Talk:British invasions of the River Plate

message: Canada is counted as a belligerent on the war of 1812 page, so then shouldn't Argentina also on this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.173.61 (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Argentina counted as a belligerent?

message: This is English Wikipedia. In English this is known as the River Plate, and British historical documents always refer to this as the River Plate. Please move this page back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portable (talk • contribs) 
:Please see Talk:Río de la Plata/name Mariano(t/c) 07:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know; but it is telling that the recent BBC story on the invasions calls it the River Plate. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: The title should be River Plate, instead of Rio de la Plata.
:You might think so; I could not possibly comment.  See Talk:Río de la Plata/name. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should be "River Plate"

message: Describing British discussions about the region as "British pretensions" is not a neutral statement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.61.27 (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: "British pretensions" is a POV title.  "Anglo-Spanish rivalry" was suggested as an alternative but simply dismissed. The context of a century of ANglo-spanish wars and the Napoleonic Wars was also reverted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.27.128 (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, I'm tired of this, so I won't try to explain things anymore. If you do not understand why Britain did not insist on the attacks despite of their military strength, I won't explain it to you. The section cites a reputed historian in a work about the British Invasions, with the exact tone provided here. Cite another reputed historian for any changes you propose, or the discussion will end here. Cambalachero (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure that there are historians who do not have a neutral point of view but this is Wikipedia where we are supposed to strive for it.  The wording "British pretensions" is a POV in itself. we do not need to quote historians at each other to know this.  The lack of any global context in the section is simply bad structure and results in a parochial POV. The lack of any comment about Free Trade in the section is also a shame, as you yourself must know.86.4.27.128 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide your reasons to consider Félix Luna a biased author, or the discussion will not continue. Cambalachero (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if he used "British pretensions" as the heading for a section this suggests he did not understand the subtleties of English or was biassed. Perhaps it is a linguistic mistake.  The discussion of the section heading is not about historical facts but about a word that is laden with spite.  Any native english speaker would pick this up - there is a comment on this page by someone else who noticed this. The content of the section is not disputed, the objection is that this content does not include the wider context.  The POV in the section is purely South American, the fact that there were global conflicts involving Britain and Spain is a crucial insight. 86.4.27.128 (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to understand your misgivings about my suggested edit. I have removed "pretentions" which is a pretentious title and changed it to "British interest in the region". I have removed the second mention of Napoleon and simply noted that there were six major Anglo-Spanish wars that alos excited British interest in the region - I have included a link so that the interested reader can explore this aspect of world history. 86.4.27.128 (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Check

message: The article has a section called "British pretensions".  I think this may be a problem with the author using "pretension" as "advancing a claim" when it is a sophisticated word that has a clear shading towards a rather slimy "wrongful claim", it is a "weasel word".  In this section it describes episodes of British planning extracted from a century of history without any indication that the 18th century was full of conflict between Britain and Spain. The section needs, at the minimum, a change of name and a qualifying sentence to provide balance. My suggestion is to replace the title of the section "British pretensions" with "Anglo Spanish Rivalry" and add the sentence given below:
Anglo Spanish Rivalry
The immediate cause of the Invasions of the River Plate was that Spain was allied to France from 1803 to 1808 during the global conflict known as the Napoleonic Wars in which Napoleon Bonaparte attempted to conquer Europe and gain global ascendancy. The hostility between the British and the Spanish in the 18th century was the result of the six Anglo-Spanish Wars from 1702 to 1783, most of which lasted for several years. 
Alternatively I would recommend cutting the section altogether because it contributes little to an understanding of why the British invaded then withdrew and never came back despite having a huge navy and army after defeating Napoleon.  
Please do not reply with "you are an idiot, you do not understand".  My whole point is that any reader coming to this page could not possibly understand given the information provided.  Without further explanation it looks like a POV is being put across. 86.4.27.128 (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, I'm tired of this, so I won't try to explain things anymore. If you do not understand why Britain did not insist on the attacks despite of their military strength, I won't explain it to you. The section cites a reputed historian in a work about the British Invasions, with the exact tone provided here. Cite another reputed historian for any changes you propose, or the discussion will end here. Cambalachero (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure that there are historians who do not have a neutral point of view but this is Wikipedia where we are supposed to strive for it.  The wording "British pretensions" is a POV in itself. we do not need to quote historians at each other to know this.  The lack of any global context in the section is simply bad structure and results in a parochial POV. The lack of any comment about Free Trade in the section is also a shame, as you yourself must know.86.4.27.128 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide your reasons to consider Félix Luna a biased author, or the discussion will not continue. Cambalachero (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if he used "British pretensions" as the heading for a section this suggests he did not understand the subtleties of English or was biassed. Perhaps it is a linguistic mistake.  The discussion of the section heading is not about historical facts but about a word that is laden with spite.  Any native english speaker would pick this up - there is a comment on this page by someone else who noticed this. The content of the section is not disputed, the objection is that this content does not include the wider context.  The POV in the section is purely South American, the fact that there were global conflicts involving Britain and Spain is a crucial insight. 86.4.27.128 (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to understand your misgivings about my suggested edit. I have removed "pretentions" which is a pretentious title and changed it to "British interest in the region". I have removed the second mention of Napoleon and simply noted that there were six major Anglo-Spanish wars that alos excited British interest in the region - I have included a link so that the interested reader can explore this aspect of world history. 86.4.27.128 (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of NPOV in [[British invasions of the Río de la Plata]]

