The lead has improved factually, but I still think that it is a few words too long and could be edited down a bit. Weak Pass
  • 2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
  • It uses a total of five reliable books as references therefore there is no question about the reliability of the sources, although I think that five sources could be expanded upon for an article of such length, about an important historical event. I'm sure there are other books available. So again, I think it's adequate referencing for GA, but I would look into finding more sources if you'd ever like to take it for FA review. Pass
  • 3. Is it broad in its coverage?
  • No complaints here, its a daughter article of a larger article and contains information that would be expected from such an article including "How and Why it happened" "What happened" and "What happened afterwards". I finished the article feeling that I had a much better understanding of the subject at hand. Pass
  • 4. Is it Neutral?
  • It is as neutral as I'd expect it to be and it's professionally written from a NPOV. Pass
  • 5. Is it stable?
  • Yes, and I don't think further comment is necessary for this one. Pass
  • 6. Is it illustrated by images where appropriate, and are images used correctly?
  • Not an article that requires pictures to be informative, so the ones that are there are great. They are all used fairly with copyright policy in perfect order. I really like the painting at the beginning of the article and it captures my attention, as start images should. Pass
  • 7. Does it pass GA review?
  • I am passing this article on the basis that it is informative and enjoyable to read. The reader gains a good understanding of the campaign without necessarily having to read the other articles. I think it still has a long way to go before FA review with the major issue being the prose troubles. I would get a copyedit from an experienced user, I'm sure that there are plenty who would be willing to help. Personally I put my articles up for Peer Review and then personally ask one of the volunteers in the copyedit section, last time I got great help from user:Marskell. You can also try to put it up at the league of copyeditors, but I've never done that before and I don't know how long it takes. The second issue I brought up was the sources which I feel could be cited better, I like to cite each paragraph so the reader knows where I'm coming from. I'm sure that there have been more books written on the subject, and there really is no such thing as too many reliable sources so there's nothing to lose with looking for more sources. My further suggestion would be to put it up for peer review to get another one or two opinions. So my final judgment is PASS. Good luck on further improving this and any other articles that you're working on or may work on in the future. Best of wishes.--The Dominator (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources requiring registration

Just looking up through the above, I asked the very question about the validity of sources that required registration here. The consensus among reviewers was that registration is perfectly acceptable, subscription slightly less so. I'm certainly not aware of a policy against such sources. WP:RS and WP:V would be the applicable policies and guidelines for such things, and I certainly can't see any such proscription there.

Presumably, if a library card is needed to access the ODNB, that implies something like JSTOR? If not in the UK, there's always your own local big building with books in (not Barnes and Noble). Carre (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I finally found the relevant policy, it's actually a policy on external links so I guess I was sort of half-wrong. [1]--The Dominator (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CE questions

Hi Jacky,

Hope your cold is getting better. Questions coming from an attempt at a copy-edit I've just started (no promises though!):

[edit] Commerce raiding

The first paragraph

"Out in the Atlantic, the detached squadrons of Nielly and Montagu were both commerce raiding against enemy merchant ships but had so far both failed to strike the main convoy. Nielly had fallen in with a British convoy from Newfoundland and taken ten ships from it, but Montagu recaptured them along with the French corvette Marie-Guiton on 15 May. The convoy had been guarded by the British 32-gun frigate HMS Castor, which was also captured. Nielly her crew prisoner, including Captain Thomas Troubridge who would spend the entire campaign aboard Nielly's flagship Sans Pareil.[6]"

doesn't make sense. "Nielly her crew prisoner"? Can you clarify this please? (I might have changed a little of it by the time you read this).

[edit] Howe's pursuit

"On discovering Villaret's departure, Howe realised that the main French fleet was due to sail directly across the patrol lines pursued by Admiral Montagu and that should Montagu meet Villaret, his squadron would be destroyed." – the "pursued by" doesn't sound right here. The lines were being patrolled by Montagu, no? But you don't want a repetition of "patrol". "across the sea lanes patrolled by Admiral Montagu"? Is that accurate?

