This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Here, I did add this:

According to David Millis, the myth of Canadian victory in the war was created by the reactionary elites of Upper Canada such as the Family Compact long after the war ended. Most people in Upper Canada were late Loyalists, i.e. economic migrants from the United States, the United Empire Loyalists were not a distinct group, about 10% of the Loyalists were slaves and most residents did not care who won the war and did not participate in it. The Family Compact disenfranchised most residents of Upper Canada after the war, with the idea of loyalty being used to justify the suppression of dissent. Millis argues that the myth was invented for immigrants who arrived after the end of the Napoleonic Wars.

Could you please copy edit that, reword it if there is any error, add pages, etc.? Thank you. :-)-- Davide King ( talk) 09:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if I would phrase it in that detail in the article. We should mention that after the war the elites of Upper Canada promoted the "militia myth," that the loyalists of Upper Canada had defeated the United States. In fact militia played little role in protecting the province and most inhabitants had little interest in the outcome of the war. That's basically a consensus view. Mills' contribution was to examine it in great detail.

After the war, immigration policy changed so that immigration now came mostly from the UK, with a preference for army veterans with proven loyalty. American spelling which had been standard in the province was rejected in favor of British spelling. The local population began to call themselves Canadians. Bishop Strachan established the University of Toronto and Upper Canada College so the children of local elites would not have to study in the U.S. But that's too much information for the article. I just mention it because it helps to understand how the popular Ontarian view is based on a mythologized history.

TFD ( talk) 16:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Feel free to imprve it. I believe it should be mentioned and if that can stops more users for believing in the myth, then better yet. Since I am here, I would like to also ask you if you could add refs about the consensus of historians on the result because Elinruby keeps adding failed verification tags. Now it currently states

In recent decades, the consensus among historians has been that the war ended in a draw[304][failed verification][305][failed verification][306][failed verification][307] or stalemate,[5][6] with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive.[308]

Thank you again.-- Davide King ( talk) 23:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's pointless to edit the article now with all the disruption. It's just feeding the trolls. TFD ( talk) 23:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I agree, but I believe you could really help improving the article. Now here Deathlibrarian is giving the British win viewpoint more weight than it warrants. We should follow books like the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 which says:

The War of 1812 does not have a clear winner, and as a result historians have debated the conflict's outcome for nearly two centuries. Canadian historian Wesley Turned suggested that both the United States and Britain won the war, while Henry Adams came close to suggesting that both sides lost. Most historians, however, have taken a middle position, arguing that the war actually ended in a draw. Yet the fighting along the Gulf Coast ended in a clear U.S. victory with the young republic in the ascendency. By the time the fighting had concluded, American forces had defeated the Creek Indians at Horseshoe Bend, Spanish forces in Pensacola, Florida, the British Navy at Fort Bowyer, and British-trained Peninsula veterans at New Orleans.

As Sylvia L. Hilton and I showed in Nexus of Empire: Negotiating Loyalty and Identity in the Revolutionary Borderlands, 1760s–1820s, the United States also had solidified its hold over Louisiana by incorporating the French and Spanish inhabitants into American society; broken Native American power in the Southeast and forced the Indians to agree to a treaty that relinquished millions of acres of territory; exposed Spanish weakness that resulted by 1821 in the American acquisition of the Florida peninsula; and reinforced the institution of slavery by suppressing insurrections, demanding the British return of black refugees, and destroying the British-build, British-provisioned Negro Fort of the Apalachicola River. By the time the fighting ended, the United States had asserted unquestioned federal control over all lands between Mobile Bay and the Sabine River, and within six years would secure the entire Florida Peninsula. So while War of 1812 historian Donald R. Hickey has maintained in Don't Give up the Ship! that the United States lost the War of 1812, this was surely not the case along the Gulf Coast.

This does not sound like the British win viewpoint is significant as argued by Deathlibrarian, it is just a few scholars holding that position, but you noted many times consensus does not mean or imply unanimity and it is not unusual for academics hold different positions and still have a consensus. Davide King ( talk) 03:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Arguing with them is like arguing with anti-maskers. You can't persuade them because their motivation is underlying beliefs that justify whatever tactics are necessary. While it may appear you are arguing about what the evidence says, that has nothing to do with how they formed their opinions. Anti-maskers believe that the elites are using the alleged pandemic to further their agenda. So whatever arguments you have about how effective masks are is ignored because they know that the pandemic is a Chinese hoax. TFD ( talk) 04:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I understand and agree with your point; apart from holding a British/Canadian and Family Compact viewpoint, they seem to conflate or make no distinction between the actual result on the battlefield and interpretations which do not contradict that militarly it was a draw. The problem and issue is that we are not just discussing but editing too and not it says that the British win is a significant minority. Here, I tried to show this; and here, I tried to distinguish between the military result (consensus that it was a draw) and its interpretations. Davide King ( talk) 06:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop with the snide references to Ontario. They are ill-founded and I can't argue the point further without outing myself, which could conceivably be dangerous to me or to my family, given some of the articles I work on. It is certainly not something I wish to risk in order to explain Canadian history to you, especially since it has become clear that you really don't care to hear it. Apart from the danger of writing about what totalitarian regimes do not wish do have written, there are other, pettier, reasons for this policy, and you bear them out when, perhaps angry at being called out for underhandedness at the RS noticeboard, rather than notify other editors of the discussion there as I suggested, you start a discussion about deleting Canada again, perhaps hoping to anger me in turn. Please feel free to start another complaint that I am mean to you. Meanwhile, I still have not seen your sources. Elinruby ( talk) 19:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for posting your comments here, instead of on talk pages designed to discuss article content.

