Eisspeedway

Talk:War of 1812: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Dabbler (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
14,343 edits
→Canadian English: Please review Wikipedia policy and the extensive discussions in the archives on this subject.
Line 120: Line 120:
==Canadian English==
==Canadian English==
Why is the article in Canadian English? I believe given the totality of the circumstances (the war broke out because of disputes between the US and UK, the US declared war, many major battles were fought on US soil, etc.) American English would be appropriate. [[User:Emperor001|Emperor001]] ([[User talk:Emperor001|talk]]) 20:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Why is the article in Canadian English? I believe given the totality of the circumstances (the war broke out because of disputes between the US and UK, the US declared war, many major battles were fought on US soil, etc.) American English would be appropriate. [[User:Emperor001|Emperor001]] ([[User talk:Emperor001|talk]]) 20:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
:This has been discussed many times before and you might find it interesting to review the Talk Page Archives (See above). You should also review the Wikipedia Policy on English Varieties [[{WP:ENGVAR]]
:TL:DR Basically as far as I recall Wikipedia policy on the variety of English used in any article depends on a number of factors. One of which is what variety the originator of the article used. One is that the subject is really uniquely under one language variety. As Canadian and to a lesser extent British English can claim that this topic is is significant to those countries, choosing American would be selecting one for a reason which is not unique any more than selecting Canadian or British English is appropriate because it was an existential war for the British in North America and there were many battles fought on what is now Canadian soil. It has been established that once a variety is being used, it should only be changed if there is a clear consensus to change it. For many years no consensus has been established to change from Canadian English. [[User:Dabbler|Dabbler]] ([[User talk:Dabbler|talk]]) 21:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:14, 25 February 2019

Former featured article candidateWar of 1812 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted

Template:Vital article

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emilioluna (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Styer74 (article contribs).

Grammar

This article has a huge number of grammatical errors. There are many run-on sentences and sentence fragments. It needs a thorough rewrite. 173.243.179.239 (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

Impressement in the Info box

I do not feel like impressment should be in the infobox having addressed it with the author of the contested changes with him here is what I had to say:

As to impressment, the 100 days was a panic to Britain the Royal Navy was in no way going to restart the war with America to get sailors. You are correct it wasn't addressed in the Treaty of Ghent, but it was observed. Nothing about the causes of 1812 were addressed. Ian W. Toll gives a good account of it. The age of impressment was ending anyway so there is credence to that. Nor was Britain about a restart a war with America which might have happened. I'm not wedded to impressment in the infobox. If it has to stay in then it should be noted a bit more because the answer is nuanced more than that.

My view is that the answer to impressment could take up an entire section by itself and isn't addressed by the Treaty of Ghent. It is just too complex to put into an infobox.Tirronan (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Template:American conflicts (i.e. {{American conflicts}} ) is missing from this article. As it is protected, I cannot add it at this time. -- 155.95.90.241 (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That template is already present in the article (though its written as {{Template:Armed conflicts involving the United States Armed Forces}}). You can find it in the bottom at the bottom of the article, grouped with the other template inside the navbox (titled Links to related articles). The navbox is a collection of all related templates (excluding the main War of 1812 template) and is collapsed by default, which is probably why you missed it. Leventio (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standardizing references/citations

The refs/cites in this article seem cluttered. There are for example six articles listed in the Sources which are never cited, one cited but not listed in Sources, a mixed bag of formatting approaches etc. I will happily standardize these in the manner of Aristotle if no one persuasively disagrees.... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok but don't let the cites disappear. Some sources were used to write the article without getting cited. Rjensen (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They could go in "Other Sources" or similar ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK by me. Rjensen (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK Done. That was a pretty large undertaking. There are still three errors left on the page:
    • Heidler, p. 45. Harv error: link from CITEREFHeidler doesn't point to any citation.
    • Gardiner 2000. Harv error: link from CITEREFGardiner2000 doesn't point to any citation.
    • Voelcker 2013. Harv error: link from CITEREFVoelcker_2013 doesn't point to any citation.
  • There shouldn't be others, afaik. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spain

" In neighbouring Spanish Florida, a two-day battle for the city of Pensacola ended in Spanish surrender.[14]" -- This lone sentence as a paragraph at the end of the section provides too little information. Only by looking over at the info box does one find out which side Spain was on. 87.247.52.166 (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can determine, the US and Spain had never declared war against each other. Spain was allied with Britain against Napoleonic France but was not involved in any declarations in North America. I suspect that this was just an American side adventure to seize some of Florida, not part of any deliberate war aims and effort. Dabbler (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was no declared war between the nations at that time. However, there were plenty of provocations provided by Spain. What I don't have a clear picture of is if this was planned or not. I suspect not by the amateurish operations that ensured enragement of American southern politicians who were a large part of the war hawk faction. The Creek nation was in a civil war and under pressure from white settlement. Lower Creeks were often of mixed race and seemed on a path to assimilation. Upper Creeks resented the loss of traditional tribal structure and war broke out. The Red Stick faction decided to send raiding parties across Cherokee lands to attack American settlements and farms. There was no love lost between the Cherokee and the Creek, to begin with. So, they began to track and kill raiding parties. Unsurprisingly, the Cherokee and the Lower Creeks joined forces with American forces when the southern states had enough of the Red Sticks. All in all, it is a complex and muddy thing and my statements are at best a gross simplification of the events. The upshot is, that British and Spanish involvement was uncovered, further, almost no real political control of the territory existed.Tirronan (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian English

Why is the article in Canadian English? I believe given the totality of the circumstances (the war broke out because of disputes between the US and UK, the US declared war, many major battles were fought on US soil, etc.) American English would be appropriate. Emperor001 (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed many times before and you might find it interesting to review the Talk Page Archives (See above). You should also review the Wikipedia Policy on English Varieties [[{WP:ENGVAR]]
TL:DR Basically as far as I recall Wikipedia policy on the variety of English used in any article depends on a number of factors. One of which is what variety the originator of the article used. One is that the subject is really uniquely under one language variety. As Canadian and to a lesser extent British English can claim that this topic is is significant to those countries, choosing American would be selecting one for a reason which is not unique any more than selecting Canadian or British English is appropriate because it was an existential war for the British in North America and there were many battles fought on what is now Canadian soil. It has been established that once a variety is being used, it should only be changed if there is a clear consensus to change it. For many years no consensus has been established to change from Canadian English. Dabbler (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F885082892