Talk:War of 1812
Latest comment: 18 days ago by Avrand6 in topic Include Reference to Napoleonic Wars in infobox
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War of 1812 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 |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 15 days  |
 | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | War 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 18, 2004, June 18, 2005, June 18, 2006, June 18, 2007, December 24, 2010, and June 18, 2018. | |||||||||
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
.svg)
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 |
|
| This page is for discussions about changes to the article. There has been considerable debate over "who won the war" (please refer to /Archive 8, /Archive 9, /Archive 14, /Who Won? and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-11/War of 1812 for the most recent discussions). Historians and the editors have various viewpoints on which side won, or if there was a stalemate. For more information, see the section *Memory and historiography, Historian's views*. However, the consensus, based on historical documentation, is that the result of the war was per the Treaty of Ghent, i.e., status quo ante bellum, which, in plain English means "as things were before the war." Please do not use this page to continue the argument that one or the other side "won" unless you are able to present citations from reliable and verifiable sources to support your claims. Per the principle of neutral point of view and due and undue weight, the article can only claim a side's victory if there is a verifiable general agreement. |
Flagicons
editThe flagicons should not be removed from the infobox because, as another user pointed out, per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG: "Situations where flag icons may be used in infoboxes include...Summarizing military conflicts" Along with this infobox being a infobox that summarizes a military conflict, the flagicons also serve a useful purpose by showing the flags flown by each of the countries in the war, which is a case of the flagicons conveying "information in addition to the text." Wowzers122 (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. INFOBOXFLAG is pretty straight forward that situations like this are the exact moment to use the flag icons. There are multiple factions on each side, the flag icon next to the commanders helps out as well. Its also common for any and all articles on military conflicts to have flagicons, and its seems pedantic to the point of sticking out to erroneously demand that not be used in this article. Friedbyrd (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- While MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS is permissive of flags for conflict boxes, they must still serve a useful purpose when they are used - ie their use is conditional and must not be primarily decorative. As Moxy observes, these are
small images most people can't see
. They are not sufficiently clear to show the differences in flags that may occur with time and therefore, are not capable of showingthe flags flown by each of the countries in the war
at the time. This rational is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the guidance.
- Flags can serve a useful purpose when there are two or more belligerents on one or more of the sides and they act as a key (shorthand) for information pertaining to the specific belligerents in different sections of the infobox. There are multiple belligerents in this case but most of the belligerents do not have national flags. Consequently, flags are not able to effectively serve this purpose and other devices are being relied upon - eg the names themself are sufficiently distinctive to indicate the allegiance of commanders. The flags are therefore redundant and are not fulfilling a useful purpose here.
- Note, the use of the Spanish flag is inappropriate/misleading per the discussion above regarding Spain. I had made a response to this effect earlier but for whatever reason, it didn't actually appear. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Include Reference to Napoleonic Wars in infobox
editThe previous status quo has been to include reference to the Napoleonic Wars in the infobox, as most historians consider it either to have been a theater of or at least been importantly related to the Napoleonic Wars. However, this seems to have become controversial recently among some Wikipedia users. This section is to discuss, argue, and form a consensus as to whether this connection should be present in the infobox of this article or not. I for one Support the continued inclusion of "Napoleonic Wars" in the "part of" section do to the large historical consensus that the War of 1812 was directly related to, impacted by, and had an impact on the Napoleonic Wars (as a most conservative argument, many more ascribe it the status of a theater in itself). In fact, on the Napoleonic Wars article itself, the War of 1812 is described as a subsidiary war. AvRand (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Mere longevity is the weakest and often worst form of consensus. You need to cite a source that describes the War of 1812 as one of the Napoleonic Wars, not merely as being related to or contemporaneous with them. The fact that another article says something is not itself the substance of an argument—cf. WP:BEENHERE and WP:OTHERCONTENT. I also think its inclusion there is mistaken, but it even says on Napoleonic Wars merely that The War of 1812 coincided with the War of the Sixth Coalition. There is no source cited there attesting that it is actually considered subsidiary Remsense ‥ 论 10:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify your position User:Remsense, are you against the inclusion because your interpretation of history differs, or only because you don't feel it's at the moment properly sourced? AvRand (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're asking here—like always, we write articles based on what reliable sources say. Remsense ‥ 论 10:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Well from what I understand, most sources acknowledge the important connection between the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars, so I'm asking if your interpretation of history differs, and that's your issue (historians do often disagree) , or if, if properly sourced, you will be satisfied and drop your argument? AvRand (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I stated it pretty clearly above: You need to cite a source that describes the War of 1812 as one of the Napoleonic Wars, not merely as being related to or contemporaneous with them. It is the
|partof=parameter, not the|relatedto=parameter. That would get you started at least —we generally only include information in the infobox if it's a critical fact attested in many sources, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Remsense ‥ 论 11:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I stated it pretty clearly above: You need to cite a source that describes the War of 1812 as one of the Napoleonic Wars, not merely as being related to or contemporaneous with them. It is the
- Well from what I understand, most sources acknowledge the important connection between the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars, so I'm asking if your interpretation of history differs, and that's your issue (historians do often disagree) , or if, if properly sourced, you will be satisfied and drop your argument? AvRand (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're asking here—like always, we write articles based on what reliable sources say. Remsense ‥ 论 10:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I also request that you self-revert, as you are mistaken about what WP:BURDEN says. Remsense ‥ 论 11:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- The present version is still misusing the
|partof=parameter in a way that is nonstandard and thus potentially misleading. It should also be noted that the other editor below would prefer its removal from the infobox also, so if you're willing to assess consensus by what editors are presently saying, you're insisting against consensus. Remsense ‥ 论 11:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- The present version is still misusing the
- To clarify your position User:Remsense, are you against the inclusion because your interpretation of history differs, or only because you don't feel it's at the moment properly sourced? AvRand (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Since France was not involved in the war, and the U.S. was not involved in the wars between France and the UK it's not clear that it was part of a war between France and the UK. It's better to explain the connection in the body of the article rather than put it into the info-box. TFD (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, this has been discussed before here in 2008 on this article and here in 2016 on the Napoleonic Wars article. I'm not sure that either discussion resulted in what could be considered consensus.
- Whether or not to count the War of 1812 as a Napoleonic War seems to be sort of inconsistent across Wikipedia:
- The Napoleonic Wars article has it as a "subsidiary war"
- The Napoleonic Wars campaignbox template puts it essentially on equal footing with the Coalition Wars (though this is obviously a bit strange).
- The battle map on the Napoleonic Wars page (not sure how to link it directly) only includes conflicts in Europe, so not the War of 1812.
- I think this argument essentially has as much to do with the definition of "part of" as the definition of "Napoleonic Wars" so it's difficult to support with sources. I like the "relates to" phrasing in the current edit, but as User:Remsense mentioned, the definition provided for
|partof=at Template:Infobox military conflict doesn't necessarily support this. Overall I'd say I'm currently against including this change in the infobox but I think it could make sense to add more detail on the relation between this war and the Napoleonic Wars in the content of the article itself. Rovenrat (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)- Again, it doesn't matter what other unsourced content someone else added to another article. Remsense ‥ 论 12:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- True, I don't mean to imply that as a reason to make a decision one way or another here, just that it's not unusual or nonsensical for editors to categorize things this way. And the listing of the War of 1812 as a "subsidiary war" isn't unsourced, though I don't have access to the book to look through the exact language used there. Rovenrat (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I did check the book. (And yes, it was fast, since I perused the index, in case anyone was wondering.) There are no such claims; it is a history of the period that discusses affairs in an interwoven, transatlantic manner as the title would suggest, but does not make any of the claims or characterizations that are at issue here. Remsense ‥ 论 12:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would dispute that characterization, the book shows a link between the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars AvRand (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I did check the book. (And yes, it was fast, since I perused the index, in case anyone was wondering.) There are no such claims; it is a history of the period that discusses affairs in an interwoven, transatlantic manner as the title would suggest, but does not make any of the claims or characterizations that are at issue here. Remsense ‥ 论 12:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- True, I don't mean to imply that as a reason to make a decision one way or another here, just that it's not unusual or nonsensical for editors to categorize things this way. And the listing of the War of 1812 as a "subsidiary war" isn't unsourced, though I don't have access to the book to look through the exact language used there. Rovenrat (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Again, it doesn't matter what other unsourced content someone else added to another article. Remsense ‥ 论 12:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- The War of 1812 is related to the Napoleonic Wars but not part of them. The spirit and intent of the template documentation is quite clear as is the inherent wording of the parameter - it is to indicate the parent conflict. So, no related to. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- "part of" and "(importantly) related to" are not synonymous - support exclusion per Remsense. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- While we're here with me thankfully not catching a time-out for this morning's mania, I did triple-check that subtenancy to Sixty Years' War was correct—though that made far more intuitive sense to begin with. (I ought to work on this article with my Canadian peers alongside others with my Vietnamese, Filipino, and Afghan peers—so I can contribute to the entire gamut of blunderful Ls within my country's military history.)— Remsense ‥ 论 05:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
While Remsense has made many errors in the procedure of this, fortunately enough editors have weighed in to form a consensus regardless. As the large majority opinion seems to be in favor of leaving out a connection to the Napoleonic Wars in the infobox, I will defer to this consensus. I still would be in favor of adding a small section to dive deeper into the (indisputable) inter-relatedness between the two conflicts in the body though. Thanks to all who weighed in! AvRand (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)