Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Cleanup  
4 comments  




2 GA Review  
42 comments  


2.1  Lead  





2.2  International causes  





2.3  National causes  





2.4  Prelude  





2.5  May Week  





2.6  Misc  





2.7  2nd opinion  







3 GA Review  
2 comments  




4 Decisions  
5 comments  




5 Quotes  
1 comment  




6 Copyedit July 2011  
28 comments  




7 Not italicizing "cabildo"  
2 comments  




8 External links modified  
1 comment  




9 External links modified  
1 comment  













Talk:May Revolution




Page contents not supported in other languages.  









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Featured articleMay Revolution 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 25, 2013.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 17, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
June 10, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
March 29, 2011Good article nomineeListed
May 3, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 7, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 18, 2011WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
November 18, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
January 8, 2012WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
February 23, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 28, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 10, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 15, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 3, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 25, 2006, May 25, 2007, May 25, 2010, May 25, 2011, May 25, 2014, May 25, 2015, May 25, 2017, May 25, 2019, May 25, 2020, and May 25, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Cleanup

[edit]

The timeline section of the article seems to have been translated from Spanish with the help of a Spanish-English dictionary, but without the help of a thorough understanding of English. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the subject (and don't know the source text), so I can't figure out what was meant in a number of places. --Carnildo 03:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have come from es. - mako 05:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
State exactly what you don't get, and I might be able to help (I did the original translation from es:Revolución de Mayo. SpiceMan 07:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mako's cleanup seems to have answered everything. --Carnildo 07:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:May Revolution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ironholds (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
Resolved comments
* Done "but still ruled in the name of the Spanish King Ferdinand VII of Spain" - "of Spain" is rather irrelevant since you've got Spanish King.
  •  Done "The conquest of Seville, that took place in February 1, 1810" - "The conquest of Seville, which took place on February 1, 1810"
  •  Done "attempt from Cisneros to conceal the news" - "attempt by Cisneros to conceal the news"
  •  Done Link Criollo
  •  Done "motivating later a war between those that did and those that don't" "motivating a later war between those that did and those that did not"

International causes

[edit]

National causes

[edit]

Prelude

[edit]
Resolved comments
* Done『Sobremonte resume government, who had fled to Córdoba with the public treasury』Sobremonte, who had fled to Córdoba with the public treasury, remain as governor"
  •  Done "He did so following a law from the time of Pedro de Cevallos, which determined that in the case of a foreign attack the treasury had to be kept safe, but this action made him be seen as a coward by the population" - "Although he fled in line with a law which required the treasury be kept safe in the case of a foreign attack, he was seen as a coward by the population".
  •  Done Link Real Audience and Sobremonte, remove the "main article: Santiago de Liniers" bit; it isn't the main article.
  •  Done『like Martín de Álzaga or Francisco Javier de Elío. 』- "such as Martín de Álzaga and Francisco Javier de Elío."
  •  Done "or resume government" - "or resume governing"
  •  Done "Despite the clear statements of Liniers" - "Despite the clear statements by Liniers"
  •  Done "or his refusing to accept Joseph Bonaparte as King" - "and his refusal to accept Joseph Bonaparte as King"
  •  Done "his political enemies arouse suspicions of Liniers secretly plotting to do otherwise" - "his political enemies created rumours that he was plotting to accept Bonaparte"
  •  Done『Javier de Elío created a Junta in Montevideo, which would make a strong scrutiny of all the orders coming from Buenos Aires and reserving the right to ignore them, but without denying the authority of the Viceroy as such or declaring themselves independent.』- "Javier de Elío created a Junta in Montevideo, which would scrutinise all the orders coming from Buenos Aires and reserved the right to ignore them, without openly denying the authority of the Viceroy or declaring themselves independent."
  •  Done Again, Liniers Government is incredibly under-referenced.

May Week

[edit]

 Done "but had no precedents of being applied in case law rather than in theoric fields" - "but had no precedents of being applied in case law"

Misc

[edit]

2nd opinion

[edit]

Overall _ the article is in places very badly written, appearing to be a poor translation from Spanish. Presently it is not good enough for GA status on those grounds alone. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair does. Would you recommend I just quickfail it, then? Ironholds (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would see if the nominator is prepared to rewrite in good plain English first. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to rewrite the complete article, then go ahead, it isn't something that may be done in a couple of days. However, I don't agree with the comment of translated quotes being original research: Wikipedia:No original research#Translations clearly allows to provide self-made translations when there are no published translations. I have provided the original quotes on footnotes, as requested by the policy. MBelgrano (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it was original research? Ironholds (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jezhotwells, in the "May week" section MBelgrano (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I withdraw that but the translate is not good English. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:May Revolution/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: •Felix• T 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Note: Vastly improved from previous review. Great job, nominator!

