Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

British vets

Do we know why so few vets from Spain and Portugal were present for this final campaign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe a lot of the British units had been sent to America for the end of the War of 1812 and various operations in the West Indies. I don't have a source for that to hand, but I definitely remember reading that somewhere. rpeh •TCE 19:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
About 30,000 were sent to the America's where they participated in the Battle of Platsburg, The Burning of Washington, the Battle of Baltimore, and the Battle of New Orleans. In fact General Packingham was the Duke's brother in law and served under him in Portugal. He died on the field in New Orleans.Tirronan (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks guys! Should this info prehaps be added to a small note somewhere near the mention of the vets in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It's definitely worth mentioning (I believe Wellington complained about the situation) but it needs proper sourcing. rpeh •TCE 23:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Commander in Chief

The Prince of Orange was not a commander in chief. Look at William II of the Netherlands, where he is clearly identified as the commander of I Corps. That makes him subordinate to Wellington, and even if he was commander of the Dutch forces, it was Wellington who was commander in chief, and who therefore gets the entry in the infobox. rpeh •TCE 10:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody says he was. He was commander in chief of the Netherlands troops taking part in the battle, which were one of the substantial allied contingents in the battle, and as such should be, in my opinion, represented in the infobox.
I don't want to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate my point, but removing of William makes the same sense as if someone would try to remove Blücher, arguing that as he was subordinated to Wellington (an overall C-i-C of the allied armies in Netherlands), being solely a commander in chief (of the Royal Prussian Army of the Lower Rhein), and therefore non-necessary to include in the infobox.78.128.177.136 (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
No, that would be an entirely different matter. Wellington and Blucher commanded two different armies, and although they operated together, there was no unified command structure. Orange's command was part of Wellington's command, which is why it doesn't make sense to call him a commander in chief.
Take a look at the Order of Battle. The Allied and Prussian commands are listed separately, but I Corps is part of the Allied army. Yes, I know I've cited WP twice in my arguments, but it's all adequately sourced elsewhere - this is just quicker. rpeh •TCE 11:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
William was commanding Netherlands army troops present at the Waterloo. I believe that as a representant of one of the Allied nations he should be mentioned in the infobox, as the Template:Infobox military conflict clearly specifies "commanders of the military forces involved", with no particular limitation on operational armies commanders.
I do not refute that William was operationally commanding only a corps - as anyone who reads my contributions to the discussion can readily find out.78.128.177.136 (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
p.s.:Are you completely sure the Allies were really stupid and did not posses any unified chain of command? 78.128.177.136 (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but there's a clear consensus here that William is not going to be added to the infobox. As you say, it's for the commanders of the military forces involved, and there were precisely three armies at Waterloo: the French, the Allied and the Prussian. By your logic we should be adding the commanders of the troops from Belgium, Hannover, Nassau and Brunswick to the box too.
And yes, I'm completely sure there was no unified chain of command for the Allied and Prussian armies. That's why Wellington and Blucher exchanged messages to keep each other informed about what their armies were doing rather than having one person order both armies to conform. There's a huge difference between a common strategic goal and a unified command chain. rpeh •TCE 08:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, consensus is consensus.
They were three field armies at the Waterloo - Armée du Nord, Niederrhein-Armee and the Anglo-Batavian Army, but the Anglo-Batavian was composed from forces of several nations, one of which was the Netherlands.
As far as my logic is concerned, perhaps only the inclusion Duke of Brunswick would be necessary.78.128.177.136 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
p.s.: If I can illustrate my point by example rather than by words, so easily twisted by my honourable opponents here- at Trafalgar Spanish admiral Gravina was -without a slightest doubt - subordinated to French admiral Villeneuve, who was C-i-C of the Franco-Spanish Fleet, yet Gravina is included in the infobox. Are you going to remove him, just because he hadn't held an independent command? 78.128.177.136 (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an acceptable argument. rpeh •TCE 08:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you specify why you believe my example invalid? Thanks.-78.128.177.136 (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
p.s.:I wasn't proposing deleting or retaining of any article, was I?78.128.177.136 (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I already told you that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an acceptable argument. I don't know enough about Trafalgar to comment on whether Villeneuve was in sole command or not, but what goes in the infobox on that page is totally irrelevant to this one. Now will just please just drop this? rpeh •TCE 09:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
And I asked you what exactly makes you believe an essay on deletion/retention of articles being appliable in this case. I believe that example I gave is very helpful, being a situation when a commander who did integrate his forces into a force commanded by C-i-C of other nationality, yet still is included in the infobox. (The difference could be, as far as I recall, Gravina retained command of relatively homogenous Spanish squadron, his fleet was not distributed amongst the French squadrons, at least not in any significant numbers) I can also point out again, that contrary to your opinion, the template Infobox does not limit including of the commanders on commanders of independent commands, neither commanders of armies - just "commanders of forces involved".-78.128.177.136 (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
You've had your answers and I'm not wasting my time with you any more. rpeh •TCE 09:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you link to them? It seems I'm experiencing some difficulty to find them. Thanks.78.128.177.136 (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that you are apparently under incorrect impression that the template should include only the supreme commanders, while the documentation reads "the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended." And, yet again, I'd like to repeat my point, that there were three field armies at Waterloo, the forces in the Anglo-Batavian army were composed from several nations, with different commanders, which, in my opinion, should be presented in the infobox, at least for the notable one(s).-78.128.177.136 (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Even if'd operate under assumption that the deletion/retention guidance essay you linked to - In various discussions regarding a wide variety of articles, editors will inevitably point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular article or policy. Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid. has any validity for argumentation à simile in general, I'd like to know, what exactly would made my example an invalid one? I came to believe that example could be useful when I found out how my point - Prince William of Orange, being the commander-in-chief of the Netherlands contingent in the battle, is therefore worthy of including in the infobox - was being refuted by pointing to the facts that a) He was not Commander-in-Chief of the Anglo-Batavian Army or b) Was not Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Netherlands army. Thank you.78.128.177.136 (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
William was indeed the senior native Dutch-Belgian officer present. However, this is not the same as having command of all the Dutch-Belgian troops present. William's command was a corps of the army. As such he would have had no automatic right to command any of the Dutch-Belgian troops in Hill's corps, as Hill was their commander. He did have the right to command the British, KGL and other non-Netherlandish troops in his own corps. Wellington had deliberately mixed each corps by nationality. William was a subordinate commander in a composite army, he was not an army commander and was not even Wellington's designated second-in-command.Urselius (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I know that he didn't hold the operational command over them. My point is that he should be included in the infobox because, as you formulated it, he was the senior Netherlands officer present.-78.128.177.136 (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The consensus is clearly against you. I think you need to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. 85.210.2.5 (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The c-in-c of the army of the United Netherlands was the king not Prince William. The king was not present, and William was subordinate to Wellington. If you add William then you also have to add General Hill, and all the French Corps commanders - viz Ney (commanding one wing of the French army), D'Erlon, Reille, Lobau, Milhaud etc. the command box then becomes entirley ludicrous. We have been here before. Take the hint.Urselius (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say he was, did I? My point is/was (with the possible exception of one edit summary) and will be that he was commander of the Netherlands contingent taking part in the battle.78.128.177.136 (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The Prussian Army didn't report to Wellington neither did it's 1st Corp, its command structure was wholly separate and operated as a separate command both before, during, and after, the battle. None of this maybe said of the Dutch command. That being said, despite some horrible old English histories assertions, the Dutch forces contributions were beyond all expectations.Tirronan (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the argument. The comment about the Prussian army was to show that they were separate commands, and I wasn't talking about the Prussian I Corps, I was talking about the Allied I Corps, commanded by William of Orange. Neither has anybody said anything negative about the Dutch and Belgian troops that took place in the battle. rpeh •TCE 07:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I think this discussion insn't even worth having, as things are very clear : there were two armies present - one under Blucher, one under Wellington. There was no unified command structure for the 2 armies, whose commanders needed to cooperate if they wanted to beat Napoleon. Each army was composed of various Corps. If we add one Corps commander, we need to add in the others. Let alone Ney, who was de facto field commander for much of the French army during much of the battle. Neither can one say that William's command extended to all the Dutch-Belgian forces in Wellington's army. Remember Prince Frederick's 17,000-men Dutch-Belgian contingent that Wellington left at Hal, for fear that Napoleon might manoeuvre against his communications? They were not subordinated to William but to Wellington. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion was essentially over: I started it because an IP user added William to the Infobox and reinstated it twice when it was removed. I think I'd already proved the point that all the rest of us are trying to make - it's just that other people are finding new ways of saying the same thing. rpeh •TCE 08:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


Block the article

WIth so much vandalism this article should be block to ip edits -Ilhador- (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Battle Map Change Request

I'd like to request that the Map of the Battle be replaced with an accurate detailed one that shows the troop unit dispositions at the very start of the battle. This current map is ridiculously confusing. It shows mid-battle positions and doesn't show one of the arriving Prussian Corps at all. The French left wing dispositions are screwed up a bit too - there is no woods shown at Hougoumont, nor no slope features. There are many very very well done maps available. Please use those instead. If possible, let's show accurate mini maps of the various stages in the battle too.

The late-evening Map is a bit of a disaster too. It definitely needs changing. It is a myth map. It states and shows the Old Guard attacking Wellington's center. That, we know, is a myth we want to destroy.... why is it being promoted on the page where the text clearly states the Old Guard was in tactical reserve north of La Belle Alliance Inn, while the Middle Guard attacked across the width of Mont St. Jean ridge. The map also does not show the Young Guard at Plancenoit -specifically.


--Joey123xz (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Middle Guard did not exist in 1815. 86.163.45.236 (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The grenadiers and chasseurs of the Guard were administratively separated into two commands, however, it is entirely clear that in action all the Old Guard grenadiers and chasseurs were kept together as were the non-Old Guard grenadiers and chasseurs. Therefore, there was a de-facto Middle Guard when the Guard was deployed. Indeed we have Marshal Ney's own description of the Middle Guard forming the last French attack at Waterloo. Ney gives us a "horse's mouth" statement and it is definitive.Urselius (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Then you had better correct the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Arm%C3%A9e#Imperial_Guard that states, accurately per my reading, that the Middle Guard regiments - the Fusilier-Chasseurs, Fusilier-Grenadiers, and the Sailors of the Guard - were not reformed in 1815.
The confusion arises, I think, because pre-1815, members of the same formation were considered to be members of either the Old or Middle Guard. For example, IIRC that individual officers and senior NCOs of the Dutch Guard lancers were considered Old Guardsmen and drew Old Guard pay, but the unit itself was Middle Guard, and so were its rank and file. A trooper of Dutch lancers who made sergeant became an Old Guardsman but was still in a Middle Guard cavalry unit.
The same applied to the foot units. The Fusilier-Grenadiers were a specifically Middle Guard regiment whose leaders were Old Guard on Old Guard pay and conditions. The Guard reconstituted in 1815 had no such hyphenated Middle Guard regiments, and instead had just Grenadiers and Chasseurs. These would thus by definition be Old Guard. My source here is Elting's 'Swords Around a Throne'. Elting demonstrates no pro-Prussian, pro-Dutch or pro-British bias that I can discern. If anything he's pro-French but he doesn't try to play down exactly who it was that Wellington's men beat.
I'm aware of Ney calling them Middle Guard, but let's not forget that Ney also called the Anglo-Allied army "the English army" and considered Wellington, an Irish-born Briton, an Englishman. Imagine the furore that would ensue if we repeated all Ney's mistakes on this page! We'd have the wrath of Hoffie down on us before you could say, I don't know, something quite short that doesn't take long to say.Tirailleur (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The Guard grenadiers and the Guard chasseurs were not fielded as separate formations. The senior regiments were grouped together and the junior regiments were grouped together - they were de facto field formations. If you wish to coin a neologism to describe them feel free, but "senior Old Guard" and "junior Old Guard" doesn't really work for me. Ney should have been more knowledgeable about the French army than about the allied army so the comparison isn't exact.Urselius (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
This discussion was not about the Middle Guard's existence. There was another discussion about the Middle Guard made elsewhere a few years back in 'talk' section. I advise anybody who is disputing 'Middle Guard' to review it. Although the Middle Guard had no official designation, IT DID EXIST IN 1815 - Napoleon referred to them as the Middle Guard in his memoirs as did a few other French generals at Waterloo - IT WAS NOT JUST NEY WHO REFERRED TO THE MIDDLE GUARD'S EXISTENCE. There is actually NO dispute about this at all therefore. Arguing over this is speculative at best, and spreading/ upholding myths of the Old Guard attacking Wellington at worst. Except for 2 Old Guard battalions committed at Plancenoit, Napoleon clearly held back the Old Guard as a tactical reserve upon seeing the Prussians ready to swarm over his right flank. The Middle Guard did exist. Clearly some folks here should identify army organizations of the French army more accurately when they assume 'Middle Guard' should mean units being called Fusilier-Grenadiers etc, of former periods being applicable to Waterloo campaign Guard units.--Joey123xz (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Which of the six made that statement ;-)
--PBS (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Mister Ed - not many people know that his first language was French.Urselius (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to update a request for map changes. Without side track discussions now. Given the fact we are attempting to create an accurate recounting of Waterloo, and dispensing with myths, why is the article using the most myth-infested maps available and for public consumption. These maps are helping to spread myths. The maps are outdated and largely guess-work fantasies by whoever created them in the past when accounts of non-British memoirs were not taken into consideration. The Imperial Guard attacks in the maps are a mess. There is no topography either showing the somewhat bulging thumb of Mont St.Jean hill. Would anyone here be interested in me sending a copyright free map I will make showing an accurate and easy to read map of the battle and the phases?

