86.241.175.56

January 2019

Hello, I'm Flyer22 Reborn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to History of guerrilla warfare— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Siege of Badajoz 1812

I have noted that you have edited this page on the basis of 'Reverted to pre-vandalism numbers.' Please be aware that the revised figures are based on research data provided by an accredited Spanish military historian who actually lives in Badajoz. (Please refer to and read the other data included in my edit.) These findings in his recent paper have been accepted by the Encyclopædia Britannica - as you can see from the link to the paper by Adrian Gilbert. At the recent Wellington Congress at Southampton University the following academics verified the research and mandated EB to make their changes :

   > Professor Bruce Collins, Sheffield Hallam University, UK
   > Professor Ed Coss, US Army Command & General Staff College, USA
   > Professor Charles Esdaile, Liverpool University, UK
   > Professor Alicia Laspra, University of Oviedo, Spain
   > Dr Rory Muir, University of Adelaide, Australia
   > Professor Chris Woolgar, Southampton University, UK
   > Dr Mark Thompson, author of several books on the period.
   > Andrew Grainger, Secretary General of the British Commission for Military History

Please advise me of your verifiable sources to justify the 4,000 civilian casualties.

Richard Tennant (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You state in your recent edit : "The source mentions the 4,000 figure without formally disproving it. Btw a source less biased than Encyclopædia Britannica would be very welcome when discussing British war crimes."

So I must ask you again - Please advise us of your (own 'less biased') verifiable sources to justify the 4,000 civilian casualties. This can then be correctly registered in the 'Notes'.

Richard Tennant (talk)

Hastings

Hi, just seen your post on Talk:Anglo-French Wars, sorry for the delay responding. Just to make it clear, Wikipedia is not about facts but what reliable sources say. P.S. Si vous ne comprenez pas bien l'anglais, sachez que je parle également le français à un niveau professionnel et me ferais un plaisir de discuter de cela avec vous dans la langue de Molière.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Copy of message sent to 86.241.165.10 following edit 29 Oct of Siege of Badajoz (1812)

Following your edit in the ‘info box’ of the Siege of Badajoz (1812) you state: “The source mentions the 4,000 figure without formally disproving it. Btw a source less biased than Encyclopædia Britannica would be very welcome when discussing British war crimes.”

I note that this wording is the same as has been previously used :
On : 14 May 2019 By : 86.241.175.56‎
“The source mentions the 4,000 figure without formally disproving it. Btw a source less biased than Encyclopædia Britannica would be very welcome when discussing British war crimes.”
This same editor has previously reverted edits using particularly provocative phrasing :
On : 7 May 2019 “Reverted to pre-vandalism numbers.”
On : 5 January 2015 “restored numbers from before british revisionism.”

As the Australian historian, Gavin Daly of the University of Tasmania, states “Trying to quantify the number of victims is very difficult indeed given the nature of the British sources and the dearth of Spanish sources.” However an authentic contemporary Spanish source has been found in Badajoz. The full text of the research article can be viewed at:
http://www.dip-badajoz.es/cultura/ceex/reex_digital/reex_XXXIX/1983/T.%20XXXIX%20n.%201%201983%20en.-abr/RV10767.pdf
A summary blog had been compiled by the Badajoz military historians Andrés Lloret, Col. Fernando Ortiz, José María Monreal & Javier Fernández Díaz at :
http://badajoz1812.blogspot.com.es/2012/04/lista-con-los-civiles-muertos-durante.html
Both of these papers are, understandably, in Spanish. Colonel Ortiz made a translation and summary in English which was published by, the American based, The Napoleon Series :
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/battles/1812/Peninsula/Badajoz/CivilianCasualtiesBadajoz/c_civiliancasuatiessackofBadajoz.html
In the report by the Badajoz priest it list, street by street, the numbers of casualties and, in the majority, their actual names.

For the purposed of the Wikipedia article this research has been summaries as : The most detailed study of the effects of the British riot and looting of Badajoz is undoubtedly the one published in 1983 by Eladio Méndez Venegas from data collected in the Diocesan Archives of Badajoz. Research into the local archives have established that only about 300 families (between 1,200 and 1,500 people) had remained in the city. A document drawn up at the time by the priest of the Parish of Conception, which is signed ‘Bances’, presents in two folios the detailed list, per street/per parish, of the civilian dead and injured. The conclusion is that the total could be as high as 250, possibly even 280. This number may seem small but it means that there could have been between 20% and 30% of the Spanish civilians who were within the walls of Badajoz were killed or injured.

Finally, you have stated “a source less biased than Encyclopædia Britannica would be very welcome when discussing British war crimes.”
The link to EB had been included, probably, as a reliable source. This content in EN is written by Adrian Gilbert. However, as they state : ‘This contribution has not yet been formally edited by Britannica - These articles have not yet undergone the rigorous in-house editing or fact-checking and styling process to which most Britannica articles are customarily subjected.’
There was extended communication with the editors of EB. They, as requested, went back to the Adrian Gilbert and replied “Adrian does not remember where he originally got that figure—it’s been some years.” Because of this prevaricated reply from Gilbert they modified the text of the paper to read : some 200–300 civilians had likely been killed or injured. (There are sources that put the civilian casualty rate as high as 4,000, but recent research shows this estimate to be highly inflated.)

So, as you state, EB mentions the 4,000 figure without 'formally disproving' it.
So, in accordance with Wikipedia requirements, I must ask you to 'formally prove' the figure of 4,000 from your own 'less biased' but verifiable sources.

Richard Tennant (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

---