User talk:86.241.165.10

Your edit : 29 October 2019

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) 20:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Japanese invasion of French Indochina have been undone because they 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. CLCStudent (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.