  • I will do this voluntarily. Let me know who I can send the map[s] to for actual posting here. It is time for progress.
--Joey123xz (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Vous calmez, monsieur. I believe that you would have to open an account on wikimedia commons, then upload your map or maps to the commons with the needful disclaimers about copyright. Following this I would suggest that you then post them on this discussion page so that they can be seen before their incorporation into the article.Urselius (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you got excited enough to add 'calmez-vous' in your reply; perhaps seeing a few words in bold print..... but thanks for your reply with all the info there-in on providing an accurate battle map for the Imperial -Middle Guard attack in place of the inaccurate Old Guard attack map still on the page.Joey123xz (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Van Merlen's Dutch Cavalry Brigade Charging D'Erlon's Attack

To continue giving the full presentation of the Battle of Waterloo events, can we include the fact that Van Merlen's cavalry brigade did participate in the cavalry attack against D'Erlon's columns. All too often we hear about the British 'Heavies' destroying D'Erlon's columns, but little mention is made -if any- about their Dutch-Belgian neighbours of Van Merlen's Light cavalry brigade also taking part in the charge. Basically, the unit stopped their attack in the valley below Ohain ridge while the Union brigade continued into the French Grand battery. There were several witness accounts of their participation. More details can be found in depth here; The Dutch Belgian Cavalry at Waterloo archives

--Joey123xz (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

www.napoleon-series.org is not a reliable source. Is there are reliable source in English? -- PBS (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi PBS; I mentioned the site/ that article primarily so that its extensive list of references can be checked themselves. In particular; footnotes number 14 and number 15, at the bottom of that site's page which refer to witness accounts. Something worth checking into and confirming. The article itself is an objective detailed overview; it has criticisms for one of the Dutch cavalry regiment's colonels.
[14]See P. Wakker, Aanteekeningen van een veteraan, dato 16 aug. 1815, die onder den prins van oranje in ’s prinsen klein leger in de velden van Waterloo gestreden heeft. Purmerend, 1863, p. 12.
[15] From: Relaas van D. Beets, infanterist bij Perponcher's Divisie, in posession of the Section of Military History of the Netherlands Army in the Hague, files of F. de Bas, code nr. 101/8. --Joey123xz (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
British sources mention de Ghigny's brigade moving forward to help cover the British heavies' withdrawal, which I think is mentioned in the article. If you can come up with a verifiable source for Merlen's brigade doing the same then it should be added. However, the Napoleon Series article describes Merlen's contribution thusly: "In any case, it wasn’t much of a charge, since it wasn’t carried through and the brigade quickly returned to its position." As such I don't think it deserves a very prominent treatment here. Urselius (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes Urselius- I wish we had some German and Dutch Waterloo 'enthusiasts' showing up to share some useful translations and give insightful sources we may not have come across yet here. The fact that Merlen's troopers stood in the fore of the Ohain road ridge for the purpose of allowing the counter-charged Union brigade survivors to escape annihilation by their wary French pursuers who held back from the covering Dutch cavalry line by Merlen's troopers. But my initial comment had several sources/ eye witness added-footnotes stating that Merlen's troopers took part in the initial British cavalry charge. I believe de Ghingy's own brigade made a charge with the purpose of covering the withdrawal of the counter charged British surviving troopers being pursued.--173.176.54.118 (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

UHHH 2,765,200 PRUSSIANS KILLED?

I assume someone has made a typo. 210.56.95.170 (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Armoured cavalry

Is "armoured" an accurate description of a cuirassier? Does a breast-plate make a man "armoured"? It makes them sound like medieval knights, or tanks. The term is used four times in the article. Two particular objections: "Neither Coalition army had any armoured troops at all, and Wellington had only a handful of lancers" makes it sound as if the Allies had a deficiency in essential troops, rather than just that these troop types were a vogue in military fashion that had not reached the British; it's not clear that either type had a real advantage, though lancers probably did. The cuirasse was not bullet-proof, and nor was the horse, and it's arguable that the cuirasse was more of an encumbrance than a benefit. I think the sentence should come out, as the one before adequately makes the point. And the "novelty" of fighting "armoured" troops is referrred to: surely the British had encountered cuirassiers in Spain? Cyclopaedic (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This should be replaced by "heavy cavalry". DITWIN GRIM (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
No, heavy cavalry is too general a term. It does include cuirassiers, but in the context of the time armoured cavalry is more specific. As there were no troops in full plate armour in existence at the time, then wearing a breastplate and backplate, or only a breastplate like the Austrian cuirassiers, does mean that they were armoured. Napoleon was a fan of armoured cavalry, he increased the French army's armoured regiments from one to sixteen. He, at least, was certain of their usefulness on the battlefield. In addition to its physical protection (not from a direct musket ball hit at close to medium range admittedly) wearing a cuirass had psychological effects on the wearer and on his enemies which were very real. British cavalry did not directly encounter cuirassiers in Spain. Only one French cuirassier regiment operated in Spain, mostly in Catalonia and it did not encounter British cavalry - one of the King's German Legion regiments did have brush with them, however, when operating with a relatively small-scale and ill-fated British expedition to the East coast of Spain.Urselius (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Flag order

We know that British soldiers were around 20000 while Prussian were 50000. Thus the Prussian flag should be logically put first and British second. Putting British first, Prussia second, and english allies after is totally inconsistent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.196.55 (talkcontribs) 08:37, 4 May 2012‎

There are many criteria that could be used for ordering participants in a battle: by casualties sustained (a good measure of the amount of fighting done), by the level of political importance in creating a fighting coalition, by the amount of time each participant was engaged in combat, by the chronological order in which they entered the field of combat etc. I do not think that anyone (possibly Hofschroer excepted) in the English-speaking world considers that the Prussians were the pre-eminent contributors to the French defeat at Waterloo. This is the English language wikipedia.Urselius (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
"...a good measure of the amount of fighting done" or a good measure of "bad fighting done"?--77.181.5.113 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with 86.66.196.55 which is why I reordered the list and placed the Allies first and then the Prussians. -- PBS (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Prussia should be on top. The only reason not to do it is the English always thinking they are the center of universe.-Ilhador- (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Bit of a chip on your shoulder there, old top. 62.255.248.225 (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean English or British? -- PBS (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
" I do not think that anyone (possibly Hofschroer excepted) in the English-speaking world considers that the Prussians were the pre-eminent contributors to the French defeat at Waterloo. This is the English language wikipedia"
The fact that this is english wikipedia does not allow the article to be more biased in favor of UK. Even less when we see the article is featured as "good article". Good article MUST be of neutral POV.
English speaking countries could have been on the "french side" like USA during 6th coalition or American revolution. Wikipedia shouldn't be a war of subjectivities anyway, but a shelter of objectivity. Objectivity is the first duty of any historian.
British lines were in difficulty before Prussians arrived. Without their arrival it would probably have been a victory for Napoleon like at quatre-bras. It is the Belgian-Dutch who counter-atacked the old guard. By the numbers, British were outnumbered in both fighting AND casualties by their allies. About 5 to 1 proportion
General Chasse's Dutch-Belgians actually attacked the Middle Guard. The Old Guard were in tactical reserve south of La Haye Sainte and at Rosomme- save for the 2 battalions in action at Plancenoit.Joey123xz (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
As such it is objectively wrong to keep the Britih Flag first. Bringing the political aspect is amusing, when for British political defeats during the French revolutionary wars, the 3rd, fourth and fifth coalition wars, the British flag is strangely never in the first place.
I find it strange that this article was featured as "good" with such an obvious bias. I won't do childlish edit warring anymore, just hope someone reaonable and unbiased enough will see in the future that i'm right and reorder the flags accordingly.86.66.196.55 (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
In saying that this is the English language wikipedia I do not assert that content should be biased towards one point of view. However, as an English language wikipedia it must reflect the collective opinion expressed in English language publications on any subject. In English language publications there is an overwhelming amount of opinion which places the British contributiion to the victory at Waterloo over that of the Prussians. As such the article should reflect this.Urselius (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

31,000 British Army troops (not 20,000). This includes the 6,000 from the KGL who were British Army troops, British trained, British equipped and British led. 17,000 of the 24,000 coalition casualties were suffered by Wellington's troops. A majority of the casualties suffered by the French were at the hands of Wellington's troops.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The bankrupt economies of the continental powers meant that if British financial support had not been available there would have been no German troops in the Low Countries in 1815. BTW there were only 10 cavalry brigades at Waterloo: 7 British/KGL and 3 Dutch-Belgian - The Brunswickers had a single regiment and the Hanoverians also had only one - one regiment is not a brigade (the British 7th brigade had two regiments present, though one had been temporarily attached to Grant's brigade).Urselius (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Technically, the Brunswickers had a regiment of Hussars at Waterloo, and a separate squadron of Uhlans/ lancers.Joey123xz (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but a regiment with a supernumary squadron is still not a brigade. The British had Staff Corps Cavalry who were not brigaded either. Urselius (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The Prussian flag should be put first and British second. If not (for some biased UK POV), the Prussian flag should at least come second!--77.181.5.113 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Why? -- PBS (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Because the Prussians had the largest army - because the British would have lost their battle - because "P" comes before "U".--77.10.1.11 (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
There were two Coalition armies under independent command. Wellington chose the battle field, Napoleon the time. The larger of the two Collation armies was under Wellington's command. Wellington's army had a number of integrated divisions of several nationalities. Wellington's army did the bulk of the fighting for the Coalition. Those are the reason for listing Wellington's army first and as is the custom in Wikipedia articles every nationality that fields units down to the bottle washers has to be listed. Placing the Prussians higher up the list is misleading because to do so implies that they (like the other nationalities) were under Wellington's command. -- PBS (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Why not put the British and Prussion flag next to each other? Like you said: there were two Coalition armies under independent command. see: [1] for example.--89.204.136.52 (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you 77.10.1.11 using a different IP address? It superficially seems like a good idea, but I do not know of any other battle box arranged that way and it would need more segmentation than the German version because the German version make it look like a three cornered fight (when in fact it was two Coalition armies fighting fighting against one French Army) or put another way the typical German reader is likely to know which major nations were fighting on which side, but not all English speakers come from nations which were involved in the war, so they are more likely to be confused by the German style arrangements in the battle box. -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
@ User:Gaius Octavius Princeps..... Claiming the KGL were 'British troops' at the battle is like saying the one million-strong volunteer Indian army in WW2 were 'British' merely because they were "British trained, British equipped and British led". Objectivity is the issue here- not nationalistic rivalry/ envy. The fact is that at the battle the British factually made up just under 40% of Wellington's Dutch-Belgian-Germanic-Anglo army. Orders of Battle distinguish KGL units separate from British ones. They are conclusively two separate entities. I'm a Brit by the way, like many others here who see all the nations who participated in the battle having their shares of heroics, tragedies, desertions.Joey123xz (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Britain should be first because Wellington was in command of the Allied forces on the battlefield from start to end, he held the field until the Prussian's arrival. Though not supreme Allied commander, his permanent presence on the field meant he knew everything that was going on, from open to close of battle, holding the French off. The Prussians were late to arrive, their arrival tipped the balance, and so they should be listed second. Nationality has nothing to do with it. Comments here are purely attempts at revisionism and carry no academic weight. Most texts detail British forces first, because of their initial deployment, Wellington's command, being all day in action, etc. Trying to force the issue by consensus or a "wiki compromise" still makes it disgraceful revisionism, or WP:RANDY if you prefer. You might make Britain and Prussia 50/50 equal in the the "wiki world", but in the real-world of scholars and history students relying on professional articles, it's just another "wiki is inaccurate because editors can't agree" chalked up, good editors leave disgruntled, petty-minded editors remain to continue revising history, and we all end up looking like idiots! Ever wonder why this article fails FA reviews? Hmmmmm... ("stability")

