| Revision as of 12:07, 19 October 2024 editRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors58,858 edits →Include Reference to Napoleonic Wars in infobox: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:43, 6 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,616 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:War of 1812/Archive 29) (bot |
| (13 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) |
| Line 55: |
Line 55: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Can we give the americans an image of their outfits? == |
|
== Infobox and belligerents, with Spain on the list == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While the British have an image for their outfits in that era, The Americans don't. can we change that so we can see what the Americans looked like in the war of 1812? |
|
As things as they currently are, I have 3 observations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(I'm fine if someone responds with yes or no.) ] (]) 15:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
# Strength of US Allies is only 125 Choctaw. Surely, there must be more numbers for the various tribes? |
|
|
# The Regency of Algiers has been added in good faith, but I do not think this should remain for much longer. |
|
|
# Spain is listed. Given the ] was taking place, it did not have the resources to actively intervene, to launch an offensive, in overseas territories. (Simon Bolivar took advantage of Spain's weakness at this time.) A jittery Governor of Pensacola, ] had his territory and his neutrality violated by the British officer ], then Jackson came along and violated the neutrality. When Nicolls left, he took half the Spanish garrison away, which was stranded elsewhere for the remainder of the conflict. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Infobox == |
|
There is no declaration of war on the part of Spain against the US, or vice versa. There was effectively a border dispute with the ], but the impotence of the Spanish was not going to see any ongoing conflict on their part. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@] |
|
I don't see the US Navy listed as pro-Arab forces in the Six Day War, and I don't see the Brazilian armed forces, or the Finns, as combatants in the War in the Pacific from 1942 to 1945. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
About the revert: |
|
Spain has been mentioned in passing in the past |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand why it was reverted (I'd be guessing likely due to the "Both sides claim victory" and "Native American defeat" parts), but I don't exactly know why everything was removed? |
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:War_of_1812/Archive_22#Spain |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even though I obviously shouldn't have added some of the information I did decide to add, other things I added such as other casualties surely shouldn't have been removed? ] (]) 09:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:War_of_1812/Archive_20#Infobox |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The changes to the result parameter are contrary to ]. Per ], the infobox is not a place for detail. It is there to summarise ''key facts'' from the article. The article should remain complete without the infobox. The casualty section is a mess and quite contrary to the guidance. Your edits there only take things from bad to worse. We should be writing such things into the article. Regards, ] (]) 10:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:War_of_1812/Archive_8#Spain?%60 |
|
|
|
::So are you blaming me or the infobox itself? |
|
|
|
|
|
::''"The changes to the result parameter are contrary to ]."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::I think I clearly acknowledged that I made a mistake here, don't particularly get the point of repeating it to me. |
|
I think as it currently stands, it is misleading, and implies Spanish forces engaged from 1813 through 1814. I am only aware of the capture of Pensacola on November 7, 1814 as the one time Spanish forces were engaged against the US Army during the War of 1812. I don't think being sandwiched between the fiery and ill-tempered personalities of Jackson and Nicolls was a particularly appealing prospect! ] (]) 20:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::''"The casualty section is a mess and quite contrary to the guidance.Your edits there only take things from bad to worse."'' |
|
|
|
|
*Where one side fights two separate wars at the same time, it does not mean that they are the same war or that the belligerents against a common belligerents are cobelligerents - unless the sources explicitly tell us otherwise. That two things happen at the same time does not mean they are the one thing. ] (]) 01:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
::How do I worsen the casualty section by adding more info to it? Is there a problem in acknowledging the fact that there isn't only one source giving one specific casualty number? I don't get this point in the slightest. ] (]) 11:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
::: Per sources that I currently have available at hand (I'll find more later), but I've read about the British-Spanish alliance for years now. |