Note: Overall the referencing is good. However, there were a few points for improvement that I noticed. For the 'In popular cultural section' there seem to be no references for the statements in the third paragraph or the list half of the fifth paragraph.

Also, notice this section: "The Assembly of Year XIII was intended to declare independence, but failed to do so because of other political conflicts between its members. However, it suppressed mention of Ferdinand VII in official documents. The supreme directors held an ambivalent attitude until the declaration of independence of 1816."

There is no citation for the opinion (ambivalent attitude) in the last sentence above.

Also, Under “Friday May, 25” There are some massive paragraphs with a lot of information and facts but only one or no citations.
Last but not least, since I do not have access to some of the printed resources I cannot check, but do all of the non-English sources have translations in the references of footnotes? It seems that some of the same sources have translations for some references but not for others. See WP:NOENG


  • 3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). ::Honestly this article is very, very long. It comes in at well over 100kb and over 30 pages when printed. While an article of this significance needs to be thorough and complete, this article I feel is a little too long; see Wikipedia:Article size. There are several sentences and statements throughout the article that could be deleted as they are repetitive, unnecessary, or extraneous. Perhaps some information in this article can be moved to other pages? Normally, splits are appropriate for very long articles like this, but I think that in this case simply shortening the article will be much easier and more appropriate. I will try to get a second opinion on this.

Still might need to be trimmed down if you aspire to FA status, but acceptable for now. •Felix• T 19:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  • 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • 6 Images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Decisions

[edit]

Putting article on hold for seven days or until all points are addressed. •Felix• T 00:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it MBelgrano (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have completed all missing references. I have replaced the "ambivalent attitude" thing by a more specific explanation. I have also moved some portions to other articles, but have in mind that the size you saw (147,852 bytes) includes the complex references. Check here, the bare text of the article, without references, wiki code, images, lists, etc. The size was nearly 73 KB, and with my recent moves it has been reduced to 65 KB, not very far away from the accepted values. Have in mind as well that Argentine readers may accept less than this, because most of this is basic knowledge from the school, but most non-Argentine readers are unlikely to know anything about any of the things explained here (save for the international context), and the article should still need to be understood on its own. MBelgrano (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! I am awarding this article GA status. •Felix• T 19:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, and for pointing the issues that needed correction MBelgrano (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

[edit]

The footnotes included quotes and translations of the books from which I took the info, as most of them are in Spanish and may be hard to get outside Argentina. This was done according to WP:NOENG, but as two users have complained at the 2º FAC, and a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 46#Should WP:V say that non-English text and translation should be provided in a footnote? (March 2011) opposed making it mandatory, I will remove them. I left a copy of the last revision before start removing them at User:Cambalachero/May Revolution, in case someone needs to check a particular reference (have in mind that the number of a specific reference may change if some references are added or removed from the article, so look for the sentence and author instead) Cambalachero (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit July 2011

[edit]

Points noted that go beyond the scope of a copyedit:

