User talk:Eastfarthingan/Archive 3

Battle of Bishops Court
Hi noble Lord Eastfarthing, that's a really nice article, great job. I've put together a few short articles on the Seven Years War, but when I do have Wiki-time I focus mainly on Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars articles. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Excellent, I look forward to them. Regards Shire Lord (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Operation Skorpion
Had a tinker with it after if got a C class and found a bit more material.Keith-264 (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks great & good break up of article too. Thanks.. Shire Lord  (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Image confusion in articles on Drake's Great Expedition
Hi there. You created both these articles: Capture of Santiago (1585) and Battle of Santo Domingo (1586), which are two of the attacks carried out by Drake in his Great Expedition. The same picture is being used to illustrate both, though it has been uploaded twice: 1 and 2. The latter image (Santo Domingo) is correct. The former image is wrong (the illustration shows the attack on Santo Domingo in Hispaniola, not the attack on Santiago in the Cape Verde islands). Not sure what is best to do here. The correct image was on Commons, confusingly in the image history for the second image linked above (see here). I am going to try and get this sorted out on Commons, but some things will need to be sorted out here as well. Would you be able to work out what happened here and how best to correct it? Carcharoth (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, don't know how I saw past that; as images are same but wrong colour. Thanks for pointing this out, will look into changing the image. Shire Lord (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings M'lud
How are you keeping?Keith-264 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All good thank you, and yourself? Shire Lord (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Image in Battle of Bishops Court
Hi. Congrats on the article, agree with you that Jurby's Head might make a more accurate title (though Bishops Court has a nice ring to it). However I'm a bit concerned about the image in the infobox - The artist (Gardner) only died in 2007 so his work wouldn't pass PD-Art and I'm not sure how we can use it without breaching copyright. Do you know if Gardner has granted permission for the reuse of this work, or if there is another reason we can keep the image? It's a nice pic, and would be a shame to lose it unless we have no choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm not sure if he did but better to remove it and replace it with this image for the time being while it could be sorted out? Shire Lord (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ack, Mediaviewer! Yes, that would be great, given the date of first publication. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Azores Voyage of 1589) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Azores Voyage of 1589, Lord Eastfarthing!

Wikipedia editor Garagepunk66 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Congratulations your excellency, Lord Eastfarthing, on a job well-done in the new article, Azores Voyage of 1589."

To reply, leave a comment on Garagepunk66's talk page.


 * Your welcome! Shire Lord (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Learn more about page curation.

CE
Bugger! I didn't know about the Oob ruling; a lot of the WWI articles will need editing. Keith-264 (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a lot of work that needs to be done there; WWII seems to be ok in vast majority of articles. Shire Lord (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't the criterion for naming something a battle that the RS do? If every scuffle or full and frank exchange of views is called a battle, the world will be devalued.Keith-264 (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which battle are we on about here? Shire Lord (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about the newer Desert War articles that have been moved. I checked here Keith-264 (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Arras infobox
Wouldn't it be better to keep this information in the Nivelle Offensive infobox and put Oppy and Vimy in it as other engagements? Keith-264 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * yes we could do that.Shire Lord (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Having looked in Record of Battles and Engagements I've had second thoughts, how about this? Keith-264 (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well there is the Scarpe & Bullecourt battles so I'm open to suggestion. Shire Lord (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's good; could be chopped down & the wiki red links might be an issue for now but I'll leave it as it is. Thanks. Shire Lord (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The red links are supposed to be there so that editors can see what needs doing. The Somme box was full of them until I started whittling them down. If we use Record of Battles and Engagements as the source, we should be consistent. Keith-264 (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Will look foward to adding them & should be completed for Arras100 next year. Shire Lord (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought of that, good point. I've got three more Somme articles to do first (various ailments and life matters tripped me up this year).Keith-264 (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've revised the Somme and 3rd Ypres boxes accordingly. Keith-264 (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I will look at other offensives as well for template potential. Shire Lord (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Simplified the layouts, see what you think. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks perfect - many thanks! Shire Lord (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

 * Many thanks for your help in editing too. Shire Lord (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Cautionary Towns) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Cautionary Towns, Lord Eastfarthing!