|
|
::: "<u>The Slaves Gamble: Choosing Sides in the War of 1812 by Gene Allen Smith</u> (pg156) |
|
|
::: "The rising fear that Andrew Jackson's army would soon descend on Pensascola convinced West Florida governor Mateo González Manrique to request British assistance, and within days the entire British Gulf force occupied Pensacola. Nicolls hoisted the Union Jack over the city in mid-August 1814 and declared himself the military commander of the city." Per Smith, the plan by Nicolls at Pensacola was to use the British forces (including the Colonial Marines), native tribes, and any available Spanish forces (with townspeople). The Spanish slaves were recruited from the city and this was a cause of friction because of their alliance. |
|
|
::: "<u>The Slaves Gamble: Choosing Sides in the War of 1812 by Gene Allen Smith</u> (pg157) |
|
|
::: "Cochrane had instructed Nicholls not to recruit Spanish slaves because Britain and Spain were then allies." |
|
|
::: "<u>The Maroons of Prospect Bluff and Their Quest for Freedom in the Atlantic World by Nathaniel Millett</u> (pg47) |
|
|
::: "“For centuries Spanish Florida had relied on blacks and Indians to defend itself against the aggressive encroachments of the British and the Anglo Americans. Now the Spanish were forced to rely on the British to defend them against the United States in an alliance that would have mystified earlier generations on both sides of the border." Millett notes that West Florida (Mobile) was mentioned by the British as part of the United States's violated of Article IX in the Treaty of Ghent. |
|
|
::: "<u>The Maroons of Prospect Bluff and Their Quest for Freedom in the Atlantic World by Nathaniel Millett</u> (pg88) |
|
|
::: “In the same month that the war officially ended, Alexander Cochrane expressed an opinion shared by many British politicians and military leaders when he wrote that Britain must take active measures, "for relieving West Florida from the usurped authority of the American Government (being a colony belonging to Spain) and at the same time to afford to the Indian Nations an opportunity of recovering territories of which they have been so unjustly deprived by the United States." The British feared an American Florida and wanted their Red Stick allies to recover the lands taken from them by the Treaty of Fort Jackson. These two goals were intertwined with the realization that a strong and well-armed Red Stick and Seminole presence in the Southeast represented the most realistic hope for Spain to maintain possession of the Floridas. With this in mind, the British encouraged the Red Sticks to endorse the Treaty of Ghent because of the inclusion of Article 9, calling for the restoration of Indian lands to their 1811 boundaries. Accordingly, Cochrane instructed Nicolls to "tell our Indian Allies that they have been included and that they are placed as to territory as they were in 1811 If the peace shall not be ratified, you will have a large reinforcement sent to you at Apalachicola." |
|
|
::: "<u>The Greatest Fury: The Battle of New Orleans and the Rebirth of America by William C. Davis</u>" (pg333) |
|
|
:::"In fact, Britain's existing alliances with Spain and the Indian tribes complicated adherence to Ghent's territorial provisions. Spain wanted a friendly buffer state between an expansionist United States and its colonial possessions in Texas, Mexico, East Florida, and that part of West Florida east of the Pearl River." Davis ends the paragraph with, "Returning New Orleans or any part of Louisiana defeated both goals and left the Americans poised to spread west across the Mississippi, and east to Spanish East Florida's doorstep. That could only complicate British relations with its Spaniard allies. It came down to the value Whitehall put on those alliance." Davis noted that forces on the ground (Colonel Thorton and Captain Roberts) planned to ransom New Orleans back to President Madison. Bathurst envisioned the possibility of keeping all or part of Louisiana indefinitely. |
|
|
::: "<u>The Greatest Fury: The Battle of New Orleans and the Rebirth of America by William C. Davis</u>" (pg334) |
|
|
::: "Whitehall repeatedly emphasized that the United States had no lawful title to Louisiana. It explicitly told Cochrane and Pakenham they could encourage Louisianans to seek independence from the United States or a return to Spanish dominion so long as they did not promise British assistance or alliance. Pakenham was actually told that New Orleans would probably be handed over to Spain, and Spaniards shared that expectation." ] (]) 21:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Britain and Spain were allied against France. I don’t believe there was an alliance against the US and none of the sources you have quoted remotely suggest that there was.--] (]) 19:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Did France ever plan to attack Pensacola in 1814? I am aware of the British-Spanish alliance against the French. Jackson tested the neutrality of the local Spanish authorities at Pensacola with a flag of truce brought forth by Major Pierre, but he (Pierre) was immediately fired upon. Jackson additionally charged the local Spanish authorities with "providing shelter to British troops" (per Daughan) for his reasoning to storm Pensacola. |
