Talk:Ralph Abercromby

message: --In terrorem fidei defenso 02:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abukir 

message: Per the MOS, the article title is bolded. See WP:MOS#Article_titles: The first time the article mentions the title, put it in bold using three apostrophes — article title produces article title.  Do not bold "Sir", it is a title, not the title of the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:MOSBIO#Honorific prefixes, where a precisely analogous example (Dame Ellen Patricia MacArthur...) is shown. The title of an article does not always correspond to the bolded section at the beginning: compare James Garfield and James Abram Garfield. Choess 15:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, the style guide is inconsistant; the Policy always trumps the guide. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading the second sentence of my previous comment for comprehension this time, rules-lawyer. Choess 20:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold in first sentence

message: The defeat that Abercrombie suffered on the Island of Puerto Rico is missing from almost all of the history books written in England and or the USA.
: Well, at least part of the edit is correct. According to Military history of Puerto Rico, the Spanish/Puerto Rican forces numbered 16,000, while History of Puerto Rico says 7,000–13,000 British troops. According to regiments.org, he had four full regiments of infantry, five companies of the Black Watch, and the 26th Light Dragoons, operating dismounted, which suggests a muster towards the smaller end of the range. So Abercromby was at some disadvantage in numbers; the history of the Black Watch says "As the inhabitants of Porto Rico, who had been represented as favourable, did not show any disposition to surrender, and as the Moro or castle was too strong to be attacked with such an inconsiderable force, which was insufficient to blockade more than one of its sides, the commander-in-chief resolved to give up the attempt, and accordingly re-embarked his troops on the 30th of April." Choess 17:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't be too sure about jumping to conclusions from the 16,000 Spanish/Puerto Rican forces cited. The Military history of Puerto Rico page does not give reasonable references as to where this number comes from. I am part of the recreated Regimiento Fijo de Puerto Rico (look up groups.yahoo.com/group/puertorico1797 for the Spanish forum or puertorico1797.com for English), a historical reenactors group in Puerto Rico that precisely plans to reenact in San Juan in 2007 (in a much, much smaller version, of course) the events of 1797. Some of our members are extremely well informed on the details of this specific battle and they are also puzzled as to where this 16,000 number comes from. --RAMPG 01:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the majority of History of Puerto Rico. The troop figure I have is taken from Alonso, María M., The Eighteenth Century Caribbean & The British Attack on Puerto Rico in 1797 . The exact chapter is available online in this website, http://www.nps.gov/saju/14.html. Hope that helps. It must be noted that the troop count ranges from 7-13K. I do not remember exactly why I chose 7,000. Joelito (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the problem here is not with your page but with the total disregard of the event on this page (up until a few days ago) and the 16,000 Spanish/Puerto Rican forces cited in the Military History of Puerto Rico page and the lack of information as to where the number came from when the contemporary sources (as named by Negroni, et al) have it as less than half. And the known fact that the invading forces outnumbered the defenders at least 2 to 1 and probably 3 to 1. And worst of all the seeming intention of both mentioned pages of making it look as if the expulsion of the Abercromby/Harvey invasion by combined Spanish and Puerto Rican efforts was no big a deal. An obvious infraction of the NPOV policy or an inexcusable lack of historical rigor. Still, both pages stubbornly resist editing. --RAMPG 01:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You are citing from Alonso this: "Also, there are discrepancies in numbers of troops landed, Ramón de Castro mentioning seven to eight thousand, (15) Felipe Ramírez quoting eleven thousand(l6) and Father Rodríguez Feliciano from twelve to thirteen thousand. (17) (See Chapter XV. ) 
On seeing the size of the enemy force, the defending officers decided to retreat, Linares and Toro towards the Martin Peña bridge and Vizcarrondo towards the San Antonio bridge, in accordance with their orders."
But in the article you said the the Puertorican forces amounted to 16,000 [souls] and that was the reason for the defeat of the englishmen.  I beleive this is a POV on your behalf, because it is a very well history fact that the PR forces where outnumbered by the englismen; as is stated on the chapter that you copied, see: Also, there are discrepancies in numbers of troops landed, Ramón de Castro mentioning seven to eight thousand, (15) Felipe Ramírez quoting eleven thousand(l6) and Father Rodríguez Feliciano from twelve to thirteen thousand. (17) (See Chapter XV. ) On seeing the size of the enemy force, the defending officers decided to retreat, Linares and Toro towards the Martin Peña bridge and Vizcarrondo towards the San Antonio bridge, in accordance with their orders. 
The same citation that you use is the same that contradicts you.  So you better check that out if you are not willing to accept the editing of "your" article; because I would not rely much on Alonso.  When one gets toread the whole book, one gets this hard feelings that something is biased, for whatever reason that I don't care about; history is history.  General Ramon De Castro would not hade been promoted to Field Marshall if it was not for some extraordinary feat, such as kicking butt to a well armed force that outnumbered his own, and with the reputation that they had at the time,and the momentum the had after Trinidad, the piece of cake.--In terrorem fidei defenso 10:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You are confusing the articles. The one I mainly wrote is History of Puerto Rico where it is said "The British attempted again to conquer the island, attacking San Juan with an invasion force of 7,000 troops and an armada consisting of 64 warships[16] under the command of General Ralph Abercromby. Captain General Don Ramón de Castro and his army successfully resisted the attack.[17]" I do not talk about  the size of the Puerto Rican forces nor do I try to decide which was the reason for ther defeat. I believe you are talking about Military history of Puerto Rico. For that article you may wish to contact User:Marine 69-71 who is the main writer of that one. Joelito (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I do not know to whom is anybody answering but the point is that the information about the english attack to Puerto Rico in many ways is incorrect, and someone is not accepting editions to correct it. The efforts made by me and that of RPGM have rendered no results because of some thinktank.--In terrorem fidei defenso 10:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts of History 