Hmm, that wasn't so bad, for a first run through. Can you check out these couple of points, check the edits I've just made (well, one big edit), and of course revert anything I've screwed up. Carré (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All your edits look great, as does Eye's expansion of the lead. I have adjusted the text to deal with the two issues you mention above and hopefully these are now much clearer. Thankyou very much, your help is much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Dunno why I didn't realise there was just a "took" missing from the Nielly thing – I think I just stared at it 'til I was cross-eyed! Carré (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oh, I remember now. It was the time-line: Neilly took the convoy, then Montagu took it back, then Neilly was taking the convoy's escort's RN crew captive. Montagu retaking the convoy and the French corvette probably should be moved a bit, but if Eye's having his go I'll leave it for him rather than risk an edit conflict. Carré (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jacky; I'm glad I haven't overstepped the mark with a fairly drastic rewrite of the lead. What I've tried to do is write a summary first paragraph, then give a more general overview in the others. I'm still not entirely happy though, as I think the lead still over-emphasises the Glorious First battle (whilst the article is about the entire campaign). I'm tempted to trim out and rewrite much of the second paragraph too, but don't want to misjudge things. Any thoughts?
BTW Carre, don't feel you need to step aside on my account - the more input the better! EyeSereneTALK 17:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do reshape the lead if you have time and inclination. The lead for this article has always been poor as it branched from the main GFOJ article and I never got around to providing detailed context. I am aware that it doesn't really adequately summarise the article (its been on my mental list of things to do for some time now). By all means rephrase it so it makes more sense.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

More ce questions from me: (apologies that it's taken a while to get going; busy week!) EyeSereneTALK 14:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

====Background====--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "...while Howe took the main body of the fleet, 26 ships of the line, to patrol near Brest." Presumably Howe's intention was to keep Villaret bottled up - do we need to say this?
Actually, there is a footnote on this in the Glorious First of June article: "It has been suggested that this [allowing Villaret to escape] was part of a deliberate strategy. If Howe could draw Villaret into the open ocean, he could rely on superior training and tactics to destroy the French fleet in battle. If successful, this would eliminate the threat from the French Atlantic Fleet for years to come. (Padfield p. 17)". I'll look into incorporating this once you are ready. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I remember seeing that. It sounds like a bit of wishful thinking to me; would Howe really have left the door open for Villaret when his priority was apparently to interdict the grain convoy? Had the convoy failed to arrive, another round of mutinies in the French fleet and public disorder in France could well have eliminated it as a threat as surely as destroying it in battle. Of course, once Villaret was at sea Howe could hardly ignore the threat, but I think that claiming it was all planned that way is to ignore (or try to excuse) his strategic failure by pretending that his priority was the French fleet all along. Does Padfield say who suggested that explanation? EyeSereneTALK 17:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
He does not. Moreover, he presents Howe's intentions here as common knowledge rather than a theory. The reason I put it in a footnote in the first place was because I was unsure of it. However, I don't feel we can give Howe's intention as an effort to keep Villaret bottled up when it is contradicted by a source and there is no source presenting the view. I think for now the sentance has to stay as it is; maybe it could be said he was watching the French, except he didn't do that either, disappearing into the Bay of Biscay for two weeks and leaving the French unguarded.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough - I can well believe that, regardless of strategic considerations, Howe personally wanted to get to grips with the enemy fleet (in the best RN tradition!), so that explanation is certainly plausible. I'm really just indulging in idle speculation though - of course we have to stick with the sources. EyeSereneTALK 10:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 1794

  • "In an attempt to outweigh the flying squadron..." Can we use something less jargonesque here?
Do you mean outweigh or flying squadron? It could read "In an attempt to hold off Pasley's squadron . . ." Better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry I wasn't clearer, and yes, that does read better ;) EyeSereneTALK 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

Recently several tags have been added to the article claiming that the article requires 1) additional sources for verification and 2) that the article relies solely on one source. Although this is patently untrue (note: the references are at the bottom of the page, and there are more than one) a user has repeatedly added these tags without providing justification here. I am asking that user to a) attach {{Fact}} tags where he feels additional citations are needed and b) acknowledge that there are numerous sources used for verification in this article, including modern scholarship. ((unsigned|Jackyd101}}