Wikipedia editor Randeerjayasekara just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thank you for creating this page."

To reply, leave a comment on Randeerjayasekara's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Quote for the Suez Crisis
Hello. I"ve seen that you are the one who gave a source to Egyptian political victory in the article about the Suez Crisis. The reference says: "Tal (2001) p 203". Assuming you have that book, could you a quote from the book, saying that the Egyptians won on the political side, or explaining how? This article is huge (250k bytes) and it was a bit hard to find an explaination to how excatly Egypt had a political victory. Thanks.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Evening, it's best if you read the talk page here as there was a discussion on a similar subject back then. I had the book for a week but there are other sources/quotes used in the discussion that could replace the citation if necessary or create a similar result instead. Shire Lord  (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Barnstar

 * Thank you! Shire Lord (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

German Soldiers in the American Revolutionary War: Mercenaries or Auxiliaries
| This topic has come up again on the American Revolutionary War talk page, and since you have experience in research on early modern warfare i was wondering what your opinion on the matter is since it potentially has a wide ranging impact on how such combatants are listed on other wikipedia pages concerning 18th century and earlier wars.XavierGreen (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will dig out some sources on this. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Attribution is required on translated or copied content
Hi Eastfarthingan, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, including translations such as Siege of Zutphen (1591) which you translated from the Dutch article. I have added the required attribution for your translation to the Talk page.

Please note that per WP:CWW, when copying or translating material from another project, attribution is required. Unlike Wikipedia guidelines and policies, which are recommendations which can even be flouted with the ignore all rules guideline, the requirement for attribution of translated material is just that&mdash;a legal requirement&mdash;and not a guideline. Please follow the instructions at WP:CWW for providing attribution when copying or translating. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians
Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

[Anglo-Spanish Wars] Why do you deny Spanish victories and documented details about the war?
Why do you deny that the Treaty of London was quite favorable to Spain? It allowed him to continue being the main power of the time (It appears even in the development of the article and I added sources)

Why do you deny that England stopped piracy in the Caribbean after the completion of the third Anglo-Spanish war? It is something that even puts in the body of the article, and that is of importance that is in the section of "Result".

And finally... Why do you deny that Spain won in War of Jenkins Ear? In this war the British Army and the Royal Navy were completely destroyed in the Battle of Cartagena de Indias, allowing Spain to continue having a dominant position in South America.

If you enter in the wikipedias of other countries all agree that in that war Spain clearly won. Why do you self-deceive? If it is something known by all people.

I have seen that you are English, I hope it has nothing to do with your partiality. It would be very sad of you.

A greeting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.94.210.236 (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Greetings. As I mentioned the reason for the reverts was that you were repeating the same actions as this user User:JavierNF96 as you can clearly see here. I also gave valid reasons; most of the above is consented. Thank you. Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the other Wikipedia from other languages ​​all agree that Spain won the War of Jenkins Ear and that the Treaty of London was more favorable to Spain among other things that I presented. Also, I have put sources that you have completely ignored.

That the user "JavierNF" has previously edited the articles does not mean that they are not certain modifications. That is not a valid reason.

Coincidentally only the English insist on denying reality and manipulating history, especially if it is against Spain. This is something that almost everyone in the world knows, the English envy towards Spain has always been very evident. Denying reality does not do you any favors as a country, because you give a feeling to the rest of the world of being self-conscious.

Thanks and kind regards. AE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.29.149.45 (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Multi IP user are we? Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Need your help urgently...
if you are so inclined. A small ship article I wrote has been nominated for deletion Articles for deletion/Irlam (1813 ship) by someone who at least once in the past has done the same thing, but gave up. If you agree that even minor, but well-documented ship articles have value you will comment to that effect on the page. The reason I am reaching out to you is that some of the articles I write are about EIC ships, not all of which have incident-filled careers, or long ones, but where documenting the vessels important and not builds a corpus of information. Thanks, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok will look into this, I don't see the problem when you have articles like this. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

