Talk:Battle of Ayacucho

Untitled
The Summary of the battle section does not add up - 5295 personnel are listed in the Spanish forces - losses are then listed as 2100 killed or captured and 3500 prisoners (for a total of 5600); additionally, the "killed or captured" number would appear redundant with "prisoners."DavisGL (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and expression
This article appears to have been translated from Spanish with help from automatic translation software. Per Bj. Bro (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy as per Wikipedia:Verifiability
The current version of the article (15 June 2009) doesn't adhere to what sources say regarding foreign intervention in the battle. A former edition (here) quotes what the cited source exactly asserts: "At Ayacucho, the remains of the [foreign] regiment were part of the Patriot order of battle but remained in the reserve and did not take part on the fighting. Instead, the Rifles and another battalion, the 'Vargas', were given a nerve-wracking mission: guarding the arsenal and the numerous Spanish prisoners. At any given moment there were only 50 Riflemen posted to keep an eye on 2,500 weapons and 2,000 prisoners-of-war. A number of the regiment's officers were temporarily transferred to other units and fought in the battle." Therefore, we have that: 1)The British regiment didn't take part of the battle and 2)Some British officers commanded other units in combat. These two well-documented points are reflected both in the narrative and the infobox of the former edition. The changes were, however, reverted under the claim of 'vandalism'. I guess that this claim is due to the lack of experience of the editor. Nevertheless, I invite him and other users to read carefully WP:V, an official policy of Wikipedia which deals with verifiability. Meanwhile, I will add a tag disputing the factual accuracy of the narrative.--Darius (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A troll argumentation: because "Rifles" is the division of Reserve as you know, look: . --Santos30 (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute: before accuse me of being a "troll" when my arguments were rationally exposed -an attitude which is clearly against WP:CIVIL- please explain me first why a reserve regiment deserves to be included as such on the infobox, misleading the readers about the real strenght of their participation in combat. The cited source only mentions that a number of foreing officers commanded troops at Ayacucho. As per WP:V only those officers should be included both on the narrative and the infobox. Had we to include every single support units on battle infoboxes, we should then add hundreds (if not thousands) of mechanics, engineerings, firefighters, medical staff which usually do their work behind the front lines for each battle. As long as I know, Wikipedia infoboxes and narratives use to ignore these figures.
 * A last comment; I was dealing with an actual troll account for YEARS. Thus don't worry about me; after making these clarifications, I will discontinue this discussion. Beware, however, if you are a sockpuppet of that individual. Best regards.--Darius (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Incoherent Article
I have read hundreds of battle articles on Wikipedia and elsewhere. I have never had any trouble understanding one of them. This article seems like it was written by someone who has a degree on this battle alone and who wrote it as if they expect the readers to know everything that they do. I understand that it is not X vs Y like most but there are far too many names being thrown about. The background section left me with no real understanding. This comes up first on Google when searching for the largest battle in South America so that is a shame. I know south Americans are 50-500 years behind and they do not have any real battles but a coherent article about their peasant rabble armies fighting with rocks and sticks and routing every chance they get is not too much to ask. --User:Anom ) Nov 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.164.235 (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Ayacucho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120923123813/http://www.congreso.gob.pe/museo/mensajes/a-Mensaje-1823-10.pdf to http://www.congreso.gob.pe/museo/mensajes/a-Mensaje-1823-10.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/bib_autor/bol

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Ayacucho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306060131/http://revistandina.perucultural.org.pe/textos/garret.doc to http://revistandina.perucultural.org.pe/textos/garret.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080229000748/http://www.wombastis.com/1900_ayacucho/ to http://www.wombastis.com/1900_ayacucho/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)