|
|
::::: <u>"1812: The War Nobody Won by Albert Martin"</u> (pg142) |
|
|
::::: "As soon as the war began, the War Department asked Tennessee's governor for militia units to drive the British out of Florida. Florida at this time belonged to Spain, Britian's ally in the Napoleonic Wars. Although neutral in the American struggle, Spain went out of its way to be "neutral" in favor of Britain. The Royal Navy freely used Florida's harbors, especially Pensacola, as if they were home ports." |
|
|
::::: I would add Ronald Drez's book (which also called out the British-Spanish alliance), but I was informed that he is considered non-RS per the current Misplaced Pages standards. |
|
|
::::: Here is what I see as a reasonable change: "<u>Spanish Floridas (1814)</u>" instead of "Spain (1813)" |
|
|
::::: The Spanish military had abandoned the local Spanish authorities, but this was primarily due to their decline. Professor McDougall notes this in his book: |
|
|
::::: <u>"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History 1585-1828 by Walter A. McDougall</u>" (pg423) |
|
|
::::: "The War of 1812 settled the matter. Britain held Canada, but failed to arrest the growth of the United States. Spain gripped her empire with no more than one legal finger. All Indians within reach were vanquished." |
|
|
::::: The sources that I note above clearly have it written that there was an alliance between the local Spanish authorities and the British government. And it seems more than coincidental that there were discussions related to U.S. territory upon that British-Spanish alliance. ] (]) 12:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I was, of course, referring to a formal Spanish-British alliance; an alliance between the governments of Spain and Britain, not a temporary co-operation between local authorities and British troops, against an American land-grab. I don’t see anything in your sources to suggest the former and, in fact, one specifically states that Spain was neutral in the American struggle.--] (]) 18:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::: Martin noted that it was not really neutral, hence he used "neutral" with quotation marks in his book. Spain needed the British support and the local authorities asked for it. The British were driven out; this outcome also hurt their reputation among the allied-Creeks. The books that I cited do not refer to this as a "temporary co-operation." Personally, I see it as fair to change it to Spanish Floridas (1814) as they were the ones whom executed the support for the British. ] (]) 00:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Irrespective of Martin's confusion over what the terms of the neutrality were, he notes that they were neutral. Monroe also considered them neutral, writing to Jackson to tell him to not risk war with Spain. You are of course free to propose whatever changes you wish to the infobox. Personally, I would like to see an end to infoboxes entirely, not just here, simply because they cannot convey the whole story accurately.--] (]) 07:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I think there is more merit with Spanish Florida (1814) than what there currently is.] (]) 18:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I agree with the change to "Spanish Florida (1814)" instead of "Spain (1813)" on the belligerents section. ] (]) 07:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The Patriot War, which took place at the same time as the War of 1812, appears to be so insignificant that it does not have a corresponding article in the Spanish language!!! ] (]) 17:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Looking through the references posted here (I admit, I haven't read much on Spain and the war apart from this) it would seem Spain was officially neutral, so should be removed from the infobox as a belligerent. As a comparison, Ireland was officially neutral in WW2, even though it favoured the UK rather than German, but certainly isn't listed as a belligerent against Germany in the WW2 article.] (]) 08:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Also, as per User:Cinderella157's comment I had also assumed there must be more US native allies than just 125 Choctaw. I knew the numbers favoured the UK, but only 125???] (]) 08:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::: The belligerent should be changed to "Spanish Florida (1814)" based on the material cited. It's neutral on paper but not in practice; hence Spain (as a country) wanted Louisiana back and Spanish Floridas wanted British protection from the United States. Was there ever an Irish city that Germany military took over and where (local) authorities were legally charged by Germany with "providing shelter to British troops" in comparison? ] (]) 07:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Changed to reflect Spanish Florida. I would like to see a reliable source as to Spanish casualties at Pensacola. The most significant outcome was that the Spanish troops were taken elsewhere and marooned for the rest of the conflict. ] (]) 18:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Yep, I support Spanish Florida as well. Makes sense. ] (]) 09:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent|11}} |