message: The article, up until several days ago, totally dismissed the events of San Juan in 1797. This was not a simple "assault" as quoted in the text. This was one of the largest invading fleets ever assembled to invade Spanish territory; more than 60 ships and close to 9,000 men. And yet one has to wonder as to why an inconsequential "victory" as that of Abercromby's immense fleet in Trinidad is mentioned as being influential in his being rewarded " ... for his important services, (was) appointed colonel of the regiment of Scots Greys, entrusted with the governments of the Isle of Wight, Fort-George and Fort-Augustus, and raised to the rank of lieutenant-general." In Trinidad Abercromby's troops were offered no resistance at all; the local Spanish garrison and governor hid literally in the bushes.
Historian José Rigau Pérez cites a letter from a Charles Steward, a lieutenant who served under Abercromby, to an Alexander Leith Hay citing the events at San Juan 1797 as having been so ill conceived and executed that "it must have [been] planned at Winbleton by Billy (P.M. William Pitt?) and Harry after two bottles at least". This even when the British foot soldier and seamen were considered the best in the world at the time. Trafalgar, just a few years later, comes to mind.
The "assault" on Puerto Rico, in 1797, proved such a massive failure that British history has all but obliterated it from its history books. --RAMPG 00:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Billy and Harry" are probably William Pitt the Younger, Prime Minister, and Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville, Secretary of State for War. Choess 21:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct. --RAMPG 22:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV - More Bits of History 

message: This section is almost a verbatim copy paste from the great Irish historian W.H. Lecky, and reflects the moral outrage of a 19th century historian sympathetic to the Liberal Ascendancy interest, and not the non biased predelictions of a 21st century encyclopedia;
There he laboured to maintain the discipline of the army, to suppress the rising rebellion, and to protect the people from military oppression, with the care worthy of a great general and an enlightened and beneficent statesman. When he was appointed to the command in Ireland, an invasion of that country by the French was confidently anticipated by the British government. He used his utmost efforts to restore the discipline of an army that was utterly disorganized; and, as a first step, he anxiously endeavoured to protect the people by re-establishing the supremacy of the civil power, and not allowing the military to be called out, except when it was indispensably necessary for the enforcement of the law and the maintenance of order. Finding that he received no adequate support from the head of the Irish government, and that all his efforts were opposed and thwarted by those who presided in the councils of Ireland, he resigned the command. His departure from Ireland was deeply lamented by the reflecting portion of the people, and was speedily followed by those disastrous results which he had anticipated, and which he so ardently desired and had so wisely endeavoured to prevent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.196.177 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy paste from Lecky 

message: This article seems hugely biased, more a praise extracted from a book about the person than a neutral article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.10.215 (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROBLEM WITH NPOV 

message: "He commanded the relief column at the fateful action at Boxtel"
Why was the action at Boxtel 'fateful'? What does'fateful' mean in this context?
In addition, Abercromby's orders were to restore the allied outpost line at Boxtell, if he thought it feasible. There was no position to  relieve. The outpost troops had been captured.
JF42 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the fateful action at Boxtel " 

