User talk:Spitfire740

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Shearonink (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

War of 1812
I saw your latest edit summary on War of 1812 and you are doing something wrong. You have had the information reverted multiple times by three different editors. You keep adding information when what you should be doing is going to the talk page, Talk:War of 1812 and discussing the changes you would like to make. You need to be aware of the policy on WP: EDIT WARRING. If you continue adding information you could be blocked from editing. -- GB fan 00:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Problems
1) the view you are describing as Latimer's is also cited to an additional historian; I believe their books also discuss historical views more broadly, so you're citing the views held by numerous historians to one, which is just incorrect. 2)You're using the wrong spelling system - the article is in Canadian English, so it should be "defence" and "centre", for example. 3)Your rewrite placed a lot more emphasis and a lot more space on the "American victory", which seems biased. It's also flat out wrong about the historiography. "The argument that the US failed to capture any Canadian territory that influenced the negotiations is an outdated and highly criticized position", for example, is not in line with the majority of historians. 4)It's not clear why Daughan, who's fairly non-notable and seems obviously biased, deserves this much space in the article (more than probably any other single subject). It's also not clear why you are endorsing his positions in WP's voice, for example in the quote above. They're not widely held. 5) The section isn't for in-depth discussions of single historians' views (especially such bad and low-profile ones as Daughan), it's for a general review of the historiography. 6) You've now reverted other editors repeatedly to insert desired changes. You can therefore be blocked for WP:Edit warring. Rwenonah (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Historian Reviews is the subject line, no?

Actually Latimer's book (which I have) says in the header " the British perspective." that is very clearly a biased account and not even attempting to hide the fact that it is, so thats an irrelevant argument that one source is more biased than the other. You can see for yourself: https://www.amazon.com/1812-War-America-Jon-Latimer/dp/0674034775

Daughan is a historian, published author, and recognized in the US library of Congress. In a section titled "Historian Reviews," i dont see how Latimer is any more of a supposed qualified historian when they are both published authors. This strikes me as intended censorship of alternate view points with no real rational reasoning.

5.) taken from the approved text and literally the first sentence: "Historians have differing and complex interpretations of the war." how can this section not be "for in depth discussions of single historians" when there are a.) only 2 cited, and b.) only one provided interpretation when i have provided proof suggesting a different perspective?

I am new and was unaware of the procedures. Instead of explaining to me the proper avenue on how to do it, you were incredibly rude and confrontational, as you still appear to be.

What is more concerning is that instead of providing source info which counters my quotes (in which primary sources are used) you brush the historian off as, "bad and low profile." I suppose president madison's correspondences were "bad and low-profile" too, eh? Since that's literally what is quoted

Spitfire740 (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Spitfire740
 * To be clear, I don't care whether Daughan is in the article, although I think his book shows the a typical fallacy of American historians in focusing disproportionately on marginal naval events in an effort to glorify a profoundly inglorious war. Latimer's also certainly a biased historian - the only historians who argue outright for one side's victory in the war are biased, because it's far outside of mainstream historiography. What I take issue with is the fact that you've ignored Benn, who's not clearly biased, and ascribed the view that Britain won exclusively to Latimer, which is false. It is more accurate to say that "historians hold the views that", as previously. Additionally, I take issue with the fact that Daughan's views on who won the war are now literally the largest discussion of a single event on the entire page. Daughan doesn't deserve any more than the three or four throwaway sentences given to Latimer and Benn's interpretation, and probably less, since he's only one person. You are giving marginal historians WP:Undue weight, which is contrary to WP policy. Also, you failed to change the rest of the paragraph on the Britain-won viewpoint from "they" to "he", meaning it is now grammatically inconsistent - and factually, since, again, more than one historian's views are being described. Rwenonah (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're not being harassed. Another editor disagreed with you and you should get used to that. You're a new editor so I don't care where you think you come from, you need to play nice with other editors and get consensus. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This was Rwenonah's first reply to me: no, you obviously don't understand the point of "historians' views"

Instead of pointing me in the right direction, he/she decided to simply attack me.

In response to Rwenonah, though the book is based around the US Navy, it also encompasses a large amount of politics and diplomacy regarding the Treaty of Ghent and the official correspondences sent back and forth. You still have not posted a single rebuttal to the initial post, simply attempting to demean an otherwise fine source in Daughan's book. I have not read Benn's book. So I am not qualified to talk on that. So in that regard, you are right. I had no business changing the post to state how it was Latimer's argument alone. Same way I feel you having not read Daughan's book shouldnt be so dismissive as well. However, this is not the point I have been trying to argue here. Daughan raises fine points, and I do not see why it needs to be rejected from the page, as it is a different historians view point, regarding an issue that is widely regarded as a complex subject. I can certainly edit it so Daughan's name is removed except for the foot notes, and replace it with "certain historians" or something, but clearly it will still be rejected as Rwenonah does not accept Daughan as a historian. I do not agree with the fact that since he is an American, he is therefore attempting to "glorify a profoundly inglorious war." Spitfire740 (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Spitfire740

So if the only issue you have with it is that I used 1 historian instead of 2, if I simply quote a second source of my hundreds of JSTOR articles with similar claims, then it should be admitted? That's basically what I gather from your previous post. If you cant provide for me any reasons why Daughan is not a reputable source, I will have to create a Dispute Resolution ticket, as I fear I will be banned for WP: Edit Warring when I was initially unaware of the proper procedures, but also not given a straight answer as to why this source in particular is not worthy for this discussion

Spitfire740 (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Spitfire740
 * I'm not sure where you want to have this discussion. I don't know much about Daughan, nor do I need to: any historian who says the US or Britain won the War of 1812 is WP:Fringe, which is to say that they are part of a tiny and marginal group whose views are out of step with mainstream historiography. These groups can, in the interests of balance, only receive a small amount of space on WP articles. You, however have given Daughan a ton of attention, more than probably any other single thing on the page. He's no more notable than Benn or Latimer (and probably less based solely on relative numbers) and should get no more attention. Add a couple sentences on his views, if you like. But please don't quote any primary sources in the historiography section, and use canadian english.   Rwenonah (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a clear attempt to bully & intimidate a new editor by wikipedians who should know better, Rwenonah in particular. Rather than quote all these policies that Spitfire740 is supposedly violating, why don't you look at the policy about biting new editors, which is one of the pivotal pa--Godwhale (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)rts of Wikipedia. Just stop it.