Talk:Peninsular War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Wrong Spanish flag

During the peninsular war 1807–1814 the Spanish flag shown is not correct. The one shown started in 1785 to be used as Navy flag, and only become national flag in 1843. Thus the Spanish flag to be used during 1807–1814 should not be the naval ensign, it should be the King's dynastic flag: the Bourbon's flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.72.106 (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this the one you mean? I don't think it would be very recognizable as a tiny icon—and of course naval flags are often designed to be visible at great distances, a comparable situation.—Odysseus1479 03:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Source

How is this Southey that is not referenced? he is basically referencing absurd around the article. Mackbad (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014: inline citation and references

I have had a go at clean up some of the citations in this article, but it is still a real mess. The areas that need looking at are:

• In line citations to Esdaile -- as there are three Esdaile books inline citations without a year date are useless.
• ditto Fortescue
• ditto inline citations to Oman. But in that case it is not at all clear to which books the short citations are meant to link.
• I have done my best to sort out the inline citations to Gates but the year needs checking particularly those to "Gates 2009"
• A number of short citations have no corresponding long citations (this is often caused by the text and the short citations have been copied from another Wikipedia article -- something that should be attributed in the history of the files), but without a full citation the short citations are next to useless:
  • Churchill
  • Haythornthwaite
  • Neale
  • Fremont-Barnes
  • Smith
  • Weller
  • Southey
  • Edmund-Burke

Some otherwise complete citations are lacking page numbers, for example it is footnoted 'Gates (2002)' supports calls the conflict the "Spanish Ulcer", but no page number is provided. I have marked most of the short citations missing pages with the template {{page needed}}

A useful tool for finding out who added the text which is supported by the citation which can be used to trace the author of a particular edit is the tool "blame" It is often used to find who added copyright material to a Wikipedia aricle, but it is also useful for sifting the history of an article for who added text with citations and when so that the editor can be asked to supply missing details. -- PBS (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

I would like to add Luís do Rego Barreto as one of the commanders on the portuguese side.

ViriathusTG ViriathusTG (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Number of casualties

At the moment there are no causalities in the information box. Here are some quotes on the number of causalities suffered by the French and one that mentions the number of allied casualties.

• "Already by 1809 France had suffered more losses in the peninsula than in all the battles since Napoleon became first consul a decade before, and this total increased in the desperate fighting which followed. ... The 'Spanish ulcer' eventually cost Napoleon around 250,000 casualties and perhaps four billion francs"Scott (2014) p. 340
• "The Peninsular War had cost France in the region of 300,000 casualties and untold sums of money and material."Nicholls (1999) p. 199
• "Culamative French losses in the Peninsular War 1807–1813, 'the Spanish ulcer' as Napoleon once called it may have totalled 300,000."Ellis (2014) p. 100
• "The Russian losses seem more dramatic to us because they occurred over a short period of time, whereas the Spanish ulcer bled for six years. Tranie and Carmigniani say that there were 200,000 Imperial casualties in Spain, half of them half of them accounted for by the guerrillas. Owen Connelly estimates 260,000 French killed and wounded, plus another 40,000 allied casualties. The French general Bigarre wrote that guerrillas had killed 180,000 Imperial troops not counting wounded and missing. [cited sources removed]"Jones (2006) p. 278 Jones (1996) p. 115

These figures suggest:

• French military casualties 200 to 300 thousand.
• Allied military casualties 40,000

Thoughts? -- PBS (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

These are some numbers

• Spain: 586,000 deaths in 1809-1813 http://pagines.uab.cat/historia/content/1808-demograf%C3%AD-y-guerra-en-espa%C3%B1
• United Kingdom: 35,630 deaths + 32,429 wounded in 1808-1814 http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/casualties/c_britcas.html

--Bentaguayre (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Geographic Location of the last campaigns

• 10:23, 5 April 2015‎ 83.45.12.18 (→‎North-eastern campaign: This campaign took plase in the North-West of Spain (Basque region), not in the north-east region (Catalonia))
• 10:24, 5 April 2015‎ 83.45.12.18 (→‎South-eastern campaign: Catalonia is North-east Spain, not South-East, which would be Almeria.) (undo)
• 11:25, 5 April 2015‎ PBS Reverted 2 pending edits by 83.45.12.18 to revision 654811501 by Odysseus1479: Yes it is not south eastern, but it is not north eastern. Lets discuss it on the talk page.

Spain

The Basque region is not in north-west Spain that would be near Portugal (Coruna). The Basque region is on the north shore of Spain as far east as one can go. Catalonia is on the southern shore of Spain as far east as one can go. So how to describe them geographically without confusion?

• Basque Country (greater region) "The Basque Country (Basque: Euskal Herria) is the name given to the home of the Basque people in the western Pyrenees that spans the border between France and Spain on the Atlantic coast."
• Catalonia "Catalonia is bordered by France and Andorra to the north, the Mediterranean Sea to the east, and the Spanish regions of Aragon and the Valencian Community to west and south respectively. "

-- PBS (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

References section

@Rjensen with regard to this revert of my revert, and you comment in the history: "keep Muir book; Burke was not the editor of Ann Register (he died in 1797)"

1. See WP:CITESHORT "Notes" and "References" are the standard section headers for short and long citations.
2. There is already a "Further reading" section. Renaming "References" to "Further reading" has created two "Further Reading" sections
3. I had copied the "Muir book" into the existing "Further reading" section and formatted with a template (as are all books in the two sections), so you have now not only duplicated the "Further reading" section you have also duplicated this uncited book's entry on the page, one of them in a different visual format of all the books in the section.
4. Your removing of "Burk" as the author (Archive.org states he is the author) has broken the short citation link to the long citation. If Burk is incorrect then please fix the long and short citations so they are connected. If you do not know how to do this you can find out by looking at {{SfnRef}} document page.

Are you going to fix these problems or would you like me to do it for you? -- PBS (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks--my apologies for being a bull in a china shop. Edmund Burke, the famous writer, had been the editor of the Annual Register but he died in 1797, far too early to be responsible for the 1825 edition coverage. (the editor in 1825 was anonymous.) Yes please make the changes to your taste. Rjensen (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- PBS (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Significance

The article currently states:

"The Peninsular War was of far greater significance in the history of Spain and Portugal than it was in the history of the Napoleonic Wars"

but the rest of the paragraph goes on to refute this statement. The statement is made as a "fact" but it is only one interpretation of the historic events. As such it needs in text attribution as clearly (evidenced by the rest of the paragraph, not all historians agree). -- PBS (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

End of the war

The contributions by PBS were excellent, but I think they would be better placed in a article of their own. Just 2 cents. Vinukin (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Vinukin why? -- PBS (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)