| Revision as of 16:38, 1 July 2024 editLigaturama (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions2,470 editsm →Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2024: Answered← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:43, 6 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,219 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:War of 1812/Archive 29) (bot |
| (45 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) |
| Line 32: |
Line 32: |
|
| date = October 2012 |
|
| date = October 2012 |
|
| quote = Subject of the Research |
|
| quote = Subject of the Research |
|
| archiveurl = http://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF |
|
|
| archivedate = 2014 |
|
|
| accessdate = |
|
| accessdate = |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| Line 57: |
Line 55: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Can we give the americans an image of their outfits? == |
|
== Algiers == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
Hello ], would it be preferable if i mentionned the implication of Algiers in this war in the body before adding it to the infobox ? Best. ] (]) 10:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(I'm fine if someone responds with yes or no.) ] (]) 15:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Per ], it is to summarise key facts ''of the article''. So, yes. Otherwise, we are left wondering, why is Algiers there? Regards, ] (]) 10:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Infobox == |
|
::Regarding the recent addition |
|
|
:::{{tq|The British would also ask Algiers, the most powerful of the Ottoman affiliated Barbary states, to attack U.S. ships. The regency declared war on the U.S., capturing American merchant ships and enslaving their crews.|q=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@] |
|
::This seems ] and I would dispute that Algiers should be recorded as a combatant. Is there any support from reliable sources regarding Algiers having a tangible impact upon the war? Why were they not participants in the peace negotiations at Ghent? ] (]) 11:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Algerian declaration of war in 1812, is a direct reason for the second ]. Algiers being the strongest of the barbary states is the reason why Britain asked it to join the war against the U.S., since Algiers imposed at that time tribute on the U.S. shipping in the mediterranean. This is supported by multiple sources and doesn't have to be necessarly nationalist in nature. ] (]) 12:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The sources i provided seem reliable to me , here's another one ] (]) 12:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Two of the most well known American sources on the Regency of Algiers: Wolf p. 313 and Spencer p. 139-140. I would suggest adding to the aftermath of this war some informations about the motives for the second barbary war (Algerian attacks on U.S. shipping, stronger U.S. navy and Congress declaration of war on March 2, 1815. ] (]) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::If I was going to put across an argument about the Second World War, I would not be quoting from books about the First Indochina War. These sources pertain to Algiers. I would expect there to be mention from a reliable source about the '''War of 1812''', in particular the naval aspect, such as the writings of Roosevelt, Toll, Daughan or similar. |
|
|
:::::Aforementioned Sources: |
|
|
:::::Barnes, Gregory Fremont (2006) The wars of the Barbary pirates |
|
|
:::::Wolf, John B (1979) The Barbary coast: Algiers under the Turks 1500 to 1830 |
|
|
:::::Spencer, William (1922) Algiers in the age of the corsairs |
|
|
:::::I remain of the opinion that the concept that the Algerian corsairs were a partner of the British, in the War of 1812, to be a fringe idea. I do not think this will be accepted as something to remain in the article. ] (]) 13:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I get your point, and honestly that's how i used to work on the article of the Regency, by stating refs that deal directly with the subject matter. In this case you're free to remove what I added unless i find Algerian participation in RS that deals with the War of 1812. Thanks. ] (]) 14:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The impact of the Barbary states had an impact upon the fledgling US Navy and its Corps of Marines, for sure. I don't see this occurring during the War of 1812, though. |
|
|
::::::::{{tq|The British|q=yes}} would also ask {{tq|Algiers, the most powerful of the Ottoman affiliated Barbary states|q=yes}} |
|
|
:::::::Regarding the above (1) the present conditional of 'would also' to be removed, and in principle replaced with 'had asked'. (2) Although that corrected the grammar, the content of page 41 does not document a request from the British to declare war. It was an unhappy coincidence for Madison that an Algerian declaration of war (on an as-yet undetermined date) occurred when war against the British commenced in 1812. It is interesting that any American shipping in the mediterranean were vulnerable to attack, as mentioned on page 170. It becomes clear that these subsequent attacks would lead to the second war in 1815. (The reservation I would have with the book by Brendan January as a reliable source is that it does not contain inline citations, so it is hard to determine the evidence behind his comments.) |
|
|
:::::::The talk page is useful, for the debates that arise. This article has been in existence for over 20 years. I have not come across a concept of Algerian participation in my reading about the War of 1812. I think others will have opinions on whether this is a fringe idea, or whether it can remain. |
|
|
:::::::Thank you for having been polite and clear in your communications on this topic, especially given that I gather that english is not your mother tongue. ] (]) 14:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I'm looking through these, and I also fail to see a direct reference in these sources to where the British asked the Algerians to attack American shipping. I've also done some extra searching, and I can't see any other references to it - could be there (its not an area I know much about) but I can't see them. There are certainly attacks going on against US shipping at the same time, but nothing I can see to indicate the Brits asked them to. I note that the ] discusses contact between the British King and the leader of Algiers, but does not say he was asking them to attack the US. ] (]) 04:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
About the revert: |
|
== Infobox and belligerents, with Spain on the list == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
As things as they currently are, I have 3 observations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
# 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
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. |
|
|
|
::So are you blaming me or the infobox itself? |
|
|
|
|
|
::''"The changes to the result parameter are contrary to ]."'' |
|
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. |
|
|
|
::I think I clearly acknowledged that I made a mistake here, don't particularly get the point of repeating it to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
::''"The casualty section is a mess and quite contrary to the guidance.Your edits there only take things from bad to worse."'' |
|
Spain has been mentioned in passing in the past |
|
|
|
::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) |
|
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:War_of_1812/Archive_22#Spain |
|
|