"The only reason not to do it is the English always thinking they are the center of universe.-Ilhador-" — hardly an appropriate remark for Wiki, given the stereotypical nature of it. But you're right, we must be the centre, that's why French perverts in the paparazzi not only killed one of our princesses, but still continue to take photos of our latest princess' tits for you lot to ogle over. French porn-seekers must be in dire need of English flesh. :) Maybe next time you'll watch your words, because the British army was not only made up of Englishmen, but Scottish, Welsh and Irish soldiers also, possibly moreso. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 16:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The French: Bringing you topless royals since 1793... Face-wink.svg Basket Feudalist 14:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Be objective. This wiki article that you attempt to demean is not bad. The 'Old Guard attacks' maps are terrible though; much like your all too obvious slandering of non-Brits. You are the one who ends up looking idiotic in fact. You drone on about 'late Prussian arrival' when in fact they got into the battle around halfway into it. Your lack of knowledge on that simple fact is what you should be calling 'disgraceful' instead.Joey123xz (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
It also fails because a number of reviewers for FA are inflexible in attitude and make requests for things that are impossible to provide for a 200 year old event which has been the subject of controversy ever since. There are much worse articles on Wikipedia with FA status than this one.Urselius (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

18 June

Happy birthday (197) of Waterloo 209.212.5.67 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Napoleon surrendered...

AGAIN the text reads "Napoleon abdicated, surrendered to the British, and was exiled..." which does not accord with my recollection of the history. I recall that he was arrested by French royalist forces while attempting to escape overseas, I think in Bordeaux, maybe Toulouse; they handed him over to the British. I have attempted to get this clarified in the past, but it persists. Can I plead for anyone with access to sources to verify this? Maybe Antonia Fraser's "Wellington: The Years of the Sword" covers this matter? L0ngpar1sh (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Siborne Napoleon abdicated, surrendered to the British, and was exiled..., see:
  • Siborne, William (1895). The Waterloo Campaign 1815 (4th ed.). Birmingham, 34 Wheeleys Road. pp. 757, 758. 
-- PBS (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
He was not arrested by French royalists, who would have presumably executed him (e.g. Marshal Ney was condemned and executed, Marshal Brune was lynched by a "White" mob..). He preferred to present himself, of his own will to the commondore of the British naval squadron. He boarded the HMS Bellerophon and wrote to the Prince Regent that he was acting "like Themistocles", believing that the British century-old laws would grant him a right of asylum in England or allow him to sail to the Americas in exile. He would be proved wrong. See any book of the thousands of books on Napoleon, for example Chandler's The Campaigns of Napoleon.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for that, Alexandru. Yes, I recollect the British squadron being there (in Toulouse?). Ah, thanks for providing the 757 link, which failed at first and I've just retried; indeed it does bring back memories. I can't guarantee it was Antonia Fraser I was recollecting, may have been in any number of earlier books. I do still have an Oman, but only vol 1. 86.164.79.75 (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Clean up of inline citations

There are a number of inline citations that have had requests for more information on them for more than a year. They need cleaning up, and if they can not be then they should be removed. If that is done then unless other reliable sources can be found the text that is supported by those citations should be removed.

  • 1: Hofschröer, pp. 72–73 "Verify source|date=April 2009" -- There are two Hofschröer books. So the date of publication is needed to tie it into a long citation. This citations supports two facts 72,000 Anglo-allies: 68,000 both in the battle box.
  • 66: See above: Websites and Eeenens, Löben Sels, Allebrandi, de Bas, and Boulger "Full|date=January 2011" -- what does see above mean? What web sites? What is "Eeenens, Löben Sels, Allebrandi, de Bas, and Boulger"? Are these reliable sources? Supports:
    • As the French advanced, Bijlandt's skirmishers withdrew to the sunken lane, to their parent battalions. but two other citations are also provided do we need three? Is the sentence needed?
  • 67 See above: de Bas, and Boulger). "Full|date=January 2011" -- Same questions. Supports:
    • As these skirmishers were retreating through the British skirmish lines they were booed by some British troops, thinking they were leaving the field. At the moment these skirmishers were joining their parent battalions the brigade was ordered to its feet and started to return fire.
  • 68 "Full|date=January 2011" |See above: Eenens, Allebrandi, de Bas, and Boulger). Same questions. Supports:
    • On the left of the brigade, where the 7th Dutch militia stood, a "few files were shot down and an opening in the line thus occurred" (original quotes of Van Zuylen, the chief of staff of the Dutch 2nd division)
  • 121
I have supplied the citations asked for above (except the Hofschroer one). It seemed best to move a few of the refences to the References section (as they occur more than once). I also moved some of the text to the notes as this was better suited to a footnote. I replaced some of the text with similar text with new citations. One of the external links proved "dead". I commented this out in case someone can find the new webaddress. I had some trouble with the Harvnb-template: I needed to distinguish the several volumes of De Bas in the citations, but when I put the volume next to the year in the template this seemed to disable the link. So I ended up putting the volume number behind the page numbers. As I was working on the citations I noticed that a Barbero citation (to p. 130) did not cover the text, so I removed that text. In any case, I noted that Barbero does not use any references himself in the English edition. So why are so many citations taken from his book? Was he present at the battle himself, so his book is eye-witness testimony? Reputable historians supply citations. It annoys me that such Barbero-citations go unchallenged while other citations have to be triple-checked. Kidding aside, I think that his main source is Siborne. So why not use Siborne himself for those citations?--Ereunetes (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Barbero 2005 "Page needed|date=May 2010" | Supports
    • It appears that it was mounted by five battalions
  • 129 Hofschröer, pp. 144,145 "Verify source|date=April 2009". There are two Hofschröer books. So the date of publication is needed. This citation supports each sentence in the following paragraph (in green), with the exception of the blue sentence which is elsewhere:
    • At about the same time, the Prussian 5th, 14th, and 16th Brigades were starting to push through Plancenoit, in the third assault of the day
    • The church was by now on fire, while its graveyard—the French centre of resistance—had corpses strewn about "as if by a whirlwind".
    • Five Guard battalions were deployed in support of the Young Guard, virtually all of which was now committed to the defence, along with remnants of Lobau's corps.
    • The key to the Plancenoit position proved to be the Chantelet woods to the south. Pirch's II Corps had arrived with two brigades and reinforced the attack of IV Corps, advancing through the woods. The 25th Regiment's musketeer battalions threw the 1/2e Grenadiers (Old Guard) out of the Chantelet woods, outflanking Plancenoit and forcing a retreat. The Old Guard retreated in good order until they met the mass of troops retreating in panic, and became part of that rout.
    • The French right, left, and centre had all now failed.

-- PBS (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Anglo Allies"

Anglo refers to people of England, the English and so on. We're referring to a British battle, not English. Should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.186.240 (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Read Anglo. The term is used internationally and can often mean English or British. Some dictionaries define it as "an English speaking person", some as "relating to England or the UK", the broad use has led to wider implications and it is a word with both traditional and modern meanings. What really matters is that the vast majority of historical sources use the term "Anglo" which means there is a consensus, reaching far beyond Wikipedia, into academic texts and references. "Should" is not the case, because you are basing it on your preference not common usage. Also, the term British doesn't extend well to the vast number of Irish troops. Anglo translates better, is less biased and is the proper term. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 16:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Just as Russo- does implicitly refer to Ukrainians, Georgians, Karelians etc., when used in for the Russo-Japanese War it includes them as being constituents of the Russian Empire. So too does Franco- in regard to Basques and Bretons, Hispano- in regard to Basques, Catalans and Galicians. I'm afraid this type of usage does not respect ethnic and cultural minorities or the niceties of precise political demarcation. To be entirely correct the term would have to be "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland-allied", which is nonsense. You need to just get over it. Urselius (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Letters

Recently I cleaned up some citations moving notes into a separate {{reflist}}. While performing this task, I noticed how some of this article's text is supported on citing primary sources (letters). I think a review of the paragraphs supported by these primary sources (and the long involved citations that start "Website of current Dutch historian") is needed to make sure that WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH requirements are met. -- PBS (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be of the opinion that letters that have been collected into a published book format, and have therefore been subject to editorial comment, cease to be 'primary' in the sense of 'original research.' However, more obscure sources of letters might be challenged. Urselius (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

British Guards Adopted Imperial Guard Chasseur Bonnet

RE; in the aftermath section;- "Maitland's 1st Foot Guards, who had defeated the Chasseurs of the Guard, were thought to have defeated the Grenadiers; they were awarded the title of Grenadier Guards in recognition of their feat, and adopted bearskins in the style of the Grenadiers."

An often erroneous suggestion that the British Guards though thinking they had beaten the Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard had adopted their hats too; in fact their adoption of Bearskin bonnets wast a copy of the Chasseurs of the Imperial Guard ie, the Middle Guard units they helped destroy. The Imperial Grenadier Foot Guards had a brass plate at the front of their bearskin hats; the Chasseur hats had no brass plates. The post Waterloo British Foot Guards bearskins resemble the Chasseurs hats. --Joey123xz (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps "...and adopted bearskins in emulation of the Imperial Guard." would be better. However, even more telling is the fact that bearskins (that did not resemble the French type very closely) were worn by sections of some British infantry regiments as an item of full dress even before Waterloo. Urselius (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wellington's army

Most sources, including the Oxford History of the British army, describe Wellington's army as Anglo-Dutch. "Anglo-allied" is too vague and misleading. (92.11.200.238 (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

"Most" – no, most use "Anglo-allied", unless you're cherry-picking. Keep reverting and I'll request page protection from anon-IPs, as your constant reverts are now proving disruptive. The KGL were German troops, by the way, neither Anglo nor Dutch. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
None used "Anglo-allied". There was no such thing as Germany in 1815. "Anglo-allied" is too broad and meaningless, it should be changed to British or Anglo-Dutch. (92.11.200.238 (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC))
  • Adkin, Mark (2001). The Waterloo Companion: The Complete Guide to History's Most Famous Land Battle. – Uses "Anglo-Allied" Army.
  • Chandler, David G. (1966). The Campaigns of Napoleon. – Generally refers to an "Allied Army", without nations.
  • Uffindell, Andrew (2002). On the Fields of Glory: The Battlefields of the 1815 Campaign. – Uses "Anglo-Dutch-German" Army.
Those are just a few examples from my 50 or so Napoleonic books at hand to choose from, and each proves you wrong. I could go through the lot and detail every naming method, but I don't think that's necessary, very few use "Anglo-Dutch"; you haven't named any sources that do apart from a single-entry mention in a general history Oxford handbook, which is hardly specialised in Napoleonic history. 39 German states existed pre-1815 and formed into the German Confederation in June 1815. You can't call something a King's "German" Legion if there's no such thing as a German. Further to the point, the changes you made to the article are insignificant, the lead only summarises the main content, and so unless your changes represent the sources used, it cannot be considered reliable. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 19:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
There were also Black settlers and pioneers in Canada - many given land for being loyalists during the American Revolution. They fared better than those who were transported to England- these Black war veterans lived in poverty on the streets and the politicians simply decided to transport them to Africa - shameful. Joey123xz (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I see nothing misleading about the 'traditional' use of 'Anglo-Allied'. The article gives detailed references to the allied composition of Wellington's troops and nationalities.Joey123xz (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Anglo-Allied would be appropriate- Anglo-Dutch is erroneous..... Netherlands today would mean Dutch alone; but back in 1815 the Netherland's Kingdom army at Waterloo included Dutch, Belgians and a Nassau state regiment. Joey123xz (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Imperial

The lead currently say:

  • "An Imperial French army under the command of Emperor Napoleon"

is a contemporary French war party POV, the majority of nations (including many of the French) did not recognise his usurpation or his assumed title. Quit the contrary a contemporary allied POV can be built from the s:Malplaquet proclamation:

  • "An army under the command of the Usurper (a declared to be the enemy of mankind)".

Now while that would look odd to modern eyes the contrary POV highlights the problems with the current clause. I suggest it is replaced with:

  • "A French army under the command of Napoleon Bonaparte".

-- PBS (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In all history books in the English language since about 1900 the period in question is called the First Empire and Napoleon is named emperor. At the time the political stance in Britain was different, and Napoleon was titled merely 'general' and often the Italian spelling of his name 'Buonaparte' was used, but we do not need to continue such age-old propaganda, surely? Urselius (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Your argument holds true for the British position when the treaty of Treaty of Fontainebleau (1814) was signed, but after Napoleon Bonaparte left Elbe, the position of all the major powers (and the vast majority of the minor ones) was that in returning to France he was in breach of that treaty and was therefore no longer recognised as emperor by those powers (s:Declaration at the Congress of Vienna). So once he set foot on French soil he was not recognised as emperor of the French and the army he commanded while French was not an imperial army. -- PBS (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm going middle of the road on this one. While the idea of Empire and Imperial and Grande Armee was over by Spring of 1815, French soldiers, Bonapartists, supporters, rank and file vehemently referred to Napoleon as their Emperor still. Indeed, upon Napoleon's return from Elba, most of his associates referred to the return as merely almost picking up from where things were left off less than a year before. When we look at history do we necessarily have to stick with what one 'side' thought or represented as an accepted version; the British referred to American Revolutionaries as nothing more than terrorists in that time - Americans called them freedom-fighters. The British episode of the 'Indian Mutiny' is called by Indians a 'War of Independence'. I think Napoleon can be referred to as the Emperor - he crowned himself with the title. The Treaty of Fontainebleau was not exactly held up on the Allied side by the same Allies who 'stripped' away the title of emperor from Napoleon. The 'Imperial Guard' still existed as did the former Imperial titles that were re-established for some of the court and generals; should we purge the terms 'Counts' and 'Dukes' in every 1815 reference to Napoleon's staff/ generals, orders of battles lists too? Joey123xz (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
For what its worth, the intention behind Napoleon's return was to restore the First Empire. It seems Imperial would be the appropriate use for the 100 days.Crock81 (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Siborne's dioramas

I'm curious why there is no mention of Siborne's dioramas although he is mentioned in bibliography. Not even in popular culture. After all, there are not a lot of British battles that have dioramas in two military museums dedicated to them. Crock81 (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Siborne is equally if not more known for his controversial books "The Story of the War in France and Belgium in 1815". However, the story of and around the diorama is worth a full wiki article and pages of talk about it too. --Joey123xz (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
They are relevant to the historiography of the battle, but not to the battle itself - which is the primary subject of the article. Urselius (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Rees's Cyclopaedia as a resource

Rees's Cyclopaedia Vol 38 has an 8000 word (11 col) account of the battle that might be worth referencing. Rees has been digitised and can be consulted on both HathiTrust and the Internet Archive.Apwoolrich (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Pseudo-headings

Our manual of style is clear about headings:

My correction of this error has been reverted by PBS with nothing more than his own opinion that they are "not helpful". The markup he has restored produces this sort of html:

<dl>
 <dt>Articles</dt>
</dl>

That's a definition list with a term to be defined without any definition (the <dd>...</dd> is missing). That sort of defective html causes annoyance for screen readers who are led to expect a definition, but none is given. It's time editors stopped thinking only of how they perceive articles and started considering that others may not be using the same user agent as them.

A definition list is not a heading and breaches the consensus we have in our accessibility guidelines, where this precise markup is shown as an example of misuse.

As my corrections comply with policy, I shall restore my edits and I await any valid reason here why they should not stand. --RexxS (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

"As my corrections comply with policy" An interesting turn of phrase as a parting shot, is it a deliberate or unintentional rhetorical construction? You write "my corrections" which implies that anyone who disagrees with you is is being delinquent. Why not write "my changes"? "comply with policy" which policy, are you sure you do not mean guideline?
See WP:BRD you should not revert a revert to an edit you make until after it has been shown that there is a census for such a change (and just because the MOS says something does not mean that there is such a consensus). If you object to the html generated by a semi colon then the obvious thing to do is replace it with two sets single quotes, not to remove the emphasis completely. I think your logic is flawed because your edit implies that while you support "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup." you think it OK to make pseudo-headings using something other than bold or semicolon markup. As I see it they bold lines are not pseudo-headings. -- PBS (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:CON was the policy that I was referring to. The consensus on not using definition lists to make headings is documented at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Headings and my edits complied with that. Are you contending that they don't comply with that section of the MoS? You are, of course, completely wrong to think that there is no consensus for the Manual of Style. I must also say you have got a nerve nit-picking on the differences between guidelines and policy when you're relying on an essay to support your contention. When I've clearly quoted the Manual of Style supporting my edit - as I also did in my original edit that you reverted without bothering to read - I am under no obligation to seek your approval to restore those edits, as the consensus is already established. If you want to change that, see how far you get with trying to alter the MoS.
Let me be clear: I object to the html generated by the semicolon when it is misused to make a heading. The obvious markup to replace that is a level 3 heading in this case - because the text affected is clearly a heading. So no, two sets of single quotes (i.e. <i>...</i> which semantically indicates emphasis is not correct either - it's a heading. They are not "bold lines" - that means nothing to a screen reader - but headings. You make headings (not pseudo-headings) when you mark text up as headings. Would you prefer me to do that? --RexxS (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The words delineating the start of a section need to stand out from the rest of the text, how this is done is of no consequence to the reader. Urselius (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course it has consequences for a reader. Anyone using a screen reader won't see the page the way that you do; they hear how the page is marked up, so if you ignorantly choose to use nonsense (like a definition list in place of a heading), the visually impaired visitor hears nonsense. What superficially looks the same to you, isn't the same to everybody. --RexxS (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
A rather specialised function for someone who is not a reader but a listener using interpretative technology. As I said the reader just wants a visual clue about what constitutes a section header. Urselius (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@RexxS: They are not "bold lines" - that means nothing to a screen reader - but headings. Your change left the words in place with no bold. My change places those words in bold. If it means nothing to a screen reader then the problem has gone away. If it means something to the screen reader then the problem has gone away. -- PBS (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Urselius: There's nothing specialised about using alternative user agents and that's certainly no excuse for making the experience of using Wikipedia any worse than it has to be for the visually impaired. The visual cue for "what constitutes a section header" is - as you may have guessed - marking it as a section header (=== ... === in wikitext).
@PBS: Many screen reader users will not have the option to speak formatting enabled, so for them marking text as bold indeed has no effect. Using bold in place of the proper level 3 heading isn't a perfect solution, but it's certainly better than the definition list. Consequently, I haven't challenged your edit making the heading text bold, as I agree it's an improvement on the semicolon markup. I'm assuming you don't use the proper heading markup because you don't want those headings to appear in the table of contents. --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
They are not section headings any more than a table caption is a section header, indeed it is probably best to think of this usage as a close cousin of a table caption as it fulfils the same role. -- PBS (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Rubbish. Of course they are section headings - you're just displaying a profound lack of knowledge about how web pages are constructed. A table caption is a different element and is treated diferently - a browser doesn't even render it bold by default; additionally, a table caption in html may be placed above, below or beside a table because it is structurally a part of the table (see http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.2), whereas a heading is defined as "A heading element briefly describes the topic of the section it introduces." (see http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.5.5). Are you really attempting to tell us that the text "Articles", "Books", etc, in the Further reading section is not briefly describing the topic of the section it introduces? They are clearly headings and it's time for you to stop digging that hole. --RexxS (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I think your tone is aggressive, you are making assertions of what is a section (something on which we disagree) so I see little point in continuing this discussion as I think you and I are looking at this from different perspectives. -- PBS (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
And I was wondering if you were simply trolling to get a response from me. To the issue: I have explained clearly to you what our guidelines on accessibility state and what the definition of a heading is - both with links to the sources. That you choose to ignore both is your loss, not mine, but I'd be more than happy to disengage with you. Feel free to have the last word. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

RexxS is utterly correct; the corrections he made bring the article into line with our own guidelines and policies; industry-standard (ISO) web accessibility guidelines. It should not be necessary to expand this amount of verbiage in order to make our content as widely accessible as possible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

In what way has your change made anything any more accessible to anyone? -- PBS (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, anyone using a screen reader like JAWS can bring up a list of all the headings and step through them until they find the one they want and then jump to that section. Optionally they can navigate with a single keypress (H) to the next header or previous header (shift-H) at any point in the text. Marking up headings as headings allows those sub-sections in the Further reading section to be found quickly by the person using the screen reader. There's a description of some of the ways JAWS uses headings at JAWSKeystrokes. Also of relevance are the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines that explain organizing a page using headings ("Success Criterion 1.3.1 requires that the headings be marked such that they can be programmatically identified ... These allow user agents to automatically identify section headings.") and using h1-h6 to identify headings ("Heading markup will allow assistive technologies to present the heading status of text to a user. A screen reader can recognize the code and announce the text as a heading with its level, beep or provide some other auditory indicator. Screen readers are also able to navigate heading markup which can be an effective way for screen reader users to more quickly find the content of interest. Assistive technologies that alter the authored visual display will also be able to provide an appropriate alternate visual display for headings that can be identified by heading markup.} So I'd say it stands a chance of increasing accessibility for quite a few people. --RexxS (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you are confused by the time line, I placed my comment here at 20:34 and it referred to this edit at 20:31. -- PBS (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm absolutely sure I'm not the one who is confused. You placed your comment above at 20:34. I looked at the article and saw the edit Andy made at 20:33, immediately before your comment. My post above addresses the question of how marking up headers improves accessibility - which is what his 20:33 edit did. Short of employing a mind-reader, how was anyone supposed to guess that you were referring to an earlier edit when you don't bother to give any diffs? --RexxS (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The time stamps and "Your change" not "your changes" should have been a clue. When I wrote that, I had no idea that further changes had and would be made so there was no obvious reason to include a diff. -- PBS (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

See ANI:Failure to follow accessibility guidelines there is no reason why bold lines can not be used. Sighted and those who use screen readers are not aided by having a bloated TOC indeed there is a good case to make that while a sighted person can see that the TOC has no more useful information, the person using a screen reader is forced to listen to many entries that are not relevant in the case that the next potential section is of more relevance. So I am reverting out the introduction of unnecessary section entries.-- PBS (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Napoleon's headquarters

There seems to be some inconsistencies in this article and in the sources that support it.

  • "Napoleon last H.Q. (Now the Musée du Caillou)"
  • "Napoleon's former headquarters at La Belle Alliance."

It seems to me that the Musée du Caillou has a strong commercial interest in promoting itself as Napoleon's headquarters. But while he slept there during the night before the battle was it any more his headquarters during the battle than Wellington's lodgings in Waterloo where his headquarters during the battle?

This non-reliable source (possibly with a financial interest) states "before travelling to the French side to visit Napoleon's headquarters at Le Caillou and his observation point at La Belle Alliance."

Is La Belle Alliance only the French equivalent of the "elm tree" or was it his headquarters for the battle? I suppose the crux of the matter is after he arrived at La Belle Alliance did he ever return to Le Caillou? -- PBS (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"Caillou" C'est Dans Cette Maison Que Napoleon Passa La Nuit du 17 au 18 Juin 1815
The French Wikipedia has an article on this place "fr:Ferme du Caillou" which includes an image (to the right) the plaque translates from "Caillou" C'est Dans Cette Maison Que Napoleon Passa La Nuit du 17 au 18 Juin 1815 to "'Caillou' is the house that Napoleon spent the night of 17 to 18 June 1815". So while this is a primary source, unless some reliable non commercial secondary sources are produced indicating that after he left the house he continued to use it as his headquarters, then the text of the article should be changed to indicate it was where he spent the night.
  • A Google Book search on [Caillou Napoleon's headquarters] returns about 100 book most of which support the contention that it was his overnight headquarters and where he breakfasted/received Grouchy's first report.
  • A Google Book search on ["Belle Alliance" Napoleon's headquarters] returns about 250 books, most of which support the idea that this was his headquarters during the battle.
-- PBS (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The high ground at La Belle Alliance served to give a commanding field of view across the battlefield - from Hougoumont to the Allied center to the Paris woods on the eastern flank. I believe Napoleon had his battlemaps set up near LBA in the morning. He was there when he directed the counter-counter attack against the Union Brigade's charge into his Grand Battery. He was there in the evening to direct the last half of his cavalry reserves to support Ney's use of the first half. And of course he was there when he was directing the Imperial Guard infantry to move up for their final ever attack. The only times he was not at LBA apparently was when he was overseeing Lobau's Corps' deployment on his eastern flank, and in the afternoon when Ney took it upon himself to order the first cavalty charges upon Mont St.Jean; and finally when Napoleon directed the last victorious French attack on Plancenoit to throw out the Prussians - at this critical time I'm not sure if Napoleon was at LBA from where he would see the utter shambles Wellington's center was in after the fall of La Haye Sainte.--Joey123xz (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
supporting my statement from 2 years ago; it seems from various sources my previous comment is correct and also that he did remain mired at Le Caillou in the afternoon - probably watching the Prussian advances with grave concerns and praying for Grouchy to miraculously show up.Joey123xz (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Edits

Tttom1 (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • 16:37, 21 November 2014‎ Tttom (→‎References: trying to fix ref)
  • 16:59, 21 November 2014‎ PBS (Undid revision 634849376 by Tttom (talk) It is not clear what references this is supposed fix as no short cites link to it. Also the book is already in "Further reading")
  • 17:09, 21 November 2014‎ Tttom (→‎Charge of the British heavy cavalry: added ref)
  • 17:12, 21 November 2014‎ Tttom (Undid revision 634851735 by PBS (talk) It linked to something but got knocked out when I added another Hofschroer book, I could only get it in out of place as this)

diff for these edits.

@Tttom Why have you added a short citation "Hofschröer 1999, p. 86." to the end of the paragraph "As Ponsonby tried to rally..."?

You inserted a book into the References. It was not in the references list on 2 November (the last edit before you made you first). I removed it because it is not linked to a short citation, you have reinstated it but I do not understand you edit comment "It linked to something but got knocked out when I added another Hofschroer book, I could only get it in out of place as this" what does it mean? -- PBS (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what happened. I tried to add Hofschroer 'German Victory' to the Reference list, I thought, but kept getting problems with 'Smallest Victory' seeemed like one or the other wouldn't show up when all 3 were in ref list. Maybe I just was doing it in 'Books' section by mistake. But I only added the one ref to article for 1999 book I see there are others but I'm not sure they weren't for 'Smallest Victory'. Looking back in the hist I see it was always German Vict. so maybe I was just editing the wrong section and ended up fixing a ref that never was. lolol. I'm still confused about it.Tttom1 (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I am still confused by you answer, if the book you inserted is not need then please self revert the edit that last inserted it. Did you intend to add the "Hofschröer 1999, p=86" as an inline citation and should it link to The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory (volume 2)? -- PBS (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes that was reef intended, then perhaps I scrolled down past ref to further reading and that's where the confusion came in. I'll revert.Tttom1 (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Are Siborne Letters a Primary source?

See in the archive Archive 11 § Letters

This paragraph relies on what appears to be primary sources, see: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - Siborne's, (a participant in the battle) letters - from 2 books that are collections of his letters and uses them to put forth Original Research OR to contradict appropriate secondary sources - as it clearly states in the opening sentence: "Many popular histories suggest". Can we have some additional discussion from other editors working on this article as to how to improve this section and get it to meet WP policy?

"Many popular histories suggest that the British heavy cavalry were destroyed as a viable force following their first, epic charge. Examination of eyewitness accounts reveal, however, that far from being ineffective, they continued to provide valuable services. They counter-charged French cavalry numerous times (both brigades),[76] halted a combined cavalry and infantry attack (Household Brigade only),[77][78][79] were used to bolster the morale of those units in their vicinity at times of crisis, and filled gaps in the Anglo-allied line caused by high casualties in infantry formations (both brigades).[80][81] This service was rendered at a very high cost, as close combat with French cavalry, carbine fire, infantry musketry and—more deadly than all of these—artillery fire steadily eroded the number of effectives in the two brigades.[p] At the end of the fighting the two brigades, by this time combined, could muster one squadron.[82]"

Not just 'Popular' histories but historians state their views on what happens subsequently to the British HC, reliable sources should be added for NPOV here. Other suggestions?Tttom1 (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a little pointless as the section now has 3 references from undoubted secondary sources, in addition to the Siborne letters. The Sibourne letters were requested by Capt. Siborne from eyewitnesses to the battle some decades after the event (in the 1830s). They were intended to be used in constructing a diorama of the battle. Very many years later, Siborne's son, General Siborne, edited the letters and had them published. As a source of information they are second to none and any description of the battle would be the poorer for not using them. I do not think that a published and edited collection of letters, available for over a century, is considered as a primary source in academia - it is not as though anyone has personally inspected collections of manuscripts. Siborne senior also wrote a book, not a collection of edited letters a history, and this is what is shown as Siborne 1990 (when a reprint appeared). Incidentally, Hamilton-Williams' book has has been severely criticised for inaccuracies and Barbero is not without errors. tttom Don't fret, I can load this section with other references, just wait [User:Urselius|Urselius]] (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hardly pointless unless you want to retain the OR. They are primary sources as are Paget's letters also, the editor who did this section initially (and if its you - please don't take offense - I'm trying to keep it in the article) used the statements from participants' letters (primary sources - British officers btw hardly impartial) to refute a number of secondary sources and statements by reliable historians, of which we have added 3 so far - there are probably more. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." and : Wikipedia:No original research "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.[ Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." It doesn't make a difference that Barbero made an error somewhere except that you may be implying that based on the OR in this paragraph Barbero is wrong about the destruction of the Union Bgde - which is really not relevant. I look forward to your load of secondary sources, like Chandler, Barbero, Hofschorer supporting Siborne.Tttom1 (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Biographies - like Anglesey's about his ancestor the 1st Marquess (Uxbridge) - are secondary sources, just like any other. The book is primarily a biography with letters embedded in it, not a collection of letters. Both of the citations of this work that I have used refer to authorial comment, not to the content of letters. Biographers, like historians, use primary sources, so all legitimate material is ultimately dependant on primary sources. We cannot have a paper-chase scenario to make all primary source material embedded in secondary works inadmissible - even Hamilton-Williams makes use of quotations. I have over a hundred Napoleonic War books, so the number of citations may be extensive. Urselius (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

All the essential assertions in the disputed passage are now supported by multiple references to works other than Siborne's Letters from Waterloo. The level of citation is now greatly in excess of Wikipedia requirements or aspirations. If you care to, you may remove all references to Siborne's Letters (but not Siborne's History) as all assertions are adequately referenced independently of them. Urselius (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Nicely done, good work. Now we can keep Siborne because: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. and now the article has them.Tttom1 (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Text–source integrity and other things

@Tttom , since my last edit you have made a number of edit which are causing me concern of Text–source integrity and adding text without citations into a fully cited article.

The first one concerns the lack of citations. There was a paragraph which started "In the mean time, d'Erlon's men began to ascend the slope." It has been replaced with 2 paragraphs the first as which "D'Erlon's men ascended..." which contains a lot of information and not one citation. All the facts in the paragraph needs citations.

Will get to that eventually.Tttom1 (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem of Text–source integrity occurs several times. This occurs because a sentence is added to a paragraph and given a citation. But because the paragraph is cited with one citation at the end, the sentences preceding the inserted sentence no longer carry the correct citation -- a breach of Text–source integrity. The first example of this is "More than 20 years of warfare ..." the citation at the end of the paragraph needs duplicating and put at the end of the sentence that ends "...unlike the infantry had scant experience of warfare."

Moved Grant statement to end of Para to eliminated possible, but unlikely, confusion.Tttom1 (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a rewrite of

  • "The Inniskillings routed the other brigade of Quoit's division, and the Greys destroyed most of Nogue's brigade, capturing the eagle of the 45th Ligne."

to

  • "The Inniskillings routed the other brigade of Quoit's division, and the Scots Greys came upon the lead French regiment, 45th Ligne, as it was still reforming after having crossed the sunken road and broken through the hedge row in pursuit of the British infantry. The Greys captured the eagle of the 45th Ligne"

This was done without a change in citation. Is this information contained in the original citation (Barbero 2005, pp. 198–204)?

I'm using the paperback ed, but I believe it is as its in paperback p154-155.Tttom1 (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"and destroyed most of Grenier's brigade" was added to the text without a citation, so a citation is needed, because at the moment looks as if this is supported by the next citation (Barbero 2006 p. 155).

changed to 'overwhelmed Grenier's Brigade and added ref.Tttom1 (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The movement of the sentence "A counter-charge, by British light dragoons under Major-General Vandeleur..." from its original position effects the Text–source integrity of the paragraph from which it was removed. As it now looks as if 2The Union Brigade lost heavily in both officers ..." is not in part supported by (Barbero 2005 pp. 219–223) and it is not clear if the sentences that were moved was or was not impart supported by (Siborne 1990 pp. 329,349) Is this correct?

"French tirailleurs occupied the dominant..." There is no citation for this paragraph.

Now cited: "Barbero 2006 239"Tttom1 (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"During this time many of Wellington..." There is a citation for the stuck watch quote but it is not clear if that is meant to cover the first sentence of the paragraph.

additional cite added.Tttom1 (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to delete anything but lets assume for the moment that I have deleted the additional text and reverted moves of all the text mentioned, so that the burden falls on you to add adequate citations for the changes. -- PBS (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hope this suffices for now to allow for continuing to improve this article, because it needs work e.g. this earlier cite seems wrong: name="WellingtonCavalry">Barbero 2005, pp. 85–187. as it covers over 100 pages.Tttom1 (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
While we're on this subject I see some long standing paragraphs with no citations at all: "Napoleon, with the reserves..."; "Fighting continued around..."; "Wellington's infantry responded..."; "Maitland's 1st Foot Guards,...". Should these be tagged, or deleted? Other Paragraphs have end cites or cites within that don't seem to cover the entire para's info: "The French army of around 69,000..."Tttom1 (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If you are using a different edition of Barbero you ought to add it to the references section and cite the pages from that edition. If you edition and the edition cited are the same year then to get around that add a letter to the end of the year eg if they are both 2005 add year=2005b to your edition in the references section and then include that year (2005b) in the short citation.
I added paperback edition immediately when I started to edit the article.
One has to understand where an article like this comes from. There were four citations on this article back at the end of 2006 by the end of 2007 it carried about 130 citations. The text had not changed a lot but the article was much more reliable because of the added citations. This was done because of a general switch in Wikipedia to put more emphasis on quality rather than quantity (see Wikipedia:100,000 feature-quality articles from around that time) Part of that quality over quantity was insisting that information was supported in third party sources (citation).
I have been editing for many years on WP and have added cites to numerous uncited or inadequately cited articles. However this article is being improved with good faith edits Wikipedia:Assume good faith on my part, following Wikipedia:Be bold WP policy and others.
I suspect "Barbero 2005 pp. 85–18 is a typo it is probably meant to be "Barbero 2005 pp. 185–187" but if you have a an edition of that book you should be able to either verify it or fix it.
Its not my cite and it probably is 185-187 but I don't have that edition so can't verify, if you can you should.
The easiest way to incrementally improve the sourcing of an article is to challange all new information added to the article so that it is only added with citation to reliable sources, over time more and more of the article will then become fully cited, then when what is left of the original text that still contains no citations those can be added. WP:V insists that "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable" and WP:PRESERVE "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a 'finished' article, they should be retained". The facts that are not cited need citations added in the long run, but most of the information that is not supported by inline citations is stuff that is widely known (verifiable), so there is no reason to remove it. New information added to this article tends to be details and it is very likely that such details are not so widely know. Ie it is easy to write a stub article "In 1815 the Duke of Wellington Anglo-British army defeated Napoleon's French Army at the Battle of Waterloo" as just about everyone in the English speaking world know know that much even if they got it from Abba. The devil citations as they say is in the detail. So if you think that paragraphs like "Napoleon, with the reserves..." (initially added back in August 2007), Fighting continued around..." (Feb 2007 -- actually the note contains a citation which seems to cover the first half of the paragraph), "Wellington's infantry responded..." (Sep 2007) etc, needs a citation then the obvious thing to do is add an inline "citation needed" template to the end of the paragraph with a hidden comment "for all of the paragraph" to make it clear it is not just the last sentence in the paragraph that needs a citation. -- PBS (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems there is something of a contradiction here. If a paragraph has an ending cite that covers what was previously said it cannot exclude the addition of new verified information. If something has to go - since the expanding of verifiable information is a primary goal of WP - its the cite that locks out adding new verified information, not the other way around. I have retained appropriate content even though it has to be rearranged because of new verifiable information. As to those uncited paragraphs, they can be tagged, or deleted as editors see fit. The point was they are there and have been there without this sort of discussion about reverts.
Beyond that, the article, whether it has previously met the WP criteria for GA or not, needs work both in information, NPOV and style. For example, when its said in the lede that Waterloo was "the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life" (and I agree with this cited stement) this has to shown to be in the rest of the article - that's where my edits are going and both Barbero and Hofschroer, as sources, can make this a more accurate of the closeness of the battle and a less biased account of Waterloo.Tttom1 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think we are talking past ourselves about citations and paragraphs. Let us take a paragraph that consists of two sentences.

"The girls came from Liverpool, England. They both had dark hair.source a"

Let us suppose a new pharse is added

"The girls came from Liverpool, in north-west England.source b" They both had dark hair.source a"

Let us suppose that source b is an atlas type source not one about the girls. We have now lost text–source integrity. This can be fixed so:

"The girls came from Liverpool,source a in north-west England.source b" They both had dark hair.source a"

So the original citation at the end of a pragraph does not "lock out adding new verified information" into the paragraph, it is just that if information is inserted into text that is supported by citations, care must be taken with the placement of old citations so that text–source integrity is not lost. The other way this can be done is

"The girls came from Liverpool, in north-west England.source a;source b They both had dark hair.source a"

or

"The girls came from Liverpool, north-west England. They both had dark hair.source a;source b"

It depends on exactly what is being inserted where, and what the editor considers the best solution, but which ever solution is chosen it can not be

"The girls came from Liverpool, in north-west England.source b" They both had dark hair.source a

as that looses text–source integrity. In a similar way if the same paragraph exists in a paragraph without a source:

"The girls came from Liverpool, England. They both had dark hair."

If source b is added then there also needs to be a citation needed so that it is clear that source be does not cover the girls:

"The girls came from Liverpool,[citation needed] in north-west England source b They both had dark hair."

-- PBS (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

My edits are good faith edits and are improving the article, in most cases expanding and elaborating statements already made, nor contradicting them, and not specifically cited that I can tell. But, to follow your line of reasoning: If I add to: "The girls came from Liverpool, England. They both had dark, wavysource b hair.source a"its ok because it is about the girls?Tttom1 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I think what I have been doing is this which is ok: The sun is pretty big,[1] but the moon is not so big.[2] The sun is also quite hot.[3] and not this:
The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big.[1] The sun is also quite hot.[2] - from WP:INTEGRITY.Tttom1 (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


Mindful of what you said above and your example I checked on the work I did on this paragraph -
Before my edit & cite the para read so:
Some 20,000 French troops had been committed to this attack. Its failure cost Napoleon not only heavy casualties – 3,000 prisoners were taken – but valuable time, as the Prussians now began to appear on the field to his right. Napoleon sent his reserve, Lobau's VI corps and two cavalry divisions, some 15,000 troops, to hold them back. With this, Napoleon had committed all of his infantry reserves, except the Guard, and he now had to beat Wellington not only quickly, but with inferior numbers.[76]
Nice, short with a cite at the end that indicates it covers the paragraph just like the other paras.
Thinking 3,000 prisoners was a lot out of the 3 brigades starting with maybe 6,000. I had looked around and I had changed it to this when I found Barbero's more conservative 2,000 captured:
Some 20,000 French troops had been committed to this attack. Its failure cost Napoleon not only heavy casualties with over 2,000 prisoners taken,[103] but valuable time, as the Prussians now began to appear on the field to his right. Napoleon sent his reserve, Lobau's VI corps and two cavalry divisions, some 15,000 troops, to hold them back. With this, Napoleon had committed all of his infantry reserves, except the Guard, and he now had to beat Wellington not only quickly, but with inferior numbers.[104]
since you have an issue with this sort of citing I thought I could easily check this, since I'm also working from Hofschroer and happen to have that edition, and if I've disturbed the Text–source integrity of the para it would be probably simple to fix. It turns out that Hofschroer 1999 p.122 not only doesn't cover this para, it doesn't even support the sentence it follows beyond mentioning Lobau's name. Can you indicate which paras in article have cites covering the entire para?.Tttom1 (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@Tttom1 you wrote But, to follow your line of reasoning: If I add to: "The girls came from Liverpool, England. They both had dark, wavysource b hair.source a"its ok because it is about the girls? No it is not OK because the citation "a" at the end now only covers the word hair (and presumably that they are girls but possible not that they are from Liverpool). If you want to imply that both of them cover that they come from Liverpool you would be better to place both citations at the end as what you are producing is a combined summary of both citations. "The girls came from Liverpool, England. They both had dark, wavy hair.source a;source b"
As to your question. I was in favour of placing citations before full stops if the citation only supported a sentence, and after the full stop if it supported the text from the start of the paragraph (or the text from the last citation), but that was a battle I long since lost at WP:MOS and WP:CITE, so I am no more able than you to tell if a citation supports the whole paragraph or just the last sentence of the paragraph. But as a fail safe assume it covers the paragraph. If someone such as you has the source then you can verify it and change it as appropriate including using {{citation needed}} where appropriate, before just the sentence covered by the source. -- PBS (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I think assuming a source covers an entire para is contrary to the whole idea of citations and editing. Personally, I think the opposite should be assumed that the citation covers only that one sentence unless there is an indication in the citation that it covers the whole para. With hundreds of possible sources for a subject like this ( I think there are nearly 60 entries now in the bibliography) it is beyond any editor's ability to check them all in order to edit. The use in this article of this style of reference makes it difficult, but not impossible, to give more clarity in the reference beyond a page number and it is the brevity of the citation style that clouds the intent and extent of the citation. Citations are supposed to clarify and support, not obscure and lock out. I found one para, so far, where I could figure out that the cite covered the whole para: Throughout the late afternoon, Zieten's I Corps..., I checked that page and was surprised to find an essential statement omitted. I added statement and then added to the cite so: Hofschröer & 1999 paragraph inclusive, p. 125. A bit awkward perhaps but better than having to guess, or assume, or buy 60 books.Tttom1 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Tttom you write "I think assuming a source covers an entire para is contrary to the whole idea of citations and editing." -- this statement is contrary to common practice. It was long ago agreed that placing a citation on every sentence was not desirable, and that it would be assumed that a citation covers everything since the start of a paragraph or the last citation/{{citation needed}} which ever comes first. If you do not agree with this statement then please ask at either the reliable sources notice board or WT:CITE and check what the consensus is. Otherwise assume good faith and accept that a citation covers everything since the start of a paragraph or the last citation/{{citation needed}} which ever comes first. Obviously if you find something is not covered by a citation then add a citation that does but add the previous citation to the rest of the paragraph to maintain text–source integrity. -- PBS (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I hear you and I see some of your contributions to this discussions. I'll work with this as best I can. I see the solution I suggest - adding paragraph inclusive - as a simple solution that is not misleading, or confusing, and saving a lot of effort to check some statement. Do we also assume a cite after 2 or 3 paragraphs covers all paragraphs?Tttom1 (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a problem with this reference's isbn: Hofschröer, Peter (1999), 1815: The Waterloo Campaign. The German Victory 2, London: Greenhill Books, ISBN 978-1-85367-368-9, the last # is 9 but the last # shown in my 1999 hard cover is 4 and its also 4 on amazon for the paperback. I'm also finding that some of the cites to this don't match pages given.Tttom1 (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, isbn 13 is 9 isbn 10 is 4 (they don't show 13 in actual book). So this is the same edition, however some cites are not matching up to the hard cover, which they apparently should.Tttom1 (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Do we also assume a cite after 2 or 3 paragraphs covers all paragraphs?" No the end citation only covers from the start of the most recent paragraph or the last citation—which ever comes first. Indeed that is a problem when someone splits a paragraph and does not copy the end citation up to the end of the first paragraph so that both paragraphs are covered. This is by extension why old articles with general references get {{no footnotes}} added to them. -- PBS (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple sources

It is vital that the article remains multiply sourced for all major assertions and that any disagreements between sources are highlighted. Older sources tend to be infected by jingoism and newer sources by bias and the need of authors to sell books by being controversial. Hamilton-Williams' hobby-horse was the underestimation of the Dutch-Belgian contribution, and some of his assertions were demolished by Hofschroer. In turn Hofschroer's axe-grinding was that virtually everyone on the field of Waterloo who wasn't French was German, and that Wellington was a duplicitous liar in his dealings with Blucher. These assertions have also been successfully challenged, at least in the greatest part, by other experts. Great care is needed, don't rely overly on one source, especially concerning analysis. Urselius (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I recently heard a book review on the BBC world service of some of the books already published in anticipation of the 200 anniversary year of the Battle of Waterloo, it included a review of the non fictional account of Waterloo History of Four Days, Three Armies and Three Battles by Bernard Cornwell (the author of the Sharpe series), to the best of my recollection, one of the reviewers mentioned that there have been more publications (articles, books, etc) about the Battle of Waterloo than there have been days since 18 June 1815, in which case we have plenty of books and papers to choose from! -- PBS (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Just started reading Hamilton-Williams, (one penny on Amazon) his introduction explains the problems with Siborne, as a reliable source, quite fully.Tttom1 (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hofschroer, however, took apart many of Hamilton-Williams' assertions in a rather vituperative campaign, only in turn to have many of his own assertions similarly treated by others at a later date. Hofschroer supported Siborne's veracity, but claimed that Siborne was leant on by Wellington himself to minimise the role of the Prussians at Waterloo. You may be able to search out the remnants of both slagging-match campaigns fossilised online. Don't believe everything you read! Given his extensive correspondence with officers present at the battle Siborne remains a hugely important source for the battle, however, he is only entirely reliable when commenting on British and KGL matters. Even his largely derogatory treatment of the Dutch-Belgian contribution is an accurate representation of the opinions of the British and KGL officers he corresponded with, it should be said. He did not distort the expressions of these officers. Urselius (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
There are many in Germany that hold to this day that Wellington sucked the Prussian army into a fight that would have no help from the British so it is not surprising that Peter has that opinion as well. His failing, note that Peter and I are friends over decades, is that he attributes to ill will what I would lay to operational incompetence. While the Duke was competent his staff was sorely lacking, something he alluded to. British material wealth covered up much of this but could do nothing for over disbursed formations and poor intelligence. What Peter brings to the party is far more important In that he allows the reader to build and understanding of how every possible reserve of the French were ruthlessly drawn away by the Prussian advances. He also allows the reader to build up a picture of how the General Staff pulled together a better intelligence picture. He allows a view of how the staff organization could react across the entire army, readjusting, reorganizing, and redirecting. Peter's books allow views that were never available to English readers till then. I used Chesney's book as a counter foil to check against Peter's books. I found the three books invaluable.Tirronan (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I think logically the argument of Wellington suckered Blucher to fight at Ligny falls on its face for 2 logical reasons. First, why would Wellington want to conspire or knowingly blunder to get Blucher to fight alone and get destroyed- meaning Wellington would run for his life with his army all the way back to Antwerp to avoid destruction. Secondly; the Prussian commanders blundered too. Aside from the fact Wellington did lie in pretending his army was assembled and coming up fast enough to join with Blucher nearby and maybe even directly, Blucher's army was already positioned and fixed for battle - even if at that point Wellington told the truth and stated he would be unlikely able to help, the Prussians themselves had already decided to commit to a major battle.As a liaison officer Muffling should have investigated the facts for himself to see where the Duke's assembly of troops was really at on June 15th/ early 16th - he would see no Allies but the outnumbered Netherland's army units at Quatre Bras were anywhere near the Prussians at 2pm on the 16th June. Ihave a question; in light of Hofshroer's recent mysterious-*circumstances, did he make it to the Waterloo 200 celebrations in 2015. It seems curiously strange to me it was at that time the sky was felled on him.02:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Joey123xz (talk)

Numbers

The numbers are wrong according to French historian Thierry Lentz ("Waterloo. 1815", Perrin, 2015) Napoleon had 120.000 men and Wellington had only 14.000 british among his anglo-dutch troops... Madame Grinderche (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

British: 15,181 infantry, 5,843 cavalry and 2,967 artillery. KGL (paid and raised by the British state): 3,301 infantry, 1,997 cavalry and 526 artillery. Siborne 1990 reprint. Napoleon's army was also fighting at Wavre on the same day and had lost men at Ligny and Quatre Bras earlier. If he started out with 120,000, he certainly did not have that number with him on the field of Waterloo. Urselius (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Mangled sentence

The Guards first received fire from some Brunswick battalions but the return fire of the Grenadiers [???] and forced them to retire.

MaxEnt 01:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

British strength at the start of the battle and British casualties

  • Wellington, Arthur Wellesley Duke of (1838), Gurwood, John, ed., The Dispatches of Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington, K.G.: France and the Low Countries, 1814-1815, J. Murray, p. 485–487

Here is a link to some numbers from the official reports on the battle. A couple of points. It is interesting to note that these figures are described as the British and Hanoverian Army (not armies). Also something worth footnoting in the article battle box next to the Allied missing "The greater number of the [British and Hanoverian] men returned missing had gone to the rear with wounded officers and soldiers, and joined afterwards. The officers are supposed killed".

-- PBS (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ferme de la Papelotte

I recently came across a useful template called {{ill}}. Here is an example of its use: I have just come across a small article article Papelotte. Would someone to translate Ferme de la Papelotte and port it? The French article also includes a navigation template that includes some other small articles on various other locations and monuments around Waterloo. -- PBS (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sack of potatoes

With regards to this deletion by me: A well know term for any one who has learnt to ride a horse "Sit up straight you look like a sack of potatoes!". -- PBS (talk)

The hat of 'Napoleon' was ridiculously large also, as well as being historically inaccurate. Urselius (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

New sentence

"The bicentenary of Waterloo has prompted renewed attention to the geopolitical[178] and economic[179] legacy of the battle and the century of transatlantic peace which followed."

I'm not sure that this sentence should stand as it is now. It effectively ends the analysis of the battle on how it affected the USA economically. I think that this is an overly America-centric a way of ending an article on a major European battle, one that the US did not participate in. I also think that the effect of Waterloo on the War of 1812 was very indirect, the major reason for the end of that war was not Waterloo, it was the military failure of the US forces to make any appreciable inroads into Canada, the disaffection of New England, and the failure of major British offensives against US territory. The second citation claims far too much for the effect of Waterloo on US economic history - the US, before it declared war on Britain, did very very well economically out of the Napoleonic War, US carrying trade increased by about four-fold due to Britain stifling the seaborne trade of Napoleonic-dominated continental countries. Urselius (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree partly: the sentence does indeed appear to be way too Americanocentric for the topic, but the idea it meant to convey is correct in so far as it is limited to the effects of the Concert of Europe and the Metternich system, and the international stability it created until the mid 19th century (and the post 1848 new Napoleonic France and it's international adventures in the Crimea, Italy, Mexico and the wars of 1866-1870). I think it should be altered to reflect that. -- fdewaele, 4 June 2015, 11:57 CET.
I have no problem with the first citation and with the long-term political and economic effects of Waterloo being highlighted. But the fact that the USA had almost a century of peace with the European powers (remember the Spanish-American War) had much more to do with the internal dynamics of the USA and the fact that it had no, or very limited, conflicts of interest with the European nations, than with the outcome of Waterloo. As such, references to "transatlantic peace" should be removed. At least from this very prominent location. Urselius (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for not checking this page before editing the article (to restore my contribution which was almost immediately erased.) I am an experienced historian, but not very experienced at editing Wikipedia. I would have thought, however, that one might wait more than one day for a reply, before deleting an addition to article made in good faith.
I do not agree that the sentence is "America-centric." It does not even mention America. It IS Atlantic-centric, but the only objection I could see with that is that there is so very little on the purely European historical implications of the battle. Thus a statement about transatlantic peace might seem lopsided in comparison to the deficiency of commentary on the European effects. I can certainly agree that more deserves to be added on the longer term European aftermath (but this is not a good reason for deleting my added sentence). Where there IS a strong emphasis on America is in the two items referenced in the supporting footnote. Here again, though, it seems to me that more appropriate remedy there would be to ADD more examples from Europe rather than remove ones about America.
Finally, the sentence does not claim a direct and monocausal relationship between Waterloo and the century of transatlantic peace, and it is not -in my experience- a matter of serious dispute among professional historians that Waterloo marked the beginning of that century, or that the end of the Napoleonic period (at Waterloo, and through the Congress of Vienna and Concert of Europe) were significant factors (among others) in launching and sustaining that long period of peace.
As for the location of the sentence being a "prominent position," this seems an odd complaint indeed. Where else than under "Historical Importance" should an important historical implication go? Drewkeeling (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have issues with the assertion that Waterloo had any real effect on transatlantic peace - this has more to do with the article used as a reference and support, than with the sentence itself. Transatlantic peace owed much more to the results of the Seven Years' War, which ended Anglo-French rivalry in N. America, and the American War of Independence, which created a power in N. America independent of Europe. Subsequently, Britain had no active interest in reconquering the 13 states, and France was entirely concentrated on Europe - if the US had not declared war in 1812 the 'transatlantic peace' would have endured from 1783 onwards. However, as an aside, reference to 'transatlantic peace' would not be objectionable, if it were embedded in a good-deal of information on the results of the battle that were more direct and of greater importance. At present it is too prominent, its position in the text suggests that many thousands of non-Americans died violent deaths just to give the USA peace and an economic boom. Urselius (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The sentence certainly does not suggest "thousands of non-Americans died violent deaths just to give the USA peace and an economic boom." Wars, like many historical events, do have unintended consequences, and this is a good example of such, but the USA is not even mentioned in the sentence.
Nevertheless, in a post-1815 cooperative vein, I propose the following:
1. I will modify "transatlantic peace" to "relative transatlantic peace." This acknowledges minor exceptions like the U.S. War with Spain, and more importantly is a more precise and pertinent way of putting things. After Napoleon's final defeat, nothing comparable again convulsed Europe as a whole, and the North Atlantic, until the First World War.
2. As time permits, over the next few days, I will (a) add an additional sentence on Europe-only historical implications, (b) add a Europe-only example to those already in the footnotes of my existing sentence, and (c) also add an additional footnote reference specifically documenting the historical importance of North Atlantic-wide relative peace between 1815 and 1914, and the crucial role of Napoleon's demise in making such relative peace possible. Obviously, much more could be added to this short "Historical Importance" section, but I hope we can all agree that adding regionally balanced additional content supported by additional footnoted references is a positive move in the direction of more coverage.
3. I think the "relevance" and "disputed" tags should come off. Legitimate concerns about overweighting effects outside Europe, compared to impacts within Europe, are not really a "dispute" about the "relevance" of either. If the real function of such tags is to air concerns here on the talk page and try to resolve them, then it seems to me that this discussion and steps 1. and 2. meet those objectives adequately. Drewkeeling (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

We should, at the very least, have mention of the restoration in Europe of reactionary governments, the suppression of liberal and democratic ideas, the creation of Prussian political dominance in Germany and the preconditions for the emergence of Belgium as a sovereign state. Urselius (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Drewkeeling this article is already too large, and the battle is only one of several which really need to be seen as a whole. The place to put this type of cometary is in the Waterloo Campaign, not in the aftermath of this battle. -- PBS (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you suggest? At present the section ends on a, in my opinion, rather marginal issue. I thought that adding more material of greater import would dilute the effect. Urselius (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@PBS: I agree that this article is "large" (e.g. long), but is there such a thing as too long article at Wikipedia? There has been for some time a section on Historical Importance, and it would be very odd NOT to have that included. It is also true that there are a great many other articles relating to the Napoleonic period. The revisions that I am planning, in concurrence (I think) with Urselius, would add only two sentences to the Historical Importance section, which in my assessment would still make it rather too short in comparison to the rest of this article. Where I would agree with at least the spirit of your remark is that I think the section on Historical Importance should also include embedded links (or whatever they are called here) to a range of other Napoleonic Era articles, of which Waterloo Campaign would be one, but not more important (I would say less) than, for instance, Hundred Days, Napoleonic Wars and Portal:Napoleonic Wars. I can put at least these four, and probably more, into my two added sentences as soon as I have time to do them (maybe tomorrow). Please look the section over then for any additional minor modifications and augmentations which might suggest themselves.
Unless (until) there is (some day) a whole article focused just on the historical legacy, importance and long term effects of Waterloo, I think it would be a serious disservice to users for the historical importance section to be entirely eliminated from this article. And, again, as long as it is there at all, it should briefly outline key longer term effects and include links to other Wikipedia articles dealing with the broad historical context of the battle and of the Napoleonic Era brought to an effective close by it. Just to be clear: I do not believe that the absence of anything even close to the scale of the Napoleonic Wars from Waterloo until World War I (that century of relative peace) is a "marginal issue." I am not aware of any serious historian ever arguing that. Nor is it conceivable that the Monroe Doctrine, and peace ever since between America and Britain, could have happened as it did had Napoleon remained in power. I do, however, concur with Urselius's advocating adding items such as "reactionary governments, the suppression of liberal and democratic ideas, the creation of Prussian political dominance" to this section of the article, and am planning to include those in one of my two new sentences. Drewkeeling (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Update: Have now made the revisions to the Historical Importance section, as promised above. Drewkeeling (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


Size and organisation

See Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style.
So I put it to you that the best fit for information such as your addition is to the Waterloo Campaign article for two reasons. The first is size (that article is small). The second is that although this battle was decisive turning point in military terms, was not the campaign, and in many ways actions such as Wellington's Malplaquet proclamation, and the Treaty of Paris (1815), were also responsible for the long-term outcome of the fighting in 1815, therefore placing long term outcome analysis here is not as an appropriate as placing it in the Waterloo Campaign article, where a fuller and more balanced analysis of the long-term influences can be written incorporating mention of the other factors such as the two I have mentioned. -- PBS (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I would strongly object to parts of the battle being hived off into separate articles. A battle is, surely, a single event and entity and should be treated as such. Wikipedia does not have a page limit or printer's costs. Urselius (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree, you could split up the article when it is about large multiple day battles such as Wagram, Shiloh or Gettysburg, but a single day battle in this era, which is fought over a limited area/terrain, should remain in a single article. -- fdewaele, 8 June 2015, 10:00 AM (CET).
There are two good reasons for using a summary style when an article gets as large as this one. One is reader comprehension and the other is cost of downloads. Whether a battle is fought over one or more days is not really the issue. It really depends on the amount of detail which is to be added to the article. For example the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 account is about one and a half pages long (about 11k in size); while Sibourne's (just one history with a particular POV) account of this battle is just over 300 pages long at around 600k (both of those accounts are larger than the numbers I have given, but I have reduced the count to just the events covered in the Battle section of the current article). There has probably been more written about this battle than any other land battle in history, so there is a lot more detail that can be added.
At the moment the footnotes (not including the inline citations) amount the same amount of text as the EB1911 article on the battle! The short citations come to about 8k and the long citations to about the same. That means that nearly 30k of this taken up with notes on the battle before any text describing the battle is added. Now the citations are needed and the notes are useful, but that is a very large overhead to download for someone who is only interested in a EB1911 type account of the battle.
I think that this article should not breach the 100k mark, the current extra 50k allows for this article to be copy edited for balance and much of the details ought to be hived off into subsidiary articles. Thanks to the excess text the result would be a much more professional looking article with a reasonable balance. The subsidiary articles could then be expand for those who are interested in the details. -- PBS (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You can download the buggers? I never knew that - not that I'd want to really. No, I still like single bags - a bag called Battle of Waterloo should contain all the most relevant stuff regardless of size. Urselius (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I cannot speak to the particularities of Wikipedia guidelines and procedures, but as a historian I would point out that one does not need to agree with Simon Bolivar, who called the “consequences of Waterloo more important than those of any other event in the annals of the universe,” to appreciate that the reason the battle is still so famous today has as much to do with the long term legacy of its aftermath as with anything else. It marked a great turning point in European and global history, and the apex of that turning point was not the Waterloo campaign overall, nor Napoleon’s second abdication, nor his banishment to St. Helena, nor even the final promulgations of the Vienna Congress, but the battle itself. Readers looking for information on Waterloo's broader historical importance will, of course, come first and foremost to this article, and will only secondarily consult some tangent or complement to it. And, if this article is in some sense “too long,” then the “Historical Importance” section (at 210 words in length amounting to less than 2% of the whole article) is probably the LAST section of the article which should be shortened or moved elsewhere. This is not to say that one could not or should not add further links in this article to other Wikipedia articles (which might have additional, perhaps more in-depth or more detailed or lengthier, coverage of Historical Implications of the Napoleonic period more broadly and/or its aftermath), but such coverage elsewhere is not and would not be a good reason to completely remove such a vital part of this article. Drewkeeling (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

PC1

Given this edit I am turning on PC1 (Pending review from new and unregistered users) for the next week as views of this page is likely to peak with the 200th anniversary and with it so is vandalism of this sort. If there is a consensus expressed on the talk page here to remove the protection then I will do so, or if I am not available any other admin should do so.

