Talk:Battle of Carabobo

Wikiproject Venezuela

I'm looking forward to found the Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela. I had the idea of creating it when I first made the portal. The project will have the main objective of centrating efforts into a more complete information and a higher quality of the articles in Wikipedia, other media in the sister projects, and the portal itself.

However, the rules say that I should have at least five to ten members willing to integrate and contribute to the wikiproject. So if some of you guys want to join in, then leave me a message, or in this page. I will be back in a few days to see how things are going on.

Go to Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Venezuela and list yourselves if you wanna join. --200.90.58.191 06:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Grammar is horrible

There are so many grammatical errors, in this article, that it makes it so very difficult to read. The errors are such that I do not even know what the correction would be.

jptdrake (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Numbers don't add up

How can the royalists have less then 2,000 solders and more than 2,000 casulties?

--67.150.17.65 (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Carabobo. 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/20050526011204/http://www.prodi.com.ve:80/home/presentacion1.htm to http://www.prodi.com.ve/home/presentacion1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120015408/http://www.ifbt.co.uk/bolivar.htm to http://www.ifbt.co.uk/bolivar.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050526011204/http://www.prodi.com.ve:80/home/presentacion1.htm to http://www.prodi.com.ve/home/presentacion1.htm#
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050316031153/http://www.shagtown.com:80/days/venezuela.html to http://www.shagtown.com/days/venezuela.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Carabobo. 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/20140313014330/http://www.answers.com/topic/venezuela-battle-of-carabobo-day-event to http://www.answers.com/topic/venezuela-battle-of-carabobo-day-event
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prodi.com.ve/home/presentacion1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prodi.com.ve/home/presentacion1.htm%23
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shagtown.com/days/venezuela.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Controversy over the aggregation of the British Legion in the infobox

As Eastfarthingan does not start an adequate discussion on the subject of the British Legion, I will have to do it myself. However, I will revert the editions leaving them as they were before because there is a controversy and it cannot be imposed without first reaching an agreement.

He continued with the reason why the British Legion should not be in the infobox.

The British mercenaries were at the service of the revolutionary government, first of Venezuela and then of the Gran Colombia, and included within the army, they were not a separate military force. The separation that makes at the infobox is, therefore, incoherent, that does not respond to any reasonable logic, but only to a nationalistic caprice. --Muwatallis II (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I gave perfectly valid reasons for the inclusion of the British Legions. You keep avoiding discussions on my talk page. Also you were the one to delete British Legions 3 months ago which had never been an issue beforehand. It is bullet pointed to show they are included as part of that force since they have their own uniform, officers and flag.

In addition it is perfectly legitimate and coherant for them to be included; these articles: here & here and also here (& there are plenty of other examples) are prime examples. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

My edition was made a while ago and was not formally refuted, therefore, it must respect the edition, especially if its recent editions are controversial. If you want to validate your edition now, there are legitimate ways to do it, such as through consensus.

Each army corps has its own uniform, officers and insignia. It is not a valid argument to claim a separation. It would be the same as taking any other military corps of the army and making that incoherent separation. Your edition only responds to a nationalist desire. If their argument is the origin of the soldiers, the situation does not change, they are mercenaries and are included in the same army, they are not an entity apart from the military organization.

The examples given in other articles are useless. There are other articles of wars or battles in which mercenary units also participated and which are not included in the information table in a biased way. --Muwatallis II (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It was refuted.. twice. It was never controversial until you reverted the articles back in June. You have beeen involved in edit wars since.

I make examples and yet you are making an assumption by saying it's biased? Yet you have given no examples except your own opinion and you are accusing me of nationalism when it is yourself trying to whitewash due to nationalist desire. We will see what the administrators think and avoid an edit war. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It was not refuted by a formal discussion, only reversals, as you did at first.

Do you want examples? Here you have them:

The Blue Division: Siege of Leningrad - Battle of Krasny Bor

The King's German Legion: Battle of Venta del Pozo - Battle of Barrosa

The Irish Legion: Battle of Fuentes de Oñoro - Siege of Astorga

You are wrong to say that it is only my opinion. Previously, I already presented several discussions on the subject of mercenaries and there has been a majority opinion that states that they should not be added to the infobox. --Muwatallis II (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A formal discussion that has yet to to be finished with. You've given examples where the nation involved does not have its own flag. KGL used British colours & uniform, the Blue Divsion has a Nazi banner & uniform. The Irish Legion had a French banner & uniform. Completely different to the examples of these articles: here & here and also here for the reason why Britsh Legions should be in infobox. So therefore it is up to a consesus on the matter. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You started the controversy and in a bad way, imposing your idea unilateral, without respecting the previous edition. It is you who must ask for a consensus.

Since when did the argument of uniforms and flags prevail in the infobox? stop looking for useless reasons. The British Legion could have used traditional Japanese clothing and even then that does not change that they are mercenaries and that they are included in the same military organization. You make the separation for purely nationalistic reasons, and ignore a reality, the British Legion is not a belligerent, they are military units of the army, in the case of this article, of the Gran Colombia. --Muwatallis II (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That is the example I just gave you with the links, you have just ignored them & delivered your own opinion. The previous editions were untouched until you reverted the articles back in July without any explaination. Im trying to revert it back but instead you keep wiping it despite the evidence in hand. They are not usless reasons, they are perfectly valid. The British Legions had their own uniform and flags so the evidence there should be no argument at al.

Also another reason is that it is bullet pointed which reflects the fact they were part of the Army of Gran Colombia/Venezuela, again you seem to ignore this. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)