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:War_of_1812/Archive_20#Infobox |
|
|
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:War_of_1812/Archive_8#Spain?%60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
*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) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: 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) |
|
|
::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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== replace "indian" with "indigenous" == |
|
|
|
|
|
in several parts of the artical, it says that indians are fighting in the war, and i think that if it is indeed people from india who are fighting, then add india to the list of nations in the war, but if that is not true then update it to "indigenous", "native americans", or something like that to reduce misconceptions (perhaps instead just specify where they were from?) - ] (]) 19:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Add India to the nations" good one lol ] (]) 05:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: It's been discussed, many many times before. ] This is just ONE of many discussions - for more do a search through the archives. ] (]) 11:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Capitalisation of "house" and "senate" == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{U|Em3rgent0rdr}}, ''the house'' and ''the senate'' per Merriam-Webster are {{tq|often used in capitalized form as the shortened name of a specific house }} such as in the US Congress. Proper nouns are always capitalised - not just often. These are not examples of proper nouns|names. While they may often be capped, this does not mean that capitalisation is ''necessary'' per the general advice at ]. Capitalisation of such shortened forms is sometimes done for significance but per ], we don't do that. ] more specifically addresses this issue and tells us not to cap in such instances. The matter of capitalising shortened forms of formal names has been specifically discussed and rejected by the community. We have our own style guide to follow. You reversion to capitalise these words is quite contrary to guidance. ] (]) 10:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:MOS:INSTITUTIONS literally says "Also treat as a proper name a shorter but still specific form, consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources (e.g., US State Department or the State Department, depending on context)." ] (]) 14:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Please explain the relevance of your comments to the article. ] (]) 20:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The relevance is explained by the edit reversion linked. These are not comparable to a ''still specific form'' per example given. ] (]) 22:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Notified at ]. ] (]) 23:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Americans were able to end the impressment of their citizens" == |
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed this in the historiography section. Of course, the US didn't end impressment, this is a bit of a misconception - the Brits dropped it because they no longer needed sailors because the war with Napoleon was going well. When the US asked for it to be dropped as policy at the Treaty of Ghent, the Brits refused, and the US ratified the treaty anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
If this para is saying that American Historians ''believe'' this to be the case, then may be the wording needs to be changed to reflect that, but presently this is basically repeating a misnomer and is misleading. It's also unsourced.] (]) 04:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This sounds like a case when one should never let the facts get in the way of a good story. ] (]) 11:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think that's what whoever added it to the article was thinking!] (]) 12:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:It stopped simply because the Royal Navy did not want to pay for sailors it did not need. The right to press however was retained until superseded by conscription at the start of WWI. There was a slight change to the law in 1836 to prevent anyone being pressed more than once and to limit the service of a pressed man to five years but the right to press was very much reiterated. It was never the intention to press Americans (which would have been illegal) but of course there were some mistakes. The British compensated and repatriated 3,800 of those taken after they were found to be American citizens. Do you have a suggestion for rewriting that particular sentence? --] (]) 07:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Yes, indeed, thanks for that extra detail, I knew it was kept on the books for potential use for a while after, but wasn't sure of the details. My point of course is that the US didn't somehow force the UK to end Impressment. Simplest thing is just to remove the reference. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Current wording: With the failure of the invasion of British Canada advancing the concept of Canadian identity, and of Canada as a distinct :: region that would continue to evolve into a nation. ''Americans were able to end the impressment of their citizens and'' enforce their sovereignty. Both the restoration of honor and what has been called the Second War of Independence are important themes in American historiography, and are considered significant results by historians. Indigenous nations are generally held to have lost in the war. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Suggested rewording: |
|
|
::With the failure of the invasion of British Canada advancing the concept of Canadian identity, Canada remained a distinct region that would continue to evolve into a nation. Americans were able to enforce their sovereignty, and both the restoration of honor and what has been called the Second War of Independence are important themes in American historiography, and are considered significant results by historians. Indigenous nations are generally held to have lost in the war. |
|
|
:: ] (]) 02:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Okay, I can get behind that. Seems simplest because no extra sourcing is required. --] (]) 20:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Good for me. ] (]) 23:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Ok, I'll replace it, thanks everyone. I think its a pretty obvious change to make, not controversial. ] (]) 02:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That section is an excerpt from the ] (it maps the text from there) so I had to change it on that page.All sorted. ] (]) 02:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|War of 1812|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Remove Spain from British allies as no xitaiton so dubious claim ] (]) 14:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> There are plenty of references in the article's body to back up the claim. <span style="font-family:monospace;">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ]) 05:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::: ], if you would wish to join that. But as per CanonNi, perhaps read the other discussions held previously before commenting, as there has been a few discussions about this topic over the years. ] (]) 08:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|War of 1812|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Spanish alliy Calum requires a citation. ] (]) 18:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 16:38, 1 July 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)
