This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
War of the Fifth Coalition article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | War of the Fifth Coalition is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 14, 2009. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm beginning a major rewrite of this article, with aspirations of taking it to featured status. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! UberCryxic 00:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The article could use more references. Regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 15:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I just now added a request for citation for the Poniatowski caption's claim that he was the most famous Polish military figure during the Napoleonic wars. While I think the claim is true, it is challengeable and needs a source. Eubulides ( talk) 21:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Two of the leaders mentioned under 'commanders' never held a field command. Both Bavaria's king Max-Joseph and Saxony's king Frederick August were not commanders. Wurttemberg's King Frederick however, did command Cooalition troops during the anti-insurgent battles around Lake Konstanz. (ref. see Gill - With Eagles to Glory) -- ansbachdragoner ( talk) 02:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This appeared at the beginning of the "Fourth Coalition" section when I opened the article from the front page:
How Reliable a source is Wikipedia? by the time they alter this information, a college student has already mistaken his work. and has false information.
It's not in the article history anywhere (at least recently), didn't show up in the wiki text, and although it stayed there while going back and forth to the history page a few times, it disappeared after a full reload a few minutes later. What the hell is this?? KarlM ( talk) 08:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the Aftermath section, it says "The Austrian army would never field more than 150,000 men at a time for the duration of the Napoleonic Wars", but it's unclear how that relates to the war's aftermath. If it means that Austria never again fielded such a large force (because if I'm reading "Austrian preparations" right, the armies fielded in this war were larger than 150,000), then it should say so, and ideally explain why. Was it due to population losses, to lack of funds or political will, to recognition that bludgeoning the enemy with enormous armies was not the best strategy, or to some combination thereof, and how was it caused by this war? A. Parrot ( talk) 19:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Where is Joachim Murat in all of this? He is supposed to be the head of the reserve cavalry but instead we find Bessiers taking this role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This article makes no mention of the fact that Russia was technically obligated to assist France in the event of an Austrian breech of the peace, by way of the Treaties of Tilsit, and that a corps under the command of Sergey Fyodorovich Golitsyn entered Austrian territory in Galicia and occupied it at the expense of their former allies the Austrians, while also blocking the ambitions of their one-time Polish allies in the Duchy of Warsaw. The article does mention that a piece of the frontier was ceded to Russia at the end of the war, but does not explain why: this offensive of Golitsyn's is why.
http://www.cairn.info/revue-napoleonica-la-revue-2011-1-page-4.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Boland ( talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Currently this article promotes a dismissive point of view about the Peninsular War. Apart from barely mentioning the conflict, in the lead it states that:
Yet the number of French of soldiers and casualties in the Peninsular War indicates that for the French it was a major conflict.
And it continued as a major war into 1814. In the last year of the Sixth Coalition there were as many or more French troops facing Wellington in south west France as there were in north and east France to face the combined Coalition armies.
So I think that there should be an alteration to the lead, so that it does not dismiss the Peninsular war, and a section in the article summary style of the events that occurred on the Iberian peninsula during the years of the Fifth Coalition.
-- PBS ( talk) 23:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the flag shown is incorrect. Shouldn't it be
Sicily, rather than
, which is the flag of the
Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. That country did not exist until 1816.
Mjroots (
talk)
07:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Whose side was Spain on ? Currently it says the side opposed to the French. I am very dubious. Lathamibird ( talk) 20:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on War of the Fifth Coalition. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
… except for Britain, Portugal and Spain! This is a very Austro-centric view of things, isn't it? The war in the peninsula was already over a year old when Austria rejoined the fight, and it continued there after she threw in the towel (again!) And I’m not convinced about this "nth coalition" division of events, either: As far as I was taught, there was only one Napoleonic War between 1804 and 1814, which various European states dropped in and out of over time. I would also dispute that these coalitions only lasted as long as Austria was involved (which seems to be the position here); I've come across different periodizations in different sources.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
01:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, "Britain...took advantage of the Austrian intervention to launch the Walcheren campaign": WTF? The only reason for Britain to launch the Walcheren campaign was to assist Austria; Britain certainly didn’t need another complication on the mainland of Europe, nor did it need Walcheren. So I've edited that, too.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
01:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I am concerned that this article does not meet the featured article criteria anymore. I have outlined some concerns below:
Is anyone interested in improving this article? Z1720 ( talk) 16:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC) I can take on some of this, it won't happen overnight however. -- Frobozz1 ( talk) 21:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
From the reader's perspective the list of 119 sfn tags is difficult to follow back to a source, whereas the named tags with Rp quickly get readers to the source material and page. Can we pick a format please? I'm willing to move everything over to Rp if we can agree to it. My thoughts are simply a matter of WP:VER being overly complex as it is now. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
References
:Phi06
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I did a copyedit of the article, mostly removing MOS:EASTEREGGs and redundant words. Please revert anything you think is unhelpful. While reading the prose, I had a couple of questions which I listed below:
Thanks for considering my questions. Z1720 ( talk) 01:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Further questions are posted below:
Let me know when this is finished and I will do another readthrough. Pinging Dumelow although I invite other editors to help answer these questions. Z1720 ( talk) 19:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Upon my third reading, I made some minor edits but I think this is in great shape! My only concern is the "Further reading" section: Why are these not used as sources in the article? I would either use them as sources or delete them from the article. Z1720 ( talk) 15:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks for your work on this, Z1720. Hopefully it's now in good enough shape to be retained. I'll ping the FAR nominator on the review page. I think the further reading section is useful to the reader, providing additional books with more detail on the subject, and in compliance with WP:FURTHER? - Dumelow ( talk) 16:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is POV and biased towards Napoleon's dictatorship. Austrians would call it the French invasion of Austria-Hungary. By calling it the War of the 5th Coalition, you deny that it was a war of aggression and thus support the French dictator and war criminal Napoleon Bonaparte. 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:44D0:3C52:B1B8:B212 ( talk) 17:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The article is full of euphemisms and disrespectful wordings, among others concerning civilians, the people that fought, were wounded, killed, captured, their friends and families. The article mainly is written from the point of view of the rulers and in boysbook terms. Unfortunately many editors might not be aware and maybe even not understand this comment. This is not the only article written this way. Hundreds of them.
