This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This was a major part of US forgin policy. It combines all parts of the War of 1812, XYZ affair, Quasi-War and a lot more. In addition
Ireland in the Coalition Wars is very simmer to the article. Also there was a discussion on WikiProject Military history in witch it was agreed this would be an important article. Overall it would be best to have a specific article to include how the United States was directly involved in the war. To say they “describes the same period and the same events” would be the same as saying we should merge
Timeline of United States history (1930–1949) and
Military history of the United States during World War II.I would also like to ask you why you have opened a talk page for merging on over half of the pages I have written, and have commented on completely unrelated talk pages I have been in.
LuxembourgLover (
talk)
21:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree with the merge proposal and CMD's comment. This article does not expand the information in the History article. It doesn't really cover it at all. It only deals with contemporaneous foreign policy events or policies. No need for a separate article without more specific information on the topic. One or two redirects might be appropriate in case anyone is looking for this particular topic.
Donner60 (
talk)
23:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
●Support- The article is short enough that it can be merged into the proposed article without expanding the article too much, i feel if we decide to not merge we might as well end up splitting the current article(which there is no need to split).
😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (
talk)
15:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)reply
There appear to be two items of information on this page that are not on the more general page, the specific reference to a "Proclamation of Neutrality" as opposed to a more general mention of a "policy of neutrality", and details about the
Quasi-War. On the first, I'm not sure the specific reference is currently due per sources, the first source mentions is in lowercase and thus as a descriptive term, the second uses "Neutrality Proclamation" which is a specific term but shows there isn't a standard formulation. On the Quasi-War, that seems at face value to feel important, but it could use stronger sourcing to show this.
CMD (
talk)
01:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
" Oppose this should be a broad general article and it links to many specialized articles, such as USA and the French wars. Merger would give undue emphasis.
Rjensen (
talk)
06:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The info about the Quasi War is by and large taken or at least very similar to
Quasi-War but with a new source. But with all due respect, concerning the Quasi-War it is largely a passing mention.
Support Aside from the sourcing, it also seems to align more or less with the end of the Jeffersonian era and the beginning of the end of the First Party System. This split makes sense. --
Grnrchst (
talk)
12:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Support- I believe we should split the article. I've written an article on US involvement in the Napoleonic Wars. Despite my protests, it got merged into this article. Consequently, I think creating a separate page for the "History of the United States (1789–1815)" is a good idea.
LuxembourgLover (
talk)
00:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. The article definitely is unwieldy at its current length. Having two articles would be better for readers and for editors (it would be much easier to edit).
Historyday01 (
talk)
19:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This was a major part of US forgin policy. It combines all parts of the War of 1812, XYZ affair, Quasi-War and a lot more. In addition
Ireland in the Coalition Wars is very simmer to the article. Also there was a discussion on WikiProject Military history in witch it was agreed this would be an important article. Overall it would be best to have a specific article to include how the United States was directly involved in the war. To say they “describes the same period and the same events” would be the same as saying we should merge
Timeline of United States history (1930–1949) and
Military history of the United States during World War II.I would also like to ask you why you have opened a talk page for merging on over half of the pages I have written, and have commented on completely unrelated talk pages I have been in.
LuxembourgLover (
talk)
21:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree with the merge proposal and CMD's comment. This article does not expand the information in the History article. It doesn't really cover it at all. It only deals with contemporaneous foreign policy events or policies. No need for a separate article without more specific information on the topic. One or two redirects might be appropriate in case anyone is looking for this particular topic.
Donner60 (
talk)
23:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
●Support- The article is short enough that it can be merged into the proposed article without expanding the article too much, i feel if we decide to not merge we might as well end up splitting the current article(which there is no need to split).
😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (
talk)
15:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)reply
There appear to be two items of information on this page that are not on the more general page, the specific reference to a "Proclamation of Neutrality" as opposed to a more general mention of a "policy of neutrality", and details about the
Quasi-War. On the first, I'm not sure the specific reference is currently due per sources, the first source mentions is in lowercase and thus as a descriptive term, the second uses "Neutrality Proclamation" which is a specific term but shows there isn't a standard formulation. On the Quasi-War, that seems at face value to feel important, but it could use stronger sourcing to show this.
CMD (
talk)
01:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
" Oppose this should be a broad general article and it links to many specialized articles, such as USA and the French wars. Merger would give undue emphasis.
Rjensen (
talk)
06:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The info about the Quasi War is by and large taken or at least very similar to
Quasi-War but with a new source. But with all due respect, concerning the Quasi-War it is largely a passing mention.
Support Aside from the sourcing, it also seems to align more or less with the end of the Jeffersonian era and the beginning of the end of the First Party System. This split makes sense. --
Grnrchst (
talk)
12:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Support- I believe we should split the article. I've written an article on US involvement in the Napoleonic Wars. Despite my protests, it got merged into this article. Consequently, I think creating a separate page for the "History of the United States (1789–1815)" is a good idea.
LuxembourgLover (
talk)
00:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. The article definitely is unwieldy at its current length. Having two articles would be better for readers and for editors (it would be much easier to edit).
Historyday01 (
talk)
19:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply