User talk:Tirronan

This user is a member of WikiProject Military history.

This user is a member of the Maritime warfare task force of WikiProject Military history.

This user is a member of the Napoleonic era task force of WikiProject Military history.

Hello

Well those that know me know I edit constantly and I have a deep and abiding love for military history. Feel free to discuss anything that concerns you but there is one reservation. Having run across several varieties of wiki trolls a few rules:

• No trolling
• I don't feed trolls
• If you want an argument join a debating club
• I support any change so long as you have the reputable sources (multiple) to back it up.
• Park the urban legend version of history outside, I want the truth or as close to it as we can get.
• Don't make additions without sourcing and footnoting the addition.

Tirronan 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Before...

Before you jump right into the argument look at what we have been arguing over. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

I would like to advise you to look back at previous edits on the American Revolutionary War dissucssion page and see the reference someone made of me and plains to the female gentials. (Red4tribe (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Confused you will be!

It comes down to mrg3105 considers that English language military historians are hopelessly inept and that Wikipedia should introduce more rigour into terms like "pocket" see pocket (military)#Soviet military doctrine and similar things for battles, operations, campaigns etc, even if this means riding roughshod over common English names.

The main article at the moment were this discussion is going on is with this RFC Talk:Prague Offensive#RFC: renaming Prague Offensive to Strategic Offensive Operation. In that mrg3105, along with a lot of other stuff, has written "This is important because if it was called a Waterloo Defensive Tactical Battle (1815), it may contrast more readily with Battle of Leipzig which was the Leipzig Strategic Offensive Operation (1813)", hence AFAIT his interest in the Hundred Days article.

If you want to see more see also Talk:Courland Pocket#Baltic strategic offensive operation, Talk:Jassy-Kishinev_Operation#Rename_proposal, Talk:Battle of Memel#Renaming article and Probably lots of other articles I don't know about. You will see from Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II that he and some fellow editors have lots of articles that they are concerned about and having articles named like Prague Offensive instead of Prague Strategic Offensive Operation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have no interest in the Hundred Days...never had. I was just reflecting on the lack of systematic approach to military history in English. Certainly IF I was teaching a course on the Napoleonic military history, I would contrast the Battle of Waterloo and the Battle of Leipzig in the above fashion.

"riding roughshod over common English names" is a good thing when these names were created by book editors for German writer who had no access to Soviet archives! However, history moves on Philip, and now Wikipedia can present to those interested the actual names of the events. So what would you rather have, the completely-invented-with-no-basis-in-history title, or one given to the operation by its executors? How about if I publish a book called "The third battle of Alexandria"? Will you go and argue with my editor that it should be called First Battle of El Alamein?

Anyway, I'm not here for that. Do you have Armies of 1812 by Otto von Pivka (aka Digby Smith, also not his real name)? At the back it gives in map-form the engagements of all the French Corps on their way in and out of Russia. If you don't, I had recently dug it out, and remembered your request from ages ago for more info on other engagements in the campaign, so thought I'd offer. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo Featured Article nomination

Hi there. I've just nominated the Battle of Waterloo article for FA status. You can watch the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Nominations. I'm hoping that, as one of the most knowledgeable and prolific contributors to the article, you'll be able to help out if there are only minor concerns standing in the way of the final status. -Kieran (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Trip

Good luck with this issue. I stopped editing in the Rev War task force area (except for my main work, Landing at Kip's Bay), because of Trip. See Talk:Battle of Harlem Heights for a good idea of what we've all dealt with. I could dig around and find you five or six "irritated" editors and a whole slew of arenas in which he's disrupted an otherwise great team. Until his inevitable bannation, at least from the topic, I find him too frustrating to work with. Tan | 39 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I rest my case Tan | 39 20:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