I don't understand what you mean by snide references to Ontario. I merely said, and it is an objective fact, that the elites who ruled Upper Canada created the militia myth, that loyal residents of the province defeated the United States and that this view prevails among many if not most citizens of the province today. You even said that the textbook used in your French separate school made that claim, although you have not named the text and in my opinion you are mistaken.

I created the article Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal and was a major contributor. I hear his brother is now premier of Ontario. I got a lot of flack from right-wingers over that, but no one accused me of being anti-Ontario. Don't think that everything written about problems in the province is an attack.

Incidentally, I never suggested that we put Canada up for AfD. I think it's important for Americans to know that they have two borders.

Out of curiosity, what made you so interested in this article? I became interested because I follow articles that attract editors who try to re-write them to reflect fringe or minority views. While I understand that casual readers may find these views attractive, what interests me is how tenaciously they can hold onto them in the face of evidence. It reminds me of what Dale Carnegie said: that people adopt beliefs with little evidence yet feel threatened when they are challenged.

TFD ( talk) 23:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no allegiance to Ontario. And even if I did it would have nothing to do with what I do at Wikipedia. Now drop the subject or I will have to ask that your remarks be removed. You are putting my family in danger. Stop. If you think I am pushing some sort of pro-Ontario slant your projection issues are worse than I thought. The next action I take on this will be a formal complaint. Stop trying to bait me by misrepresenting my positions and talking to me like I am six. Seriously. Stop talking about French schools in Ontario. That is very specific and telling you the name of the textbook would be more so. Drop the subject. Apart from its potential to out me, it’s contentious and bullying. We both know that it doesn’t matter what that textbook was because we we have many better sources and you are literally the only person who cares, or says he does. You aren’t here to write an encyclopedia, clearly. And I came, btw, to this article because it was listed as needing references. I agree. It does. Now. Go push an undergrad around or something. And back off. Elinruby ( talk) 05:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You wrote, "This is what is taught in Canadian schools: the US tried to annex Canada and did not succeed. Therefore Canada won."[06:00, 24 June 2020] When I provided a link to Building the Canadian Nation, which was a textbook used for decades, you countered by saying you attended a French separate school in Ottawa and a private school in Alberta, but could not name the book you used. If you don't want to talk about it, you shouldn't bring it up.

I don't see how any of this puts your family in danger. I have never heard of anyone harmed for what they wrote about the War of 1812. It was a long time ago, after all. One of the main contributors actually uses his real name and published an article about it.

TFD ( talk) 06:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

why would you double down after I asked you to drop it? You don’t see a great many things and I am not required to explain them to you. Stop. Elinruby ( talk) 06:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

If you don't want editors to know your biographical details, don't mention them or use them to support your assertions. It's pointless anyway, since article text cannot be determined by editors' specialized knowledge or experience. TFD ( talk) 18:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for substantiating that you knew all along that there was no point in providing the biographical details you were demanding, even as you claimed that they must be false because I wouldn't provide them. I don't object to some minor discussion at the time of the outburst, but repeated sneering attribution of my article improvements to some sort of provincial patriotism is simply unfounded and repeat what I have asked you to drop. That is all. Elinruby ( talk) 16:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't ask for biographical details, I asked if you could name the textbook that said Canada won the War of 1812. You brought it up, you provided information about where you went to school and where you worked. No one asked you to do that. And please don't change the discussion headings I choose to use on my talk page. TFD ( talk) 20:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that the complaining editor could not point to anything that you reviewed and commented upon re the Ontario article that were mistaken. The supposition that something was "snide" holds no weight when maintaining Wikipedia's content or quality. Some editors will always find some edits "snide" or otherwise object on ideology rather than on the merits of said updates. That's Wikipedia. Thankfully suitable references and citations decide whether updates are acceptable or not, not random unsupervised opinions. SoftwareThing ( talk) 20:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I saw your comment at WP:RSN and thought I'd ask for help here. I'm a bit unclear on the meaning of "self-published" even after going through Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. I understand that blogs and forum posts are obvious examples of selfpub. I understand that articles published in predatory journals, books published by vanity press are selfpub because the publisher does little or no fact checking and/or relies on the author to do the fact checking. So it seems that in order for something to not be self-published there needs to be some people other than the author that do a meaningful overview of the author's work before publishing. Is my understanding correct?

Also what if the author and the body that does the fact checking belong to the same organization? For example, the author is a reporter in a news org, and the oversight is done by the editorial board in that very news org. Does that have any impact on the status of selfpub? VR _talk 02:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Self published merely means the author has published his own work. In that case we determine if the work is reliable by determining if the author is an expert. So for example a professor may have a website dedicated to their field of specialization.

Books and articles published by reputable publishers are considered reliable because we trust the publishers to only accept works that they know are reliable. That may include fact-checking the work or it could be that they respect the author and expect that they have ensured accuracy.

While blogs are generally unreliable, per WP:BLOG, a blog by reporters that is part of a reliable news website may be reliable if it follows the same standards as news articles.

Bear in mind that there are errors in all types of sources and we should always pick the best sources. Things to keep in mind are the quality of the publisher, the relevance of the source to the topic and when it was published. A book about astronomy from 1980 for example might be out of date. It might mention ancient civilizations as part of its history of astronomy section, but would not be a good source for ancient history. Finally, an upper level university textbook would be a better source than a book written for the general public.

Most of this is common sense. But what causes frequent dispute is when an editor wants a certain fact inserted into an article and searches for a source. The proper approach is to identify good sources and summarize what they say.

TFD ( talk) 03:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the above response. I understand your comments about books and blogs, they makes sense. I'm still wondering how we determine the status of self-published for things like websites. It seems that most websites are considered self-published. What about pew research? The authors and editors are all employees of the same organization. Is it not considered self-published by the virtue that an editor exists who provides meaningful oversight? If so, would government websites where anything published is overseen by someone whose not the author also be considered not selfpublished? VR _talk 03:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, we know that Pew Research is reliable because it is frequently cited in reliable sources. If you want to read discussions about this you can search for them at RSN. (There's a search box at the top.) Also, Pew is on the list of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as reliable, and there are links to two RSN discussions. i don't know what procedures they follow before releasing reports for publication, but I assume they have some sort of fact-checking and error correction.

A government website where content was written and overseen by different people would still be self-published. But it's a moot point, because if the oversight was the same as a reliable publisher, we would treat it in the same way.

It's important to bear in mind that reliability depends on the use one wants to make of the source. An article in an astrophysics journal for example may be reliable for articles about distant stars but should not be used for articles about modern art. While think tanks are generally considered reliable, there is little reason to use them except in highly specialized articles. Suppose you were creating an article about the education system in Chicago. You would first search for books written about it, preferring academic and more recent writing. You would supplement this (since events have occurred since the books were published) with academic journal articles and news reports. You would chose journal articles that were relevant to the topic, in other words devoted substantial space to education in Chicago, rather than mentioned it in passing. The same with news articles. And the papers you used would be either from Chicago or quality newspapers that had a national or international focus. So you wouldn't use a local paper from Spokane, Washington, even if it was a reliable source.

The wrong approach is to decide that something belongs in an article and find a source for the information. For example, one editor wanted the article on the U.S. to say that Puerto Rico was part of the country, rather than an external territory and used the Post Office website as a source. Of course it is not reasonable to use the Post Office website as a source for constitutional law. In my experience, this type of approach is the cause of the vast majority of discussion on talk pages and noticeboards.

TFD ( talk) 16:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit violates the BRD restriction in effect on that page, which reads "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit." Please self-revert. – bradv 🍁 02:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed the notice. TFD ( talk) 02:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. For what it's worth, I think you may be right, at least in your initial edit summary. The 23rd Avenue Church of God is part of the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana), which doesn't call itself Baptist per se. However, the article would be better with a source explaining that, rather than just casting doubt on Harris' interpretation. It's probably best to bring it to the talk page for more input. – bradv 🍁 02:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, we should never challenge what people say in text. On the other hand we should never report what they say as fact, if it is in conflict with facts. The church Harris says she attended is definitely not Baptist and we only have her word that she attended it regularly. Maybe she thinks that all black churches are Baptist. TFD ( talk) 03:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You are putting your own personal opinion into this, both here and on the talk page, rather than arguing from sources. Please try to contribute from a neutral perspective. – bradv 🍁 05:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Not at all, bradv. Dumuzid said, "I take it that you mean African Americans don't vote based on issues or personal qualities?" I never said that and explained why I do not believe that. TFD ( talk) 05:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi TFD, thanks for your edit on the talk page of Falkland Islanders, it was really helpful. I took on board your comments and searched again for more academic references to the Argentine offer of citizenship to the Falklanders and have added them to the page. All the best. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 09:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)