Talk:Charles Cornwallis, 1st Marquess Cornwallis
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Did Charles Cornwallis have brothers and sisters if so names.
- Admiral William Cornwallis was his younger brother . According to this and this, his siblings were: Elizabeth, Charlotte, Mary, James (b.1740), James (b.1742/3, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, 4th Earl Cornwallis), and Sir William (the Admiral). -Eisnel 00:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Should Lord Cornwallis redirect to Baron Cornwallis? Personally, I do realize (and completely understand) that most Americans do not know of Mr. Cornwallis as anyone but "Lord Cornwallis", but following the naming conventions, would it not be more fair and consistent if we redirected correctly? (another example would be Duke of Wellington, although that arguably isn't the same type of case, as it's not a redirect but a page on its own). ugen64 03:49, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Also, "Cornwallis" redirects here, and there's no disambiguation that would point readers to the Baron Cornwallis article or to his younger brother, Admiral William Cornwallis (a well known figure during the Napoleonic Wars). It could use some sort of disambig. It could be in italics at the top and redirect to Cornwallis (disambiguation)? Or would it be better off linking to a family page? The "Baron Cornwallis" article isn't all-encompassing, because Admiral Cornwallis never held such a title. -Eisnel 00:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, Lord Cornwallis should redirect to this page, it's by far the most notable "Lord Cornwallis" in history. Rockfall 19:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
any idea what Lord Cornwallis' miitary rank was at the time of the American war ?Xerex 15:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- He was a Major-General in 1775, and was promoted to Lieutenant-General in 1778. john k 07:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted two lines -one in in the Revolution sup para - a reference to Lord Cornwalis being educated at Eton and Cambridge, which made no sense in a middle of a description of a battle, and another unfinished sentense elsewhere. Pl. amend main text accordingly.
Third paragraph of the American Revolution section is a little confusing.
There is a line "Cornwallis also created a police force and an incorruptible civil service; previously corruption was widespread in Bengal" in there that just begs for a reference. It would be a service to all to have a guide as to how to eliminate corruption from the civil service of any country if in fact the statement is correct.
India and Ireland Sections
This article could do with work on Cornwallis' work in India and Ireland - both of which were extremely important in each country's development. I'm working on the American Revolution section, but lack the knowledge to do the others. Rockfall 12:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Extra Long Opening
It seems to me that the opening to this page is EXTREMELY long. I was going to do the edits, but I'm not exactly conversant on the history and (being an American, and therefore biased) would probably exaggerate his contribution to the American Revolution over his offices in India and Ireland. NizzyWizzy 02:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the opening was pasted straight from http://www.americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/CORN.HTM, so I deleted it. Dreamyshade 23:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
There was another whole section pasted from http://www.patriotresource.com/people/cornwallis/summary.html. Also deleted. Dreamyshade 23:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
In need of major work
I think that because plagiarized stuff was deleted, the article is very deficient. Also, I'm guessing the year 1722 in the article is wrong, seeing as he had not yet been born. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
I edited the information on Cornwallis regarding his earlier career. My edit is still somewhat incomplete, but the previous set was totally mixed up. (It was written as if the Battle of Minden had happened in 1765.) The biggest problem with the article is that it currently omits his participation in the American revolution! It's great that the plagarized material was removed, but something needs to be put in its place.--Wtfiv 04:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I am reading a book on the revolution which states that when he went home part way through the war it was because his wife was sick and that she died while he was on leave..apparently it devastated him and he came back to America out of grief..that he just wanted to get out of England at that point..I don`t have the source in front of me but I think more of his personal life should be included in the article..he seems to have been a relatively decent person in a culture of very ambitious unethical individuals. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Added new section on role in American Revolution
Since it was entirely missing, I've added an new section on Cornwallis's role in the American Revolutionary War. I focused more on the early part of the war (1776-1778) since Cornwallis's role during that time is less known and there are no other articles that put his role into a narrative unity. Because I don't want to duplicate other work that has been done better, I refer the discussion of Cornwallis's role in the Southern campaign to the article on the Southern Campaign, which also functions as a narrative of Cornwallis's role as an independent commander. Though I tried to avoid controversial material, the section could be strengthened by the addition of references.--Wtfiv 23:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
"This could be compared to the wider recognition and status enjoyed by commanders like James Wolfe, who captured Quebec from the French in 1759, and the Duke of Wellington who led the British Armies during the Peninsular War (1808-15). In both these wars the British were victorious."
This seems to be a bit POV. Unless someone has a source for this POV, I suggest it be removed.James Richardson 20:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Definitely agree. And the line, "This is fairly consistent with the lack of knowledge of Britons to the events of the American Revolution" is also ridiculous. I would say that Cornwallis is the second most famous commander of the revolution, after Washington, at least here in the UK. The entire legacy section should be revised. CTwells 13:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I've removed "This could be compared...". Regarding "This is fairly consistent...", again, it's a POV, so strictly-speaking has no place in Wikipedia. James Richardson 20:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
didn't lose a Battle?
Apart from of course Yorktown (which was a siege), im pretty sure Cornwallis never lost an open battle in the Revolution. Should this be mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
In September 2013 tags were added to this article recording that sections relating to the later career of Cornwallis had been (i) nominated to be checked for neutrality; and (ii) were of questionable neutrality. In both cases reference was made to discussions on the talk page. I can find no trace of any such discussions. Could the editor responsible please flag the points of concern so that these can be looked at. If this is not done then the tags should be removed. Buistr (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Six months have elapsed since the tags were placed. The comments on the tag are standard for the template, which should not have been placed without a discussion being started.. I have checked the originating editors contributions.There was no discussion initiated on the talk page. The tags were placed by a new editor who created an account, seemingly just to place the tags and make what is arguably an unsigned, biased personal opinion, on the Cornwallis in India article talk page, along with further tags to that article. No editors have replied to him. The tags had been left to afford time for any discussion. That article has been given a WP:GA status, which it would not have if there was any Non Neutral POV issues. Accordingly I have femoved the tags from both article, which are neutral and referenced. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect the tags were placed by someone objecting to the use of the word "reform". The "reforms" of Cornwallis were reforms of the corporate operations, with real-world consequences to the inhabitants of Bengal and other parts of British India. Those consequences are not adequately covered here, and I've not seen sources (generally Indian, I think) that go into this in enough detail to properly contextualize them, especially in terms of Cornwallis' goals and understanding of the effects. Indian anti-colonialists see the word "reform" in this context and seem to frequently misunderstand its application, which leads to this sort of drive-by POV accusation. Magic♪piano 14:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)