  • InMay_Revolution#International_causes: "the colonies were restricted to trade only with their own metropolis": the word "metropolis" makes no sense in this context and the source gives no clue as to what could be meant. The most it says is that Spain might be unwilling to open this market, a much weaker statement. I have tagged it. --Stfg (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "Metropolis" is a word that, besides the modern meaning (a huge city), has another meaning in a historical context: a city or country with colonies. It is mentioned at the metropolis article. In the context of the phrase, Spain is the metropolis of its overseas colonies, and the word helps to avoid being repetitive.
Thanks, I didn't know that. But I think the use of this term is inappropriate here. It's too specialised for an encyclopedia rather than a textbook. By the way, the colonialism article uses the term metropole, rather than metropolis, but I think it unwise to use that term too. It's not well known and we can't usefully link to the metropole article because it talks only about the British empire (erroneously, I believe). The wiktionary definition of metropole uses the term "parent state", and I've used that for now. This allows me to remove the {{Clarify}} tag, though I still think you're saying something stronger than the source.
(Plese can we keep each bullet here as a separate thread, else things will soon get complicated). --Stfg (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, I will stand aside for the moment, and wait until you end the review. Then, I will fix, clarify or explain each thing that's needed. Discussions in bulleted ideas get out of control at the 4º or 5º reply. Cambalachero (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK --Stfg (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kaufmann reference is available in Google Books, but no link has been provided to it. I expect the same will be found for many other of the references. Such links are very desirable, preferably as page links. --Stfg (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for google books, is that a good idea? I did not include links because WP:ELNEVER forbids to links to sites hosting copyright violations under any circumstances, and Google Books is already having copyright-related problems for this (see Google Books#Copyright infringement, fair use and related issues). Cambalachero (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I don't thinkk the How-to would have been included in a Wikipedia Content Guideline if this were a real issue, but I agree it's best to be safe about this, and it's voluntary anyway. I will find the ISBN for the Kaufmann book and put it in though. --Stfg (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. The 1951 original has no ISBN, but I've provided that of a 1967 edition I believe to be a reprint - it has the same pagination. This will enable people to locate copies. --Stfg (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • InMay_Revolution#National_causes: "A small secret society of criollos, composed of politicians as Manuel Belgrano and Juan José Castelli, and military as Antonio Beruti or Hipólito Vieytes, supported this project". "As" cannot be used like this: do you mean "such as" or "consisting of"? Also, how are we to understand the "or" in ths sentence? --Stfg (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section: the 1st paragraph says『Álzaga was not freed, but his sentence was commuted to house arrest』but the next paragraph speaks of "the pardon that Martín de Álzaga and others had received after serving a short time in prison". Do the sources contradict each other, or what? If they do, this needs to be pointed up. --Stfg (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • InMay_Revolution#May_week, big paragraph: "the most recent newpapers reported that members of the Supreme Central Junta had been refused". "Refused" is meaningless here and I can't figure out what is meant. By the way, the first half of this paragraph lacks citations. See also the next bullet --Stfg (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(re "refused") OK, I found "rechezados" in the Spanish article. "Dismissed" will do. --Stfg (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While trying to figure out what the sentence in the previous bullet was saying, I went back to May_Revolution#International_causes, where the last sentence reads "The Supreme Central Junta was eventually defeated and replaced by a Regency Council based in Cadiz.[11]". Ref 11 is Shumway, p. 19 and this page in Shumway says nothing like it. Shumway's book doesn't use the expression "Regency Council" at all and doesn't mention the Junta of Seville as far as I can discover. What p.19 says is "The Spanish Cortes, or parliament, refused Joseph's rule and formed a government in exile in Cádiz". Our article makes no use of the words Cortesorparliament at all. I have no idea what to make of this. Finally, the sentence in May_Revolution#International_causes says that the Supreme Central Junta was defeated, while the lead section says that it dissolved itself. They can't both be right. --Stfg (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monday, May 21: "At 3:00 pm, preparations were started for the cabildo." The paragraph does not make sense like this. What the Spanish wikipedia article says is: "A las tres, el Cabildo inició sus trabajos de rutina...". I have translated that more closely, as the paragraph now does make sense. --Stfg (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friday, May 25: ",,, and made the members responsible for any changes". Perhaps made the Junta responsible...(?) And responsible for changes to what? --Stfg (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consequence, 1st paragraph: "Until then, the conception of the common good prevailed: while royal authority was fully respected, if an instruction from the crown of Spain was considered detrimental to the common good of the local population, it was half-met or simply ignored.[16]" Ref 16 is Shumway page 3, which makes no mention of common good. It interprests no cumplo as meaning "do whatever I want". It is really important not to load your own conceptions on to the sources like this. --Stfg (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revolutionary purposes: "The purpose of the deception would have been to gain time to strengthen the position of the patriotic cause and avoid reactions that may have led to a revolution, on the grounds that monarchical authority was still being respected and that no revolution had taken place." This makes no sense, since a revolution has taken place. I have changed it to "The purpose of such a deception would have been to gain time to strengthen the position of the patriotic cause and avoid reactions that may have led to a counter-revolution, by making it appear that monarchical authority was still being respected and that no revolution had taken place." Is this what is meant? If not, please clarify. --Stfg (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section: '... he expressed support for the Junta, but under the condition that "...the behavior is consistent, and that [the] Capital [is] retained on behalf of Mr. Dn. Ferdinand VII and his legitimate successors."[121]'. Ref 121 is Kaufmann, p. 59, but nothing like it is there. In fact, the phrase "legitimate successors" does not occur in the whole book (search attempted in Google books). --Stfg (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same section and the next suddenly switch from the article's style of short footnotes referring to full citations in the Bilbliography section, to placing full citations inline. This needs to be corrected before re-submitting for FA. --Stfg (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One difficulty for the reader of this article is that too many names are mentioned. For example, near the end of May 22 we read:
"The priest Juan Nepomuceno Solá then proposed that provisional command should be given to the Cabildo, until the formation of a governing junta made up of representatives from all populations of the Viceroyalty. His motion was supported by Manuel Alberti, Azcuénaga, Escalada, Argerich (or Aguirre) and others."
and neither Escalada nor Argerich/Aguirre are mentioned again in the article. Why are they notable for the purposes of this article, while the "others" are not? I have not made any changes to things of this nature, but you might wish to consider trying to restrict the article to naming people who did something significant in their own right during the May Revolution, beyond merely supporting or voting for what others did. --Stfg (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, I have started working with some of the things pointed. Some clarifications:
  • Martín de Álzaga was not legally freed, but being sentenced to house arrest, with the "house" being the mansion of one of the wealthiest men in the city (rather than a common jail), is basically the same thing; this kind of men do not really need to leave their homes to manage their business. In any case, the later point still stands: it was a very soft sentence, compared with the beheads at the Upper Peru for a similar action, and the americans resented Cisneros for this. I will clarify this.
  • The "Regency Council" is the "Consejo de Regencia", which called later for the formation of the Cortes of Cadiz. The problem here is that there are only books in Spanish about this topic, English books mention all this issues in the broadest of terms. I have unified all mentions to this body as "Council of Regency", as mentioned in Supreme Central and Governing Junta of the Kingdom#The Council of Regency of Spain and the Indies. As for the defeat, there is no contradiction: the Junta was a Spanish government body, defended by Spanish armies, but not an army itself. The defenders of the Junta were defeated, and the Junta dissolved itself as a result (meaning, they did that before the victors ordered them to do so). Again, I will clarify.
  • "secured the keys of all entrances" means to collect and have with themselves all the physical keys of the fort, so that they couldn't be trapped inside, and in case of a trap they could leave by an door they could reach. I changed "secure" for "seize".
  • As for Mitre, the mentioned authors were more related to the 1830 as a "generation" rather than as a temporal time frame (like hippies with the 1960s). This literary movement, which started in 1937, was joined years later by Mitre, who was the one who took the ideas of the group to their most prominent expression. Mitre did not write the book in the 1830, but did not came out of nowhere to do so. However, it may be unadvisable to clarify too much here, as it must be a summary of nformation more detailed at the fork. Mitre is considered part of the "37' Generation", even if not as a founding member, so the text as it is is not really saying inaccurate things.
  • As for the "Mask of Ferdinand VII", a change of government is not in itself a revolution, it has to involve a paradigm shift, or a change in the type of government itself. For a colony where everything (not just politics, but also economy and society) is marked by the dependence to the King, cutting relations with the king is a revolution. So, when I explain that the doctrine of the "Mask of Ferdinand VII" says that the Junta claimed that they did not do any revolution, it means that they claimed that the change of government was only that, a change of government, and that everything would stay as always; while secretly plotting the revolutionary changes to declare independence and replace the monarchy with a republic. Yes, I know that the doctrine itself makes little sense, but that's another thing. I did not came up with that explanation, I'm just describing it.
Thanks again for taking the time for the review, I will work with all the points mentioned Cambalachero (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's looking good so far. In the case of Martín de Álzaga, it may just be the word "pardon" that is slightly problematic. I think you tell his story clearly enough.
I shall stand aside in turn and wait to see what you do now, but will keep watching and we can discuss when you're done. Regards, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not italicizing "cabildo"