message: There are some minor POV looking statements in the article. I wonder of over-reliance on the work of Luna might be at the root of this? Certainly it does seem some sections verge on single-sourced. Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (Note: I am fairly ignorant of the subject matter, and had not read the previous section when I wrote the above.) Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: POV and Luna

message: I do see some inflation in the number of Spanish soldiers, also account for the population in general who fought against the British??186.62.144.66 (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific, and supply reliable sources to demonstate it? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish (?) Soldiers Inflation

message: The official records of the time [National Archives|The National Archives (United Kingdom)] record WO 1/161 states only 300 troops were added to the force. This was due to the Ocean Transport being lost in a storm on the 21 April (later arrived safely). Reinforements were sent from England but arrived after the main force had been taken Prisoner of War. 
Rincewind 68 (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Helena Reinforcements 

message: was Tupac Amaru not defeated 20 years earlier in 1782? this would mean the regular army not being deployed to defend aginst him in 1806 and the first British invasion? Rincewind 68 (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tupac Amaru 

message: The fourth paragraph of the the Fist Invasion section starts with this sentence:
:The wealthy members of society were not pleased with the British arrival.
Then follows quote number 14:
::"The lack of identification with the Spanish government in Buenos Aires began to express itself on the friendly welcome extended to the enemy by ladies who, smiling, gave them welcome. Moreover, the 1 July, Sarratea Martin -father-in-law of Liniers- and his brother-in-law Leon Altolaguirre offered a reception to the British leaders, attended by Santiago de Liniers and his wife's brother-in-law Lázaro de Rivera."
Notice the non sequitur?
--Abulmiskafur (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non sequitur 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on British invasions of the River Plate. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.falklands.info/history/hist82article16.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://inmyrightmind.com/argentina.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on British invasions of the River Plate. 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/20100611062657/http://www.elhistoriador.com.ar:80/articulos/virreinato/invasiones_inglesas.php to http://www.elhistoriador.com.ar/articulos/virreinato/invasiones_inglesas.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611062657/http://www.elhistoriador.com.ar:80/articulos/virreinato/invasiones_inglesas.php to http://www.elhistoriador.com.ar/articulos/virreinato/invasiones_inglesas.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Both colours belong to the 1/71st Foot, the 1st battalion of the regiment: King's Colour  and Battalion's Colour. The 2nd battalion was a depot based in Scotland, not a fighting unit. BRITISH INFANTRY BATTALIONS CARRIED 2 COLOURS IN THE FIELD. And the original Battalion's Colour was buff, not white. The 71st's regimental facings (collar, handcuffs, lapels) were buff, not white. When the regimental facings were white or black, the white or black Battalion's Colour always included a broad red Saint George's Cross.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.89.51 (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Vid. 71st (Highland) Regiment of Foot.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.89.51 (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 2/71st Foot never left Scotland.