message: "After two weeks of fierce combat, which included prolonged artillery exchanges and even hand-to-hand combat, Abercromby was unable to overcome San Juan's first line of defence and withdrew. This was to be one of the largest invasions to Spanish territories in the Americas."
Having scanned the debate in the preceding section, I understand why this paragraph has been included. However, the wish to restore balance in relation to the British failure in Puerto Rico has produced a rather clumsy, compensatory passage, with its own hint of NPOV, that seems to protest too much.
What is so notable about "prolonged artillery exchanges" or, even, "hand to hand to combat"? Both these would be expected in an attempt to storm prepared fortifications. If the fighting was fierce, then that statment should surely suffice. Thus:
"After two weeks of fierce fighting, Abercromby was unable to overcome even San Juan's first line of defences and withdrew."
Secondly, what is the significance of the second sentence in relation to Abercromby's life, whether his force was "one of the largest invasions" or even the largest? This seems to be more a comment on -British?-  challenges to the integrity of Spanish territory in the Americas. If it is intended as a comment on Abercomby's generalship, I would suggest that a more straightforward discussion of this be added in a separate section.
Overall, to concentrate on this one unsuccessfull operation without setting it in the context of the successfull campaign  of which it was part, seems to be unbalanced; indeed more preoccupied with Caribean history than the biography of Abercromby. As is the reference to the Garifuna of St Vincent. These details are more relevant to the history of the respective islands than in an article on Sir Ralph Abercromby.
JF42 (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  After two weeks of fierce combat 

message: "Abercromby returned to Europe, and in reward for his important services, was appointed colonel of the regiment of Scots Greys; entrusted with the governments of the Isle of Wight, Fort-George, and Fort-Augustus; and raised to the rank of lieutenant-general."
This one-sentence paragraph reads oddly and contains some misrepresented facts. 'Important' is probably superfluous and is not colloquial English. The importance of Abercromby's services is implicit in the reward. 
The cavalry regiment known informally (until 1866) as the 'Scots Greys' was at this date known as the '2nd (Royal North British) Regiment of Dragoons.'
With regard to the  'government' of the Isle of Wight, Fort George and Fort Augustus, this also reads oddly, despite quoting, it would seem, from the 1806 'Life of Sir R. Abercromby.'  In each case this is a reference to the post of Governor, Abercromby in fact being appointed Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Wight, and Governor of Fort George and Fort Augustus(without hyphens).
JF42 (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abercromby returned to Europe 

message: The reference to 'mercenary soldiers' is not accurate. The British army, needing to expand rapidly at the start of the war with France, was supplemented with regiments formed of men recruited on the continent from French emigrés, Alsatians, Germans, Swiss, etc. They were embodied and paid as soldiers recruited in Britain.  What is the purpose of distinguishing these German (and other) troops from other troops in Abercromby's force?
There tends to be a pejorative value attached to the word mercenary, particularly in relation to foreign regiments, as well as foreign contract troops,  employed by Britain in the late C18th. Is that intended here?   In any case, it seems an unnecessary distinction.
JF42 (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  German mercenary soldiers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ralph Abercromby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170327030730/http://melitensiawth.com/incoming/Index/Melita%20Historica/MH.02(1956-59)/MH.2(1957)2/orig03.pdf to http://melitensiawth.com/incoming/Index/Melita%20Historica/MH.02(1956-59)/MH.2(1957)2/orig03.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The image of the building captioned: 'Kilwinning Lodge, Edinburgh' is actually the HQ of the Order of St John Scotland. See: https://www.stjohnscotland.org.uk/the-order/the-order-in-scotland I am not sure if I can, or should, remove the image?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericthearcher (talk • contribs) 09:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lodge Canongate Kilwinning, No.2 (Edinburgh). 

message: Hi, I'm happy to discuss the issue here. My thought process is that A) his rank is already in the infobox in the correct "rank" slot and repeating it is unnecessary (see this discussion) and B) I'm really not sure why he has "the right honourable". If you're able to explain why that's completely fine and it should be kept, but a brief look of my own didn't dig up any reason. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there! That is true; it seems to be subjective as per different articles. For instance, Horatio Nelson uses full prefixes and from my understanding, it is the modern-day officers’ articles that don’t use any prefixes. Rt Hon. comes from him being MP for Clackmannanshire.  Gaelicbow (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Governor-General of Trinidad also entitles him to be referred to as Right Honourable.  Gaelicbow (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

text: I'm not seeing where it says Rt Hon is for all MPs? Also, I haven't seen much precedent for that prefix in historical MP articles, especially considering he hadn't been an MP for 3 years at the time of his death. Re Nelson, his Rt Hon makes sense to me because it comes from his peerage; if I were a real pedant I would however try and remove the rank from the prefix. Not going through that hassle though! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Just saw your follow-up comment. Same query for that; does the position confer the honorific upon him even after he has left it? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prefix