Jump to content

Talk:Pig War (1859)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

You need to explain about the Haro strait and the channel division there that was the actual reason for military presence because of a misunderstanding.

And you forgot the casualties section on the right under "belligerent". The pig was a casualty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.32.108 (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Question About Kaiser Wilhelm

In the section about Kaiser Wilhelm's decision, no links or background are offered to explain how he came to be involved in the first place, or have the authority to make a binding ruling.

Would someone who knows please expand that section to include such an explanation (ideally with links to further background)?

24.108.13.171 21:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Jack

I was just about to ask about this 72.155.1.185 (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

When international boundary disputes cannot be resolved despite years of diplomatic efforts sometimes both sides agree that since they can't agree and don't want to fight over it they will allow a disinterested third party make the decision. Both sides agree to accept the third party's decision. That's what happened in this case, and Kaiser Wilhelm was the disinterested third party chosen. Whether he was really disinterested is another matter. He was the cousin of Queen Victoria, I think. The Hayes book says he might have awarded the islands to the US "to spite her", or words to that effect. I will try to find a source and describe it in a little more detail in the article. Pfly (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I added a bit about how the Kaiser got involved and the process of deciding--linked international arbitration, which should help explain the basic idea. I am still a bit confused about how the Treaty of Washington (1871) resulted in the Kaiser being chosen. The arbitration tribunal described in the treaty's text (on Wikisource: Treaty of Washington (1871)) does not seem to be the same described on the Wikipedia page. And where Wikipedia page says "...provision was made for submitting to the arbitration of the Emperor of Germany the dispute concerning the Northwest boundary." there is a footnote, but it merely says New International Encyclopedia. I did a quick search of the Encyclopedia (via the Google Books link on that page) and did not find anything on this. But there's no great need for that kind of detail anyway, so I stopped looking. Pfly (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There might be something in Howay & Scholefield's British Columbia: From the Earliest Times to the Present" which you'll find in http://nosracines.ca .... somewhere I heard long ago, I think from my high school history teacher, that the Kaiser was not only Victoria's blood relative, but was a relation of the American president and that, yes, imperial spite was involved. Giving an island that was within striking range of a British capital was not an idle exercise in diplomatic neutrality....but I don't have a cite for the family connection, though there are various snits in BC histories, including hte Akriggs, about the Kaiser's bias.....Skookum1 (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A European Pig War Before World War I

In the early 1900s, the Hapsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire stopped the trading of livestock (mostly pigs)with the Serbian provinces to try to teach the Serbian nationalists a lesson about formenting revolt. The Serbs actually increased trade with the Germans and others. Some speculated these diplomatic and economic manuevers led to the later assasination of the Archduke in Sarajevo June 28, 1914 and precipatated the Great War.

Clarification

At the time it was written, the Oregon Treaty's intent was clear: the border would lie on the 49th Parallel along the mainland, then through Rosario Straight (east of the San Juans) before turning west and out to the Pacific through the Straight of Juan de Fuca (between the San Juans and the Olympic Peninsula). This would give the British (later, the Canadians) possession of all of Vancover['s] Island, the Channel Islands, and the San Juans, leaving the Americans with Fidalgo, Whidbey, and Lummi Islands.

Unfortunately for the British, it was subsequently realized that Point Roberts--the southwestern tip of the mainland peninsula immediately north of the border and directly north of present day Friday Harbor--juts approximately a mile below the 49th Parallel. This “moved” the mainland about twelve miles east, hence, the “middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island" was also moved east. This made Haro Straight the “the middle of the channel,” and made the San Juans rightfully American.

Map

Is there any way someone could get a map of the San Juan Islands and point out the two straits? I would, but I don't have the resources at the moment... -- 209.182.101.246 17:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Question on outcome

How did the exchange end in favour of the British when the islands were finally referred to the US? -- dmcg026 15:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

-We didnt kick their backsides ;) Keeperoftheseal 03:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Next question: Why would the Kaiser care about a small island on the west coast of Canada enough to mediate the dispute between the United States and Great Britain? Pat Payne 19:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

He was selected as a neutral arbitrator precisely because he wouldn't care. Indefatigable 12:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

References

Can someone add references to this article? Rintrah 03:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Lengthy ref from BC source quoted FYI

I hand-typed the Pig War section in one of "the standard" historical resources for BC, the British Columbia Chronicle: Gold and Colonists into a sandbox page I use for out-of-print or hard-to-get resources/references. It contains a lot of details not already in the article, as well as the British Columbian perspective and behind-the-scenes stuff probably not in US versions of the events. The Akriggs are pointedly POV in tone, often enough, and have a few things to say about Harney and Pickett that aren't too complimentary (though no doubt true), but otherwise the section is a good run-down of the Pig War - and also answers the question above about the German Kaiser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skookum1/BC%26PacificNorthwestHistory/Resources#Pig_War.2FSan_Juan_Islands_dispute

Items redlinked are in need of articles; if anyone reading this finds a typo please correct it. I'm going to try and find a better map - I have one, I just need to get it scanned, showing all possible channel options.....including others than the three main ones near the Islands. The deepest channel actually runs through Active Pass, between Galiano and Mayne Islands, and comes down through the "Inner Gulf" south of Saltspring; if the British had insisted on thorough soundings of the region to determine the deepest channel, they would have wound up writing off Saturna, Mayne and North and South Pender Islands as well as the San Juans ;- Skookum1 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re the map

Other than observing we still need a version which shows the Rosario Strait as the British-preferred alternative, I have to ask why the Gulf Islands are shown in in white, and not the same colour/grey as Vancouver Island and continental BC?Skookum1 (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"the Pacific policy of Gen. Scott"

I am e across this phrase in a brief byline in the British Colonist Dec 1, 1859 which as you find is now completely online (pdf only):

The Oregon papers are protesting the Pacific policy of Gen. