Talk:Pig War (1859)

A source on the particulars of the German arbitration
There are not a lot of sources that spend much time on the actual details of the German arbitration that settled the dispute, however, I have found such a source, which perhaps someone could incorporate (perhaps me, at some later date, but I invite anyone else to inquire within). Tunem, Arthur J., "Dispute over the San Juan Island water boundary." U. Montana, 1931., pp. 47-54. [Link]

An interesting detail discussed is that the American representative to the arbitration was able to provide numerous examples of British authorities recognizing the Haro Strait as the ostensible border, and that no available British or American maps of the time of the previous treaty even marked the Rosario Strait. Britain's evidence was markedly weaker and mostly based on popular conceptions among various British. Keith D. Tyler &para; 08:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Casualties on Pig War (1859)
As per Template:Infobox military conflict, casualties1 is for "casualties suffered (including: dead, wounded, missing, captured and civilian deaths)" This strongly implies humans, not animals. Also, WP:EDITCONSENSUS has favored not naming the pig as a casualty. Frankly, I am unaware of other military conflict articles that specify animals as casualties. Peaceray (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The Gombe Chimpanzee War article includes animal deaths. 173.14.40.185 (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You are comparing apples to oranges. Please see WP:WHATABOUTX. The Gombe Chimpanzee War is clearly an exceptional use of Infobox military conflict. In the vast majority of cases, the casualty parameters almost always refer to human casualties. What percentage of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox military conflict refers to non-human casualties? I think you would be hard pressed to find anything beyond one or two exceptions. Peaceray (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The death of the pig is clearly an exceptional non-human death. Normally Humans do not care very much about the death of animals compared to human death so there usually is no reason to include it as a casualty, but in this situation Charles Griffin felt very strongly about the pig to the degree that its death led to military escalation. Given these exceptional circumstances, it warrants another exception. 68.37.35.69 (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is already addressed in the article, so no need to make an exception for the Infobox, any more than we should list a horse when a commanding officer has lost a favored mount. Peaceray (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Emu War includes animal deaths too, if it matters. ManU9827 (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The comparison of an officer losing a mount in any other conflict, to the pig in this war leading to the war itself, is apples and oranges. Nobody is arguing that inclusion of the pig into this info box should mean to set the precedent that animal deaths in all wars should be tabulated and included. The majority of people are arguing that the death of the pig itself is significant enough to warrant special mention due to the circumstances of the war and what the death of the pig meant for the event.
 * The Emu War article I personally judge is a better example of this than the Gombe Chimpanzee war, as the number of dead emus was significant and relevant to the "conflict". The main goal of the Emu War was to kill emu's, and thus their number of dead was significant enough to note.
 * The death of the pig, relegated to a section in the middle of the article may convey its significance to some readers, but obviously there is are people who seemthe pigs death as important enough to allow for an exception of this article to clarify just how important it was. Yeastmobile (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am pretty adamant about excluding the pig from the casualties in Infobox military conflict. Once we start including animals, then such infoboxes will become a mess because they will be used beyond their purpose. Even with the exceptional use for the Gombe Chimpanzee War, I would argue that it is limited to the primary species of the combatants. Frankly, I do not see other articles that list animal causalities in the infobox for human conflicts.
 * The death of the pig is covered elsewhere in the article. I believe that is sufficient.
 * I would argue that using the Emu War is a formal fallacy because it represents a misuse of the Infobox military conflict. The emus were clearly victims & not combatants.
 * If people in this discussion still think that causalities should include non-combatants of non-human species, then I think that they should take this to Template talk:Infobox military conflict. If you can get consensus there, then I will not oppose it here. Peaceray (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, after reviewing the history, WP:EDITCONSENSUS applies here. I counted at least half a dozen editors reverting language about the pig, whether it be as a casualty in the infobox or changing a section name from "Background" to "Before the pig". Peaceray (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just adding agreement, that there appears to be a consensus against adding the pig to the infobox, even if other editors haven't necessarily chimed in on the talk page discussion. CAVincent (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * the Incident at Petrich also mentions the inciting dog as a casualty ManU9827 (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Aside from the irrelevance of WHATABOUTX, that Incident at Petrich article (which I'd not seen until you linked it) is just astoundingly bad. That's more of a don't-do-this comparison than a do-this comparison. CAVincent (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed that from that article. It was just added October 2023, so not part of edit consensus for Incident at Petrich. Peaceray (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I added the death of the pig as a casaulty.
The death of the pig was the whole reason for the diplomatic crisis, and the Pig War wasn't even a war, so are we comparing it to other wars? I like in that argument above me, Peaceray mentioned the Gombe Chimpanzee War was a exception to the rule. Why should the Pig War be any different? Mr. Bobie (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I just redid my previous edit by adding that were none HUMAN casualties, but one pig death. I think that's how it should be. Mr. Bobie (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This has been brought up multiple times, including the discussion directly above and a 2022 RFC in the talk archive. The only new argument you have brought is "I think that's how it should be", which is not sufficient to support overriding consensus to leave the pig out of infobox casualties. CAVincent (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll I'm gonna change ALL your minds, and lay down some facts to support including this pig as a causality. First of all. this article shouldn't even use, Infobox_military_conflict, people didn't die, this didn't escalate into a major war, and this shouldn't use the template for a actual war. So why shouldn't we just add the pig ALONGSIDE none, as in there were no huamn casualties. The whole point of this event was the shooting of the pig, it's the main show! Now, I understand that there aren't a lot of alternatives for wikipedia articles, but until there is a workaround that will address this glring issue, we should count the pig in this as a casualty. Mr. Bobie (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Shooting the pig was not "the main show". It was the proximate event that triggered an already existing border dispute to escalate into a military standoff, with the border dispute continuing long after the standoff was cooled. I don't want to be dismissive, but this has been discussed repeatedly, and your suggestion has been raised so many times that I now find it beyond boring. CAVincent (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The shooting of the pig did cause them to almost to shoot eachother, also it brought the 2 countries attention to the region, so it was technically "the main show". Mr. Bobie (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wdym by "the reason that there have been no further responses is that you haven't offered any arguments that haven't already been made and found unconvincing", can you respond to what I say then? Please stop reverting my edits, and please look into making more helpful summaries in those reverting summaries. Also i'll humbly ask that you stop edit warring. Mr. Bobie (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I believe that you are the one who is edit warring. You violate both consensus on this talk page & consensus through editing. Consensus is English Wikipedia Policy. Failing to respect consensus violates the disruptive editing behavioral guideline. Users who fail to adhere to policies & guidelines will be blocked. Please do not become the latest example of this. Peaceray (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, rule one, compromise. I tried to compromise and I was rejected, you still think you're in the right? Mr. Bobie (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In the quest for consensus, sometimes attempts at resolution fail. To continue editing on Wikipedia, those whose proposals for change fail to gain consensus must decide whether to move on, stop editing, or continue in behavior that will lead to being blocked. I believe that the Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass essay is relevant to this discussion.
 * I also propose compromises that do not get accepted. I will apparently fail to prevail with this discussion. I have learned that in cooperating to build an encyclopedia (essay) or collaborative projects or intentional community, sometimes one does not get ones way, myself included. Peaceray (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why won't you work with me? Mr. Bobie (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * First, you seem determined to ignore our Manual of Style guideline on section headings, which states Section headings should generally follow the guidance for article titles, and should be presented in sentence case (Funding of UNESCO projects in developing countries), not title case (Funding of UNESCO Projects in Developing Countries). Changing The pig incident to The Pig Incident clearly violates this guideline.
 * Second, despite your contention that, this article shouldn't even use, Infobox_military_conflict, people didn't die, by its very nature, the 1859 Pig War was a military conflict. Please note that there is nothing in the documentation for Infobox military conflict that indicates that it is only to be used when people have died in a conflict.
 * Third, as noted in the section, except for exceptional use for a simian intra-species conflict, the   parameters have only been used for human casualties. Otherwise, we would be including horses, mules, elephants, dogs, & homing pigeons as casualty. I for one, am pig-headily against including non-humans as causalities. It is absurd.
 * I have seen no justification why the pig should be included other than opinion. If your edits go against guidelines, consensus-by-edit, & the general sentiment as expressed on this talk page, I think the question is not so much Why won't you work with me? as Why won't you work with us? Peaceray (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, you claim that the Pig War was a military conflict, at the very least they pointed guns at eachother, and they moved military units into disputed territory. Sounds like a military operation, but the two sides agreed to a join military occupation beforehand, so they actually agreed to this. It was only the agressive manuvers that almost turned this into an ACTUAL war. Where is a war when the two sides are in agreement? Mr. Bobie (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So this is now a discussion about whether to use the military conflict infobox? That's very different than the discussion you originally started. As noted, this was clearly a military conflict given the military escalation that could have developed into an actual shooting war, had calmer heads not prevailed. Is the "Pig War" a bit of a misnomer? Sure, but that is what sources largely refer to the event as. CAVincent (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh fuck I forgot about that rule for naming events after what the sources call them... I'll stop. Mr. Bobie (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a military info box using military terms such as Casualty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 19:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Problems with the British Columbia: From the Earliest Times to the Present. Vol. II citation
I have some notes about this citation: There are so many issues that I am detailing them here before I fix all of them. I intend to correct this with the following:
 * 1) The citation is duplicated when it should have been consolidated with a named footnote.
 * 2) The absence of  causes the template to assume it is a dead link when it is live.
 * 3) The,  , &   all point to a "A prospectus for their proposed four-volume history" & not the actual work.
 * 4) According to Amazon, the  points to British Columbia From the Earliest Times to the Present: 1, pt.1, not Vol. II. I could not find the ISBN at Worldcat.
 * 5) The  parameter,, does point at the correct multi-volume set. When I drill down on the HathiTrust Digital Library, Full view, open Full view   v.2, then take a look at the title page, only Frederic William Howay is listed as an author, not Scholefield.
 * 6) Finally, no page number is listed for the second use of the citation.

Peaceray (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Full citations of other books

 * Since we now have a sources section, I will start using sfn & moving the full citations for the books into it since these are often longer than the other footnotes. Peaceray (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)