The use of country names is anachronistic. The countries did not (yet) exist as such, it mainly were bundles of territories, connected to one owner or ruler by all kind of (partly ages old) feudal agreements, (peace) treaties and other legal arrangements. Each territory with it's own sub-ruler, (common) law, tradition etc. Not comparable with what we now know as "country". By using the name of a modern country, the facts are being distorted. Also distorted is the fact, that there was one ruler, one person that in the end did decide. We now could say dictator. No government, no parliament etc. Count your Garden by the Flowers ( talk) 20:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Much is missing in almost all warfare articles - to mention a few points:
etc. Count your Garden by the Flowers ( talk) 20:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
If you are able to add information relating to your bullet points above I am sure this will be useful, but we should take care not to overwhelm the article with detail. I am pinging the participants in the Featured Article Review ( User:웬디러비, User:Chuntuk, User:Eddie891, User:Z1720, User:Hog Farm) and will post a pointer to here from the WP:MILHIST talk page to seek wider input. All the best - Dumelow ( talk) 22:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
War of the Fifth Coalition article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | War of the Fifth Coalition is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 14, 2009. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm beginning a major rewrite of this article, with aspirations of taking it to featured status. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! UberCryxic 00:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The article could use more references. Regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 15:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I just now added a request for citation for the Poniatowski caption's claim that he was the most famous Polish military figure during the Napoleonic wars. While I think the claim is true, it is challengeable and needs a source. Eubulides ( talk) 21:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Two of the leaders mentioned under 'commanders' never held a field command. Both Bavaria's king Max-Joseph and Saxony's king Frederick August were not commanders. Wurttemberg's King Frederick however, did command Cooalition troops during the anti-insurgent battles around Lake Konstanz. (ref. see Gill - With Eagles to Glory) -- ansbachdragoner ( talk) 02:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This appeared at the beginning of the "Fourth Coalition" section when I opened the article from the front page:
How Reliable a source is Wikipedia? by the time they alter this information, a college student has already mistaken his work. and has false information.
It's not in the article history anywhere (at least recently), didn't show up in the wiki text, and although it stayed there while going back and forth to the history page a few times, it disappeared after a full reload a few minutes later. What the hell is this?? KarlM ( talk) 08:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the Aftermath section, it says "The Austrian army would never field more than 150,000 men at a time for the duration of the Napoleonic Wars", but it's unclear how that relates to the war's aftermath. If it means that Austria never again fielded such a large force (because if I'm reading "Austrian preparations" right, the armies fielded in this war were larger than 150,000), then it should say so, and ideally explain why. Was it due to population losses, to lack of funds or political will, to recognition that bludgeoning the enemy with enormous armies was not the best strategy, or to some combination thereof, and how was it caused by this war? A. Parrot ( talk) 19:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Where is Joachim Murat in all of this? He is supposed to be the head of the reserve cavalry but instead we find Bessiers taking this role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This article makes no mention of the fact that Russia was technically obligated to assist France in the event of an Austrian breech of the peace, by way of the Treaties of Tilsit, and that a corps under the command of Sergey Fyodorovich Golitsyn entered Austrian territory in Galicia and occupied it at the expense of their former allies the Austrians, while also blocking the ambitions of their one-time Polish allies in the Duchy of Warsaw. The article does mention that a piece of the frontier was ceded to Russia at the end of the war, but does not explain why: this offensive of Golitsyn's is why.
http://www.cairn.info/revue-napoleonica-la-revue-2011-1-page-4.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Boland ( talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Currently this article promotes a dismissive point of view about the Peninsular War. Apart from barely mentioning the conflict, in the lead it states that:
Yet the number of French of soldiers and casualties in the Peninsular War indicates that for the French it was a major conflict.
