Talk:Siege of San Sebastián

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siege of San Sebastián article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: British / European / French / Spanish / Napoleonic era C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	Spanish military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Merge

The Burning of San Sebastian is only a sentence ot two. What would be the point of merging this page? The Siege of San Sebastian article covers this ugly incident. Djmaschek 16:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Siege of San Sebastian article now includes a section titled "Sack and Burning of San Sebastan," with several sentences describing the incident. Suggest closing the case for merging the two articles. Djmaschek 16:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have merged Burning of San Sebastian into this page. Gwinva (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Burning and ransacking

Hi, I shouldn´t start this since it is you who is editing, and you have all the references there, another thing is you don´t like it and you are trying to erase an inconvenient true to you, difficult to find as clearly attested what happened there. You have it all there on the links and references. RegardsIñaki LL (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with my liking or not liking.
The references do not support the text you keep reverting to.
"and even high officials" Which high officials? Names? "torturing inhabitants" - Who tortured who? Names? Source?. "attempts by *English generals to put down the burning to the French'. Which generals? Source?
Weasel wording is frowned upon by wikipedia policy Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for a start, stick to good faith. The edit is highly disruptive when as you see it is surrounded by notes and references, it is NOT DONE WITH A CONTRIBUTION spirit, which the Wikipedia disaproves. Your questions, "Names?". Weasel wording? In what? I am just stating what the source says with a long reference to primary sources. By the way, if the lack of precision when citing the source is the issue this could help and I will add it at the end of the discussion. In these cases adding a disputable or dubious tag and going to talk is usually enough, or you can contribute by adding a reference that calls into question my statement (for example one that mentions that the population was fairly treated by the assailants or sth like this...), which you haven´t done. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]