EIC
Hi Eastfarthingan, first, thanks for the help, though apparently it is poor WP from to ask for it. (I have apologised profusely to all and sundry, and am now apologizing to you too for embroiling you in the issue.) Second, I tarted up the West Indiaman article. It is now more than a stub, and I have linked to it in pretty much all the articles (130+/-) that mention "West Indiaman". Third, should we start thinking about breaking up the EIC article into at least two, and perhaps more. As you add more good stuff, the article is getting longer. I worry about readers' attention spans. Just a thought. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, that article is now looking good as is the West Indiaman too. As for the EIC article, break up do you mean in paragraphs? Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Eastfarthingan, re breaking up: acturally what I was thinking about (though that sounds more thoughtful than the reality), was carving out parts to create some separate articles that the main would link to, e.g., a separate article on the EIC's flags, and a separate article on the ships that would reorganize and recombine elements of the East Indiaman article. (Now that I have worked on the West Indiaman article, I could see a much smaller article on East Indiamen that makes clear that this was a generic term (i.e., all EIC merchantmen were East Indiamen, but many/most East Indiamen were not EIC merchantmen), and then a separate article just on the EIC's ships.) What would remain in the article you are currently crafting as far as the carved out pieces are concerned would be a one or two sentence paragraph, followed by a link of the form. The separate articles would also link back to the base article. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree it needs to be expanded in a way much like the Dutch East India Company article, which has its own separate articles. The Red Dragon article certainly could do with breaking up into separate articles itself which would then link into the main EIC article. I will do this at some point in the near future. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Super. I look forward to the process & result.Acad Ronin (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Restoring Bullet Points
Hey Eastfarthingan. Could I request your help in restoring the bullet points on the Vietnam War article. The visual editor must be bugging for me and the infobox is once again corrupted. A bicyclette (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok I will change it. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles at A class review
Since you seem to know a bit about the British nuclear programme, I have two articles at A class review at the moment, on Polaris and Trident. Feel free to drop by with a few comments. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Will have a look at these. I know a fair bit, but you probably know more than me! 😁 Eastfarthingan (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Altmark Incident
Hi Eastfarthingan,

I saw your edit in the article Altmark Incident made back in February. I think the massacre of some unarmed peaople can't be concidered as a glorious deed. So it is a blunt exaggeration to claim this incident was a "British victory". Should not stand in the infobox. Greetings --Andreas (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, that is something that needs to be discussed in the articles talk page. Perhaps the infbox should be changed to reflect this and would be happy to help. Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

British in the war of Spanish American emancipation
Hello Eastfarthingan.

I see that you have an incorrect knowledge about the matter. Let me explain.

In the first place, the United Kingdom did not support any of the belligerents of this war, it declared itself neutral. Therefore, to add in the information box to the United Kingdom as a belligerent in favor of the independents in this war is totally incorrect.

Secondly, the sale of arms was made by arms merchants (private), who due to the end of the Napoleonic Wars tried to do business in America taking advantage of the war situation, to self-benefit.

Third, the sale of arms (or rather the arms trafficking) was not exclusively for the independents. British arms merchants sold military items to independent and realistic. Therefore, this criterion cannot be used to support a military support to one of the warring parties.

Fourth, the British recruits and soldiers who came to offer their services to the independent governments did so as mercenaries, voluntarily and on their own responsibility, not by order or instigated by the United Kingdom. Many of them due to the financial uncertainty left by the end of the Napoleonic wars. It must be said that there were not only British, there were also French, Prussians and several other European nationalities.

On the subject of mercenaries, there is already a consensus. Check it here (the 2006 discussion and the 2018 discussion). In both, it was concluded that these soldiers can not form a separate entity, but that they are understood as inclusive for the respective political entities involved in the war, in this case the independent governments and their military forces. Therefore, your figuration in the infobox should be eliminated. --Muwatallis II (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I see myself in need of intervention because the user has created an account with the particular purpose of eliminating all traces of British participation, especially in the independence of Chile, where his country is, by an excess of nationalism and patriotic exaltation can not accept that Lord Cochrane and his sailors were British and not Chilean. The british won the war. It comes chasing and erasing Wikipedia articles where there is British participation.


 * The British sold arms to the Spaniards to fight in the war against Napoleon, but never sold arms or ships to Spaniards fight in America against revolutions. Never. The British supported the independence rearming the patriotic armies, and allowing the hiring of soldiers and sailors of the British armed forces. It was a colonial policy in America, and declared neutrality to maintain a balance in Europe.