And it continued as a major war into 1814. In the last year of the Sixth Coalition there were as many or more French troops facing Wellington in south west France as there were in north and east France to face the combined Coalition armies.
So I think that there should be an alteration to the lead, so that it does not dismiss the Peninsular war, and a section in the article summary style of the events that occurred on the Iberian peninsula during the years of the Fifth Coalition.
-- PBS ( talk) 23:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the flag shown is incorrect. Shouldn't it be
Sicily, rather than
, which is the flag of the
Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. That country did not exist until 1816.
Mjroots (
talk)
07:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Whose side was Spain on ? Currently it says the side opposed to the French. I am very dubious. Lathamibird ( talk) 20:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on War of the Fifth Coalition. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
… except for Britain, Portugal and Spain! This is a very Austro-centric view of things, isn't it? The war in the peninsula was already over a year old when Austria rejoined the fight, and it continued there after she threw in the towel (again!) And I’m not convinced about this "nth coalition" division of events, either: As far as I was taught, there was only one Napoleonic War between 1804 and 1814, which various European states dropped in and out of over time. I would also dispute that these coalitions only lasted as long as Austria was involved (which seems to be the position here); I've come across different periodizations in different sources.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
01:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, "Britain...took advantage of the Austrian intervention to launch the Walcheren campaign": WTF? The only reason for Britain to launch the Walcheren campaign was to assist Austria; Britain certainly didn’t need another complication on the mainland of Europe, nor did it need Walcheren. So I've edited that, too.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
01:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I am concerned that this article does not meet the featured article criteria anymore. I have outlined some concerns below:
Is anyone interested in improving this article? Z1720 ( talk) 16:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC) I can take on some of this, it won't happen overnight however. -- Frobozz1 ( talk) 21:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
From the reader's perspective the list of 119 sfn tags is difficult to follow back to a source, whereas the named tags with Rp quickly get readers to the source material and page. Can we pick a format please? I'm willing to move everything over to Rp if we can agree to it. My thoughts are simply a matter of WP:VER being overly complex as it is now. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
References
:Phi06
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I did a copyedit of the article, mostly removing MOS:EASTEREGGs and redundant words. Please revert anything you think is unhelpful. While reading the prose, I had a couple of questions which I listed below:
Thanks for considering my questions. Z1720 ( talk) 01:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Further questions are posted below:
Let me know when this is finished and I will do another readthrough. Pinging Dumelow although I invite other editors to help answer these questions. Z1720 ( talk) 19:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Upon my third reading, I made some minor edits but I think this is in great shape! My only concern is the "Further reading" section: Why are these not used as sources in the article? I would either use them as sources or delete them from the article. Z1720 ( talk) 15:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks for your work on this, Z1720. Hopefully it's now in good enough shape to be retained. I'll ping the FAR nominator on the review page. I think the further reading section is useful to the reader, providing additional books with more detail on the subject, and in compliance with WP:FURTHER? - Dumelow ( talk) 16:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is POV and biased towards Napoleon's dictatorship. Austrians would call it the French invasion of Austria-Hungary. By calling it the War of the 5th Coalition, you deny that it was a war of aggression and thus support the French dictator and war criminal Napoleon Bonaparte. 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:44D0:3C52:B1B8:B212 ( talk) 17:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The article is full of euphemisms and disrespectful wordings, among others concerning civilians, the people that fought, were wounded, killed, captured, their friends and families. The article mainly is written from the point of view of the rulers and in boysbook terms. Unfortunately many editors might not be aware and maybe even not understand this comment. This is not the only article written this way. Hundreds of them.
The use of country names is anachronistic. The countries did not (yet) exist as such, it mainly were bundles of territories, connected to one owner or ruler by all kind of (partly ages old) feudal agreements, (peace) treaties and other legal arrangements. Each territory with it's own sub-ruler, (common) law, tradition etc. Not comparable with what we now know as "country". By using the name of a modern country, the facts are being distorted. Also distorted is the fact, that there was one ruler, one person that in the end did decide. We now could say dictator. No government, no parliament etc. Count your Garden by the Flowers ( talk) 20:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Much is missing in almost all warfare articles - to mention a few points:
etc. Count your Garden by the Flowers ( talk) 20:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
If you are able to add information relating to your bullet points above I am sure this will be useful, but we should take care not to overwhelm the article with detail. I am pinging the participants in the Featured Article Review ( User:웬디러비, User:Chuntuk, User:Eddie891, User:Z1720, User:Hog Farm) and will post a pointer to here from the WP:MILHIST talk page to seek wider input. All the best - Dumelow ( talk) 22:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)