War of 1812

So, let me see here. I'm viewed as a complete vandalistic bastard with unreliable sources, but whenever Red4Tribe puts somehing up with a website built by a 8 year old, its highly reliable? And, more onto the Point of View. So its basically okay for all that boasting about the defeats of the Royal Navy in the United Kingdom section, and about how the mighty British Empire was "battled to a standstill" by the poor fledgling nation of America, about how the British Navy was the most dominant nautical power in the world but got beat by a few schooners and frigates, but fails to mention that they were prominently un-trained. All the over-celebration of New Orleans and the hinting that the War of 1812 was an American victory through New Orleans, the Era of Good Feelings and all that crap. But when it comes to me saying that the British Army performed well, repulsed several invasions of Canada, but most of the attacks on the U.S. was repulsed, and actually writes in the whole TRUTH, that it WAS reluctance on part of the British commanders to carry out the attack, AND cites sources, its a load of bollocks? Seriously, where do people nowadays get their education? As long as its anti-British, its fine isn't it, I mean, this is an American website afterall. But once something is put up that is pro-British it is blasted out of the water, cited as unreliable, I'm blocked for "edit warring", and I'm basically a virus who keeps irritating ediots and the evil Trip Johnson has disruped an AMAZINGLY innocent team. An amazing team, that somehow contains Red4Tribe, and people who begins this godforsaken edit warring in the first place by removing my sources, people like him who make NO effort to discuss the matter whatsoever, and yet when I don't discuss it, I get blocked? Tell me Tirronan, where he HELL is the fairness in all of this? Because if you can find some, then by all means contact me. I just don't see why when someone puts something up that contradicts the bias that is already on here, I am instantly brandished as a vandalistic pillock, who does nothing but disrupts, I have an inevitabal ban heading my way (for reasons I do not know of), I have ruined everything on wikipedia, seriously Tirronan, you and this so called "Project Team" really needs to open its eyes and see what it is shovelling. Because, for heavens sake, WHY am I being victimised, when I AM NOT THE CULPRIT? If you can answer this one, go right ahead, no doubt you will answer it with somesort of condescending comment to try and make me feel as big as a blade of grass, and you will plead with the administrators for a block, because I do not agree with your opinions, or simply because I am standing up for myself. You want to block the real culprit? Ban Red4Tribe, because he is the one who plunged me into this mess, for example, by making ridiculous claims that the Battle of White Plains and Harlem Heights were American victories, he even hinted that somehow Washington won the Battle of Germantown. And I am unreliable? For heaven's sake, why don't you stop listening to the resident idiot, and start listening to my side of the story for a change? (Trip Johnson (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

As I said, I knew you would respond with one of your condescending comments. I'm not here to be the popular fairy guy, I'm here to make sure Wikipedia does not get vandalised, but when I do something to stop the vandalism, or when I source something, its all my fault and its all shit. So, go ahead, report me to the admins if it makes you feel big and hard, I mean, that is the objective of your discussion isn't it, to get me to blow my top so you can see the back of me. Well I've just handed it to you on a silver platter, so go on, go right ahead. For the record, those sources are the sources listed on Baltimore's and Plattsburgh's own wiki pages, so how the hell are they unreliable? You sir, are a hypocrite, if something doesn't go your way, or if it doesn't have the hidden message of "AMERICA RULEZ, AMERICA AMERICA AMERICA AMERICA!!!!" it is obviously biased, and violates the POV to the end of its existence. So, I have learned some valuable lessons in my time on Wikipedia:
1: If it levels out the POV to a certain extent, it violates POV. Well that is double dutch to me.
2: If it's slightly pro-British and you have sourced content used somewhere else but not sanctioned till now, don't bother putting it up, it will be deleted anyway. Even though it is sourced.
3: If a battle is changed to American victory, thats fine. If its a British victory, it requires a massive discussion.
4: If you make an edit with no discussion, its vandalism. If you make an edit with a discussion, you're an argumentative little prick.
So, yeah thanks, Wikipedia, for giving me such a good impression of this unreliable propaganda machine of an encyclopedia. It is scary that the younger generation are reading this and believing that it is fixed information. Look at Operation Market Garden if you want POV, that basically shifts the whole weight of the blame of the defeat to the British. And you're spitting out all this shit about POV? Open your eyes, but that's too much of a challenge. So, go ahead and report me. Ban me. To be honest, I don't give a crap, because I'm done with this bunch of hypocritical, patriotic, favourtism, biased complete idiots who claim to be graceful wikipedians. I may as well use the more reliable sources, and not try to put them on here, because hey, if they are, they are unreliable! Who'd have thought it! (Trip Johnson (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

For anyone with an interest here is the other side of the conversation:

Trip, your edits using a website of questionable value and looks once again to be trying to maximise British victories and minimise American victories. There are real books that really support some of your claims, in fact one of the beauties of the war of 1812 is that its possible to find an author to support almost anything, but it is becoming apparent that this is getting to be POV pushing. We are not here to right wrongs or fix apparent (as we see them) bais and certainly not with websites that are at best pandering to another population. Not everything British was right, nor wrong, but if you can't take a neutral stance it might be best to find another area to edit in. Trust me I don't as an American love to read about the military actions of General Hull but I wouldn't for a minute think about trying to change the results or minimise the impact of an inferior and incompetent officer's blunders, be equally kind and unkind with a ruthless razor intellect rather than this pushing that you are doing... its even getting me irritated at this point. Tirronan (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Trip, buddy this isn't about Red or anything else, as I pointed out do you see me changing anything where Brooke and a few Indian's got Hull to surender to a force half his size? So that you know it was the editors that made changed the decisive on New Orleans to Victory, which it was but hardly decisive. A repulse is a defeat regardless and Baltimore was all of that no matter how its framed. Carrying your heart on your sleeve and endless pov editing isn't winning you fans nor does someone pulling the America over all impress me either. I'm reverting your edits and if you do so again I will be reporting to the admins. Enough is enough, you have ruffled enough feathers around here to anger half the community and somehow its all their fault? Work to get a concensus before making these changes and please for the last time websites are not very good sources. Tirronan (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have the point that you are upset but that doesn't change the fact that you are not using good sources and this would be a interesting point but you have to bring some pretty good sourcing to back this up and a pair of websites are just not it... you have been told this before and everything else is just alligation... Either prove it or leave it alone and you are a long way from proving it. Tirronan (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trip_Johnson"