 * Bolívar hired British battalions. And in Wikipedia the consensus is to accept groups of mercenaries with identity, who have a flag (as british have see references in British Legions). This is the case of the British in the battle of Venezuela, which Bolívar attributes to them the victory. All this is already discussed, but the user is engaged in a war of editions.

Here.  --Caminoderoma (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "'Saviours of my Country', Simón Bolívar"
 * Accusing me of being incorrect is rather irrelavant Muwatallis. As I have said it has been sourced and referenced and has been linked to with a corresponding article. In addition the belligerent isn't directly involved and is under the support frame which is totally compliant. It might be worth pointing out that the correspending article in Spanish shows the UK as a full belligerent along with their respective commanders. I may even argue to follow that course since the evidence is prudent. However for arguments and consensus sake I'm willing to leave it as is. Therefore it is perfectly fine that my figuration should stand. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

A very tendentious article, with personal interpretations (original research) and poorly written. Do you know the difference between the state and the private sector? The British state was neutral in the war and private entities (merchants) sold weapons during the war. And I repeat again, they sold arms to both parties, do you understand that? Do you understand that, for that reason, it can not be argued that the British private companies were on the side of the independents, much less the United Kingdom?

What appears in the wikipedia article in Spanish is irrelevant for wikipedia in English, and does not mean that it is correct, and it is not the case in all wikipedia. It is not a valid argument.

Finally, I remind you that on this issue there is a consensus, the British soldiers (and therefore the United Kingdom) can not appear in the infobox because they are mercenaries at the service of independent governments. Therefore, I urge you to respect the consensus already established and the wikipedia rules. (the 2006 discussion and the 2018 discussion) --Muwatallis II (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Muwatallis, no consensus has been made and since then circumstances have changed - hence the reason for the UK being under the support banner. In one of these links you posted, the Battle of Trenton is mentioned as a prime example - Hesse was not at war with the US (in fact they were technically mercenaries) but they are a combatatant nonetheless (with the flag icon) perhaps you might want to argue on that article too? Likewise for the British Legions who carried their Union Flags into battle. So this completely contradicts what you have said and ultimately you have not read the entire discussion. The Spanish article is nonetheless important as a guideline and where the UK stood during events. The article link is under construction but none of it is false. It just needs citing and proof reading as you said.  I also see that using wepeaons and arms seem to be your big case in argument. However there is no evidence that I can find that the British sold arms & munitions to Spain or the Royalists during that period, if so, where is your source for proof? The British state did not sell arms or munitions to Spain except before 1814 when the Peninsula war ended as has been mentioned.  Your opinions cannot determine the outcome especially when it is cited. I therefore urge for you to leave the UK in as a supporting role. If this does not suit you then I will only expand the article to warrant the UK as a full belligerent. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)´

Most of the opinions of the editors are against considering the mercenaries as belligerents, in the two discussions, that of 2006 and 2018. Without mercenaries, and therefore should be understood as military forces of independent governments, not separate entities. If your point of view is different from that idea, you should call a new consensus on the matter here (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history), otherwise I will consider it sabotage and I will have to resort to an administrator.

Regarding arms trafficking. Here you have sources where you can check that British merchants sold weapons to the realists in the middle of the war.

Sociedad Estatal Quinto Centenario (1989-90). "América, siglos XVIII-XX: III simposio sobre el V centenario del descubrimiento de América celebrado en el Colegio Mayor Zurbarán, Madrid, 1989-90, Volumen 3", page 63. He says verbatim: "In any case, the British sold arms to both parties: to the royalists and to the republicans."

La Gran Bretaña y la independencia de México, 1808-1821, author Estela Guadalupe Codinach, page 242. He says verbatim: "The English merchants, very aware of the needs of the market in America, took advantage of the demand, sold arms and ships and financed expeditions in aid of the insurgents or in support of the royalists".