-- PBS (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning of Braine-l'Alleud

From the history of the article.

  1. 15:06, 14 June 2015‎ PBS (rv to Revision as of 09:31, 14 June 2015 by Loginnigo. No need for such details about the train in the lead, in the lead. No need to mention the town of Braine-l'Alleud the municipality is enough or as it is for Lasne.)
  2. 17:08, 14 June 2015‎ Loginnigol (Mentioning the TOWN right next door is not a "detail" - it's basic accuracy. "Municipal" is vague and misleading for 2 reasons: it can mean anything from a busy place to an empty or even lake; & (2) municipal borders change eg. Lasne did not exist in 1815)
  3. 17:10, 14 June 2015‎ Loginnigol (rollback: 2 edits | undo | thank)
map 1

@user:Loginnigol please respect WP:BRD and do not press this until you have a consensus to do so. I have numbered the history list above so that they can be more easily discussed.

map 2

I think that the change number (3.) is not a good one. It is not important that the main road went through the "area". What is important, it is that it went straight through the the centre of the "battlefield".

map 3

Now to the bigger change you write "Lasne did not exist in 1815" but neither did Belgium -- the sentence is about now not what existed in the past but the location of the battlefield today.

map 4

"Mentioning the TOWN right next door is not a "detail" - it's basic accuracy." No it is not, the town did not play a significant part in the battle. If it did then please provide an English language source that states that it did.

The battlefield is in the municipality of Braine-l'Alleud of that there is no doubt, but no fighting took place in the town and stating it is in the two municipalities is a more accurate way of describing the location of the battlefield.

The article Braine-l'Alleud is about the municipality as is shown by the first sentence of the article: "Braine-l'Alleud (Dutch: Eigenbrakel) is a Walloon municipality located in the Belgian province of Walloon Brabant, about 20 kilometers[sic] south of Brussels". That it has location information in it that is almost the same as that for this battlefield article, indicates that for an English audience stating in this article "The battle took place just east of the town of Braine-l'Alleud," does not help locate the battlefield but instead informs the readers that the town exits. As I said above if you disagree then provide English language reliable sources that indicate that Braine-l'Alleud is considered to be significant for the battle.

-- PBS (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The source I provided for the mention of Braine-l'Alleud includes a mention from Mr. Scourneau [the town’s mayor] that the Lion Mound is in Braine-l'Alleud clearly he is talking about the municipality. As the article states "Mr. Scourneau said Braine-l’Alleud is fighting to get its fair share of tourism revenue that might elude it if it doesn’t get proper credit. The newly revamped battlefield site, he said, is expected to draw 400,000 visitors a year."
It also explains a bit more about the local politics:

Mr. Raxhon, the guidebook co-author, suspects some want to push Waterloo out of the picture. He deplored that a new battlefield visitors center inaugurated in May is named “Memorial 1815,” saying: “It almost feels like the battle has lost its name.”

Nathalie du Parc, who heads a group managing the new center and other battlefield sites, said the name made sense.

“We are in Braine-l’Alleud. Why would we name this memorial after the next town over?” she said. “You can’t ignore geographic realities.”

[and higher up the same article]

The squabble irks some regional officials. “This would be a tempest in a teapot if it wasn’t detrimental to the entire region’s image—Braine-l’Alleud’s included,” said Nicolas Martin, a member of the regional parliament who called the town’s actions “borderline childish.”

--PBS (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Commander Prince of Orange

I have edited the part of the commanders in which the Dutch commander Prince william of Orange is still neglected ( because of English historical writings in which the Dutch are fully neglected, here's an article why?; http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Waterloo_Cowards.html, the 17,000 Dutch troops were not directly commande by the Duke of Wellington, but the Prince also commanded British troops. English historical writings are always seen from the British eyse, in which British are superior and Dutch/Germans are not, so to write some true history, all commanders should be shown, and the Dutch fought for the Prince of Orange in their own country, namely the Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.109.161.95 (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The narrative of the article covers the presence and actions of Prince William in suitable detail. He is not included in the header infobox for a number of cogent reasons, none of which are concerned with nationalism.
Firstly William was the senior native-born officer of the army of the United Netherlands present at the battle, he was not the "Commander of the Army of the United Netherlands". This is an important distinction, the Anglo-allied army at Waterloo was commanded by the Duke of Wellington - this included all nationalities. Wellington also outranked William in the Netherlands Army itself, having been created a Field Marshal by King William.
Secondly, William was a corps commander. He commanded a corps including troops of Netherlands, British and other nationalities. Rowland Hill also commanded an identical corps. If William is included, Hill also must be included and therefore all the French corps commanders, of which there were about 9 or so, if also including cavalry corps, and finally the 3 Prussian corps commanders. This would make the infobox ridiculously large and overpopulated.
Ney is included for two reasons: he was made commander, along with Grouchy, of a wing of the French field army. This gave him control over corps commanders and he was therefore a de jure army commander. Additionally, at Waterloo Napoleon gave Ney control of all the forces attacking the Anglo-allied position, while Napoleon himself looked to the Prussian threat to his right. Only during the attack of the Guard infantry did Napoleon actively intervene in Ney's area of control. Therefore, Ney was also a de facto army commander. As such, Ney does not constitute a parallel for the treatment of Prince William. Urselius (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply;

Some additional information: Pronce William was made Commander in Chief and Inspector General of the Royal Dutch Army by Royal Decree 1 december 1813, so the information you provide is incorrect. If Wellington was the Chief of all nationalities, why is Blucher mentioned?

All corps commanders should be included because in all information boxex of the Second world war to the War on terror alls commanders are included, which leads to large and overpopulated info boxes so that can't be a reason.https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=War_on_Terror

The Prince of Orange was also made commander ( just like Ney ) of a wing of the Allied army. At Quatre Bras Wellington was having a party while the Prince of Orange commanded the troops which made im the jure commander;

But for the heroic determination of the Prince of Orange, who, with a handful of men dared to stand firm at Quatre Bras I would have taken the English army in flagrante delicto and would have conquered as (the Russians) at Friedland."

- Napoleon to de Montholon on St. Helen.

It's also important to point out that Wellington could not command Dutch?belgian troops because he didn't spoke Dutch, While the Prince of Orange spoke many languages.

Greetings--ArmTheInsane (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Prince William was commanding a mixed-nationality corps of the Allied army. This army consisted of two corps and a reserve, the reserve was commanded by Wellington directly. Prince William did not have corps commanders under his authority, therefore he was not the commander of a multi-corps wing, like Ney. Whatever William's status in the Netherlands army in theory, at Waterloo he did not act as "Commander of the Netherlands Army" or even as commander of the units of the Netherlands army present at Waterloo. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that Rowland Hill, the other corps commander, had many Netherlands troops under his command. Wellington had insisted that divisions, and sometimes brigades, from each of the main allied countries should be mixed, so that weak and strong elements be evenly distributed. King William was told by Wellington that he would not act as overall commander if the Netherlands army was kept separate. Wellington was the commander of all the nationalities in the Allied army (British (including KGL), Netherlands, Hanoverian, Brunswick and Nassau), the Prussian army was not part of the Allied army, it was a separate army, though the Prussian state was allied with all the others in the anti-Napoleon coalition. Overpopulated infoboxes are an unpleasant part of Wikipedia, they should not be encouraged, here or elsewhere. Urselius (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
[edit clash]
I think you have misread Urselius's sentence. Urselius did not say all nationalises just those in the Anglo-allied army.
Blucher was an independent commander of a Prussian army, just as other coalition armies had their own commanders eg Field Marshal Karl Philipp, Prince of Schwarzenberg commander of the 260,000 Army of the Upper Rhine (Austo-German Army). The Prince of Orange was a corps commander in Wellington's army and unlike Blucher and Schwarzenberg he did not have an independent command. However like other commanders at all sorts of levels, he could at times act independently of his chain of command if for some reason the units under him were detached from their main body. So there were times when it is correct to mention the Prince of Orange as a commander—for example at the Battle of Quatre Bras—but at the Battle of Waterloo he did not have independent command any more than any other Anglo-allied corps commander. If we were to mention corps commanders who did not have independent command then it makes the battle boxes less than clear for example Uxbridge was present at both battles and was supposedly second in command to Wellington (shudder), but we do not mention him because he did not take exercise independent command, and if we were to do so then the commanders who exercised independent command at Quatre Bras would be swamped with the same list that would appear in the battle box for Waterloo. However Uxbridge is mentioned as commander at the Action at Genappe (because he was exercising independent command), and at the Battle of Rocquencourt lieutenant Colonel Eston von Sohr is mentioned as the commander because his brigade was detached from his corps and to include his commander-in-chief (Blucher) and his corps commander (Pirch I) would he misleading.
As to the point about Wellington no being able to command Dutch/Belgian units that is not so for two reasons. Either he could issue them through an interpreter (aide-de-comp speaking both languages), but more likely he would issue written order to them in French in which he was fluent. I have seen no evidence that Wellington spoke German and that could have been more of a potential problem, but because of their ties to Britain many (most?) of those German officers would have either spoken English or (the lingua franca of the day) French, or both.
-- PBS (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps mention should be made that the Netherland's Army of 1815 was distinctly composed of Dutch, Belgian, and half the Nassau [ Saxe-Weimar ] troops present at Waterloo [ von Kruse Nassau contingent not part of the mix]. Joey123xz (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguity (under section French capture of La Haye Sainte)

The action described in this sentence deserves some clarification:

A Dutch-Belgian cavalry regiment ordered to charge, retreated from the field instead, fired on by their own infantry.

My question is, was this an incident of friendly fire or was this a deliberate, punitive measure ordered to stop the regiment deserting?Cloptonson (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole section is far too Barbero-centric for me, it essentially has only one source. Personally, I think Barbero's comments on the French artillery being brought forward en masse and on the supine nature of the Allied cavalry are carried too far. No other historian I know of has things quite as extreme at this point in the battle. I'm more than a little concerned about this matter Urselius (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

New articles

The Waterloo Campaign was a redirect. I have written a lead and copied a number of sections from the article Hundred Days to create the beginning of an article.

I have done this now because I have just completed a brand new article called Waterloo Campaign: Start of hostilities (15 June) it is based on text exacted from PD source:

  • Siborne, William (1848), The Waterloo Campaign, 1815 (4th ed.), Westminster: A. Constable

It has taken me much longer than I expected because of the need to update locations and the need to write article stubs both for the missing locations and for major actors. Most of the article is a blow by blow account of the campaign, but the sections "Wellington's earliest news and orders" and "Remarks on Napoleon's operations", may well need input from other sources, to present a balanced historical prospective.

It is my intention to add some other equally detailed articles to fill in the gaps between the battle articles, because at the moment the coverage of the campaign is very patchy.

-- PBS (talk)

Spell out what and where you need me to bail in and help and I will. Tirronan (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)