Nevertheless, the chief dependence in this article is on a single, quasi-primary, source, written in 1827. This is unlikely to be ideal; relying upon it presumes that no useful work, either in research or in understanding, has been done since. To ask merely the most obvious question: did James have full access to the French archives? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
William James has been considered one of the most influential sources on naval operations during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars for 180 years. In answer to your question, I believe James had access to some but not all of the French records, but your opinion that James is out of date is totally irrelevant. If you can find academic sources which directly disagree with or criticise James then provide them here and the points of contention can be negotiated. To suggest that heavy use of James indicates a disregard for more modern scholarship is an absurd suggestion given the presence of Gardiner, Rodger and Padfield among the sources.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No, what this article needs are modern secondary sources on the battle, whether they agree with James or not. (If they do, so much the better.) They should be cited where, and insofar as, they support him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
So your complaint is that the histories being used are not specific enough? On what do you base this judgement.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No, nor did I say so; it is that a single source, 180 years old, is being used for the bulk of the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I have already pointed out that while James is the most numerous source used, many others are alongside him and back him up. You cannot ignore the fact that the article has early C19th sources (James & Tracy), early C20th sources (Jane & Williams) and modern sources (Gardiner, Rodger & Padfield). This would seem to demonstrate that your point here is incorrect.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you are coming back to this, but I have added some references from Bernard Ireland, who further backs up the original version of the article and was published in 2000. TO counter your claims above, he says "With so many ships now commanded by political appointeesrather than seamen of proven abilities the authorities could no longer count on their willingness to fight. It was decreed that any captain striking his flag to anything other than overwhelming odds would face the death penalty. To enforce this , the so-call Committee of Public Safety put afloat a political commissar to exercise ultimate authority". He also ascribes the failure of the French harvest in part to "general tumult". This source seems to yet again to oppose your version of events in 1793/94.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Decimation

This word should be avoided in general; its (quite precise) actual meaning has been all too often lost in melodrama. Here, it is ambiguous, and misleading in both senses:

  • If it is intended to count naval officers resigned, emigrated, or dismissed, it is an underestimate by a factor of about six.
  • If it is intended, as it really ought to be, to count those executed, it is an overestimate by an even larger factor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine, if you wish to quibble over adjectives then please suggest an alternative word which describes the negative effect that the execution and dismissal of officers by the French government had on the fleet. This negative effect is and has been referenced by both modern and older sources so your assertions that it did not happen are incorrect. Should you possess a source which disputes this then please provide it, preferably here so it can be discussed for incorporation into the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not discussing tone; I'm objecting to the assertion of non-fact: much more than 10% left the service; much less than 10% were killed. And decimated is in any case ambiguous as to which. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The word was being used, perfectly legitimately in the fifth sense of meaning on wikitionary: decimate. Since much more than 10% left the service this looks like it would qualify (the officer corps was "decimated" because a majority of of officers left the service, thus "severely reducing" it).--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Wiktionary is a good dictionary: it records what is actually done, as opposed to prescribing what should be done. The actual usage of decimate has resulted in its being nearly meaningless, as here, where the uninstructed reader cannot tell whether we mean a 10% reduction, a 90% reduction, or what; nor whether that reduction is in positions or in lives. Under all the combinations under which decimate has a definite meaning, it is wrong; the one you cite is a mere vague emotional noise, which does not have a truth value because it is not falsifiable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The term decimate is used in the lead, which is designed to introduce a reader to the article using simplified non-technical terms to cover the main points of the article. The word decimate was used to indicate the scale of the losses (through all causes) the French officer corps suffered in the aftermath of the mutiny, which as I have established, was extensive. This point was then elaborated on in the main body of the text until you changed it without discussion. As a result I removed it until a compromise solution can be worked out, which is why the word decimate does not at the moment perfectly suit the article. Once the information is restored to the article, the word decimate will again make sense. In addition, I have before me the Oxford English Dictionary which says:

decimate /dess-i-mayt/ .v (decimation, decimating, decimated) 1 kill or destroy a large proportion of 2 severely reduce the strength of *DERIVATIVES decimation n. *ORIGIN Latin decimare 'take as a tenth'.

This rather suggests that your interpretation of decimate is antiquated and incorrect.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Internal date links

I recently reverted two internal date links in the article. At the recent FAC, a user internally linked the dates 28 May and 29 May in the lead to the relevant section of the article below. This was reverted by another user as it goes against an MoS rule in place to allow user preferences to work when it comes to dates. A suggestion was then made that perhaps these dates could be internally linked using "(see below)" style parenthesis. Although my personal preference is for no linking at all, and I could even support the internal links, I accept the precedence of MoS in date linking. What I do not support however is the use of "(see below)" style links. I would actually oppose an FAC or even a GAN for the presence of these because I don't think they look good or are encyclopedic. An article should be well enough written to avoid having big signposts saying "see here" to other sections of the same article (although for interwiki links they are often necessary). In any case, these dates are the titles of their relevant sections and are linked in the navbox below the lead if people are unwilling to read or scroll down to the section. Thus for the time being I strongly believe these dates should remain linked as per the MoS, but without further elaboration (none is needed).--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)