To mention some references. Therefore, it is not possible to maintain the argument of military support for independents. --Muwatallis II (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "sold arms and ships and financed expeditions" (its a traslation or english citation?). In any case, Muwatallis before the restoration of Ferdinand VII(1814-1819) there be unrealized plans, proposals not made, anecdotal cases, etc that do not make the rule. The postnapoleonic dispute over colonialism and the international balance of colonial powers can not be ignored in the Spanish American Independence. You can not reduce a global problem to the small limited vision of your homeland village. Or please, tell us how many tons you talk, which British ships was bought by Spain, or which British expeditions fought on the Royal side. The "Comisión de Reemplazos" who are the ones who pay the bill, do not say nothing about.--Caminoderoma (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a translation, the quote in Spanish says: "Los comerciantes ingleses, bien enterados de las necesidades del mercado americano, se aprovecharon de la demanda, vendieron armas y barcos y financiaron expediciones en ayuda de los insurgentes o en respaldo de los realistas."

The amount of weapons sold to independent or realistic does not change the fact that the British had no trouble negotiating with both. The reality of the matter is that the British only did business, they did not line up with anyone. The Americans did the same, they sold weapons without problems to both parties. Therefore, one cannot argue British military support of the independents, because they did not take part in anybody, they only did business. --Muwatallis II (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Muwatallis.. you criticised me for using (wikipedia es) but you quote Spanish written sources instead. A bit hypocritical wouldn't you say? There are three keys steps to British support for South American independence. First, British neutrality ensured that new political entities had space to emerge and develop in 1810-15. After 1815 Britain’s opposition to foreign help for Spain helped the insurgent generals. Second, Britain provided a channel for trade via Jamaica that largely replaced trade with Spain, allowing the insurgent provinces to become economically independent of the Spanish monopoly. Third, British merchants made a direct contribution to the military campaigns fought after 1816 by supplying arms to the patriot forces, and, of course, British soldiers contributed to Bolívar’s victories in New Granada and Venezuela. In effect London raised the loans and bought the supplies that put the seal on South American Independence. It should be worthy of note that the Pan American centennial congress of 1926 says 'there was no battlefield in the war of Independence on which British blood was not shed'.  You failed to mention the Battle of Trenton scenario and how that was resolved in the the 2006 discussion? Yet the main article of the Spanish Americans wars of independence is different? The consensus has not been made regarding this article as it is now (with UK in supporting role) of which you are constantly ignoring that fact.  By all means resort to an administrator since you are vandalising/sabotaging cited content; you also are currently engaged in an edit war. You have made links to discussions that are not relevant to the article nor has the the consensus been fully authorised. It seems that you want to erase any British contribution as mentioned by Caminoderoma despite the fact that it is cited; that in itself seems a poor judgement on your behalf. I think the administrators should decide the issue. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you want to expand your arguments on here? Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

English Armada
I respect the history of England and your country a lot. Believe me, I do not have anything against your country, and I'm not even Spanish either.

But we both know that it was a decisive victory. Even in the article it is stated that this victory allowed the naval dominance of Spain for a decade, and the Peace Treaty of 1604 allowed it.

Tell me what you need exactly to allow me to affirm that:

-It was a decisive and important victory.

-Ingland failed with the attack on Spain and its objectives failed.

I have put sources, not just one, and the book by Luis Gorrochategui Santos that includes studies by scholars of different nationalities.

A greeting. JamesOredan (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Greetings James. It's all very well saying that but it needs to be cited and quoted. One source isn't good enough; it either needs to come from the same conclusion from different credible historians or failing that from a group consensus.

Hope that helps? Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Spanish Armada
You have deleted my edition because I have repeated the paragraph, but I see that paragraph repeated.

What do you mean? JamesOredan (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Already explained on your page. Your welcome. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

However, the true knockout blow would come courtesy of Mother Nature. Philip II supposedly exclaimed, “I sent my fleet against men, not against the wind and the waves.”

This phrase is not duplicated anywhere in the article and you have erased it. JamesOredan (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No - I have adjusted the part of Philip's quote in lede. But as you need reminding again the first sentence is a virtual reword -

your text:
 * 'but the Armada was disrupted during severe storms in the North Atlantic'.
 * 'However, the true knockout blow would come courtesy of Mother Nature.' Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please note also, Martin & Parker say - unfortunate weather. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)