|
|
There was scarcely any War of 1812 content on the ] article, which was surprising. There's some conflicting orders from Cochrane to Nicolls. He is to respect Spanish neutrality, yet at the same time he is to enter their territory, parley with the Indians, and recruit them to the British cause. The Spanish were in no position to stop the British, and Manrique saw Jackson as a more credible threat, on the back of recent fighting with the Patriot War and the Creek War. Perfidious Albion or Manifest Destiny, a rock and a hard place. Manrique's judgement went against that of his superior Apodaca, who wanted to maintain Spanish neutrality. ] (]) 11:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:An interesting quote from the article on Pintado |
|
|
::'Cochrane ordered the return of all slaves and {{tq|Spanish troops captured by the British}} to Pensacola aboard one of his ships' |
|
|
:Do you capture your allies under usual circumstances? The Spanish source did not consider the British to be allies of the Spanish, clearly! ] (]) 19:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|War of 1812|answered=yes}} |
|
|
remove claim about spainbeing on brtiain's side since no citation for it and it is not true. ] (]) 07:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{partly done|Partly done:}}<!-- Template:ESp --> Removed the {{tl|citation needed}} tag as it was not needed. <span style="font-family:monospace;">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ]) 12:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] A cursory google search suggests it is a matter of interpretation. Maybe a note on it? The "casualties" section also lists below 20. ] (]) 14:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Flagicons == |
|
|
|
|
|
The 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." ] (]) 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. ] (]) 03:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*While ] 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 {{U|Moxy}} observes, these are {{tq|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 showing {{tq|the 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. <small>I had made a response to this effect earlier but for whatever reason, it didn't actually appear.</small> ] (]) 00:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Include Reference to Napoleonic Wars in infobox == |
|
|
|
|
|
The 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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.}}] and ]. I also think its inclusion there is mistaken, but it even says on ] merely that {{xt|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 <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 10:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::To clarify your position ], 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? ] (]) 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. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 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? ] (]) 11:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I stated it pretty clearly above: {{xt|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 {{para|partof}} parameter, not the {{para|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 ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 11:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I also request that you self-revert, as you are mistaken about what ] says. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 11:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The present version is still misusing the {{para|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. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 11:46, 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. ] (]) 10:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Campaignbox_Napoleonic_Wars}} |
|
|
:For what it's worth, this has been discussed before ] and ]. 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 Misplaced Pages: |
|
|
:* The ] article has it as a ] |
|
|
:* The ] puts it essentially on equal footing with the ] (though this is obviously a bit strange). |
|
|
:* The battle map on the ] 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 ] mentioned, the definition provided for <code>|partof=</code> at ] 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. ] (]) 12:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Again, it doesn't matter what other unsourced content someone else added to another article. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 12:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
While the British have an image for their outfits in that era, The Americans don't. can we change that so we can see what the Americans looked like in the war of 1812?
I understand why it was reverted (I'd be guessing likely due to the "Both sides claim victory" and "Native American defeat" parts), but I don't exactly know why everything was removed?
Even though I obviously shouldn't have added some of the information I did decide to add, other things I added such as other casualties surely shouldn't have been removed? Setergh (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met.svg)
.svg)
