Talk:Battle of Landen

Copyediting
I get the impression that this article has been taken, almost verbatim, from the "1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, New York 1910". This publication appears in the Footnotes. The article itself includes such obvious Americanisms as "color" (the US did not exist at the time of the battle) and rather quaint words and phrases like "intercalated"(I had to grab the dictionary on this one!) and "had to move with the utmost energy". Sigh, more blue pencil. RASAM (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've updated it.

Robinvp11 (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Battle of Landen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040907212305/http://www.christophereimer.co.uk:80/single/8341.html to http://www.christophereimer.co.uk/single/8341.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Battle of Landen. 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/20060829025435/http://pageperso.aol.fr:80/marsouin18/Neer1693.html to http://pageperso.aol.fr/marsouin18/Neer1693.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041020214450/http://www.drumraghgfc.com:80/PatrickSarsfield.htm to http://www.drumraghgfc.com/PatrickSarsfield.htm

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) 18:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect coordinates on map
The coordinates of Brussels and Neerwinden are incorrect. I tried fixing it but don't seem to know how. JanCeuleers (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Pyrrhic French victory
Van Nimwegen(2020) calls it a Pyrrhic French victory and gives different casualties numbers.

8.000 for the allies and 12.000-18.000 for the French.

Van Nimwegen is obviously a biased writer in whose patriotic fantasy the Dutch always inflicted enormous casualties on the enemy but somehow ended up retreating and leaving all fortresses behind. The figure of 8000-10000 French casualties and 15000-20000 for the Allies is the most accurate one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.57.53.109 (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This is obvious nonsense btw. Van Nimwegen cites, among other things, 2 French soldiers for his numbers and the Allies left no fortresses behind. French historians like Castex on the other hand almost never take look at Dutch sources, which makes them more biased if anything. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible letter of Luxembourg
On the internet archive one can find this translated letter of Luxembourg in which he claims to have lost more men than the Allies. The problem is that I am not sure if this is English propaganda or if this is original research on my part if I quote it. What do you think @Robinvp11?

https://archive.org/details/case_6a_160_no_59/page/n1/mode/2up DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't really care what figure you pick but pick one, not insert conflicting estimates which leave the general reader confused. The suggestion this is not about editors but historians is irrelevant.
 * What frustrates me is we've had this discussion numerous times now; having fought hard to provide a balanced view against various pro-French editors on these battles, I now seem to be having the same debate with Dutch estimates and I'm not sure why. I could open this for discussion but we're simply going to get the same answer ie don't debate the issue in the Infobox. The other issue is that the figures in the Infobox do not align with the body of the article, so get that right first.
 * Lastly, it is not a question of whether the article length is within Wikipedia guidelines but whether the facts included are relevant to the GENERAL READER. Again, I'm sorry if I sound frustrated but since all the evidence shows the longer you make the article, the less likely it is anyone will read it, why do it? Robinvp11 (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I myself would place Childs's figures in the infobox if I had to choose one. Not because I think it is the best estimate, but because it is in between and because he actually gives arguments, as opposed most others. But I really think that Wikipedia shouldn't take a stance if the historiography is this divided. I also think this about other battles, as I have argued there. I rather remove the casualty box, than give the reader misleading certainty to be honest.
 * And the figures are not in conflict with the article. Van Nimwegen says 8,000 killed and wounded plus 1,500 prisoners if that is what you meant. Unless you mean that I should include all those figures seperately instead of saying what the range is.
 * And your last point. The reader who doesn't want to read the whole article has a summary in the lede and infobox.
 * For the people who are interested in the battle this might be one of the best sources that is currently available for free online. The state of the article before I edited it was misleading in all kinds of ways and fell short in explaining the battle. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of points here;
 * - The reader who doesn't want to read the whole article has a summary in the lede and infobox. I'm not clear what is in dispute here.
 * Wikipedia states the Infobox should provide a simple and clear overview for the general reader; that does not amount to "taking a view on the Historiography", but making the article usable for its intended audience.
 * - The reality is nearly every battle prior to the 18th century has differing figures for casualties. As editors, we need to distinguish between our liking for tracking down different Sources, and the general reader who just wants a rough idea. That is not misleading; what is confusing is the current mish-mash of figures in the Infobox - I've contributed to this article and even I find them confusing.
 * - It is perfectly possible to include one set of figures in the Infobox (Childs seems the most obvious) for the 60-70% of users who only get as far as the Infobox, and provide a more detailed discussion within the article. That is common practice across Wikipedia and other encyclopaedia so I'm not entirely sure why that seems to be causing so much angst.
 * - Please compare the figures in the article with those in the Infobox; even the ranges don't agree eg Infobox gives a low of 8,000 for French losses, 9,500 for Allied, while article says 7,000 and 8,000. The way the figures are presented in general is very confusing. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  I'm not clear what is in dispute here.
 * You are afraid that some people will not read the whole article because of the length. If they have a clear summary in the lede that shouldn't be much of a problem. For those who do want to read more this page now provides a good overview of all the major events during the battle. And the length isn't even that great.
 * What is it that you would want to remove?
 * what is confusing is the current mish-mash of figures in the Infobox - I've contributed to this article and even I find them confusing.
 * I can agree with the fact that it is confusing. This is for my part easily resolved by a disclamer in the infobox. I think nobody will have difficulty with understanding that.  I don't want to drag this discussion on and on, so if you really insist we can try to agree to one estimate, but let me know what you think of the current example of how a disclaimer may look.  
 * The Wikipedia infobox is probably the most quoted source on the internet, so what we decide here can really influence how people look at this battle. That is why I prefer to be carefull and don't see the need to chose one estimate. Many other infoboxes also have multiple estimates btw.
 * Please compare the figures in the article with those in the Infobox; even the ranges don't agree eg Infobox gives a low of 8,000 for French losses, 9,500 for Allied, while article says 7,000 and 8,000. The way the figures are presented in general is very confusing
 * The 9,500 for the Allied in the infobox consists of 8,000 killed and wounded, with another 1,500 prisoners. That is in agreement with the article.
 * For the French I have expressly stated that these numbers are what they themselves claimed, which was 7,000 to 8,000, while also showing that this was controversial and that estimates of contemporaries went as high as 20,000
 * In fact, Van Nimwegen cites De la Colonie, the French officer who claimed 18,000 to 20,000 French casualties, and says that this is maybe to high, but can't have differed much. He gives no exact figure, but very probably goes above the 15,000 estimate. Maybe he agrees with the 17,000 of Edward D'Auvergne.
 * Anyway. How would you like to see that changed? I don't think that there is a major problem here DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take this article off my watchlist because we've discussed the principles on numerous occasions and it doesn't appear to make any difference.
 * Btw, "losses" equals TOTAL CASAULTIES ie killed, wounded, captured - and yet again, it's confusing to use different definitions in multiple places. Robinvp11 (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Robinvp11 I really don't get why you are always so agitated. I never agreed with you on this topic in other places, but you are acting like you deserve to get it your way. The point of confusion is easily resolved by a disclaimer, but you don't even want to adress that. It seems that you won't work together on a page or seek a compromise.
 * And I didn't uses different definitions in different places.
 * I honestly think it is a shame that you get it of your watchlist because you are very knowlegable about this period and we could easily come to a solution. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I get "agitated" when I have the same discussion with the same editor on multiple occasions, and when I sense that, I take myself out of the discussion. It is (and has been for several years) a source of frustration for me that too many editors don't consider their audience (who want the contents clear and easy to understand), rather than showing how much they've read.
 * This whole discussion about presenting Casualties in the Infobox was referred upwards when doing Malplaquet, and the answer was "Pick one, don't editorialise in the Infobox". We've been discussing this obscure point for several days and so far, we're still doing it your way - so how does that equate to me refusing to compromise? I haven't even expressed a view on which figure to use
 * The "compromise" is pick one figure for the Infobox, clearly identity different estimates in the article. If you really don't like that, then do what happened on Seneffe ie refer to Casualties section. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The difficulty for me comes from the fact that I can't defend myself well against editors that might want to see other figures in the infobox, because I wouldn't be able claim that the figures of Childs are the consensus. Because there is none.
 * As for now I will place them in the infobox, but objections of other editors will likely bring the other estimates back after a while.
 * I am not for further shortening the article, as I don't think the length is excessive and the information is already presented "clear and easy to understand" in the lede and infobox. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Robinvp11 Called it DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And what do you think about the letter? Just interested DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Quoting from an original source is not the same as original research, so I don't see a problem, although you might want to see if it appears anywhere else. Suffering higher casualties doesn't mean Luxembourg didn't win. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yeah, I am gonna try to find the original. Has been unsuccesfull until now, but this English version I have encountered in other places too. And I know it doesn't mean that Luxembourg lost. As you know I am not one of those who thinks Malplaquet is an Allied defeat because they suffered more casualties then the French. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)