Allies

Re your comment on the Waterloo page, there was a cartoon at the end of World War II. I think it was in the NYT with the caption "We couldn't have done it without allies like Britain and Texas". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding edit

Tirronan, thank you for editing Wikipedia, and thank you for your work in trying to improve the War of 1812 article. Keep up the work. However, I have an issue to raise with one of your latest edits. I edited out the following section from the article four days ago:

The idea that one cause of the war was United States expansionism or desire for Canadian land was much discussed among historians before 1940, but is rarely cited by experts any more.

My edit was later undone by you.

I can imagine one reason why you did this. I composed a couple of reasons for why I made the edit I did. I put that reason in the edit summary box. However, I forgot to actually make the edit. I then did the edit I intended, and stated in the edit summary box that the reason was the same one as "below". However, the first 'edit' I made was removed from the history, because no edit had been made. Consequently, I can imagine you looked at the justification for my second edit, and thought that because no justification was evident that my second edit should be removed. I hope this paragraph makes sense.

Well, I shall state the reasons for my edit:

The section that I edited out stated that the idea that the US went to war because of an expansionist desire is not cited by experts anymore. It can be said that it isn't cited by most experts anymore, if sufficient proof is given. Hacker, Pratt, and Goodman are only three historians, and the fact that they do not believe in the the idea does not mean that most experts do not believe in the idea.

In fact, I have a book that was published in 2006, entitled "Liberty or Death: Wars that Forged a Nation", in which one of the authors states "Looking to the future, Madison worried that the Great Lakes-St Lawrence system through British territory even might turn out to be the main route that American goods from the northern interior would use to travel to Europe. The president therefore decided that these provinces had to be conquered".

The book is, by any measure, reliable.

Also, the section I removed was also removed based on the reason that since no name of books are stated, no numbers of pages, no names of publishers, and no numbers of dates in the citation, the citation does not prove the section to be correct, and thus the section can be removed.

I do not want an edit war, and I hope we can work out this dispute. Thank you for reading.EasyPeasy21 (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my post. I am happy to see that you would like to see a new section. A compromise is the best solution. There are historians who do cite an American desire to conquer Canada as a reason why the United States declared war on Great Britain, just as there are historians who say that it was not a reason. Tirronan, do you think you will be able to find any quotes in books written by historians, which states the the United States' decision to declare war was not influenced by a desire to conquer Canada? If you can, that would be very good. If you get some quotes, then we can compose a new section dealing with the 'expansionist US' debate. I will add evidence to support the idea that it was a reason, and you can add evidence that it was not a reason. btw, just like you have, I have not seen a historian state that US expansionism was the reason why the US declared war on GB. Thanks again.EasyPeasy21 (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Our own individual opinions are not relevant. For the War of 1812, it is the opinion of historians that matters. I respect your viewpoint, but do you have any quotes from historians regarding the issue of US expansionism?EasyPeasy21 (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hundred Days

You might like to take a look at the changes to the Hundred Days article and my comments on Talk:Hundred Days --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

With Revision as of 06:34, 12 January 2008 and Revision as of 05:32, 18 January 2008 you added some references to the Hundred Days article consisting of author (Hofschroer) and page numbers, but you did not include the book name(s) in the References section. Please could you do so. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you had time to look up these references? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I have updated your edits. Now for another favour. Please see User talk:Assisting Wiki#Hofschroer. user:Assisting Wiki has not contributed since 23 June so if you could check which book Assisting Wiki used it would allow me to include the volume number for those two citations. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Waterloo

Well if you think trivia is important; fine. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

RE Nikitin

He was not the commander of the reserve artillery.RM Gillespie (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hofschroer

A Danish contingent known as the 'Royal Danish Auxiliary Corps' commanded by Prince Frederick of Hessen-Kassel and a hanseatic contingent (from the free cities of Bremen, Lubeck and Hamburg) commanded by the British Colonel Sir Neil Campbell were also on their way to join this army (Plotho, Carl appendix p34 and p35) both however, joined the army in July having missed the conflict (Hofschroer, Peter p82 and 83). The Hofschroer reference here is Volume One.

Fearing that Napoleon was going to strike him first, Blucher ordered [the North German Federal Army] to march north to join the rest of his own army (Hofschroer, Peter p182). The Prussian General Kleist initially commanded this army before he fell ill on June 18th and was replaced by the Hessen-Kassel General Von Engelhardt (Hofschroer, Peter p182). The Hofschroer reference here is Volume Two.

Thanks

--Assisting Wiki (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)