[edit]

This is primarily an informational note to anyone exmining this article's compliance with WP:MOS. While copyediting I considered italicising the terms "cabildo" (when used generically, as opposed to the expression "the Cabildo") and "open cabildo", but did not, becuase a search for these terms on Google Books and Google Scholar seemed to show that the literature doesn't italicise either. --Stfg (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know it sounds "Spanish", as it is a Spanish word after all, but I searched for "Cabildo" at Dictionary.com, and seems to be an accepted English word as well. Cambalachero (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on May Revolution. 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).

  • 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) 17:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on May Revolution. 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).

  • 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) 09:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:May_Revolution&oldid=1208885757"

Categories: 
Wikipedia featured articles
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
Old requests for peer review
Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
FA-Class Argentine articles
High-importance Argentine articles
WikiProject Argentina articles
FA-Class politics articles
Mid-importance politics articles
FA-Class Libertarianism articles
Low-importance Libertarianism articles
WikiProject Libertarianism articles
WikiProject Politics articles
FA-Class military history articles
FA-Class South American military history articles
South American military history task force articles
FA-Class Napoleonic era articles
Napoleonic era task force articles
Successful requests for military history A-Class review
Pages translated from Spanish Wikipedia
Hidden category: 
Selected anniversaries articles
 



This page was last edited on 19 February 2024, at 10:13 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view



Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki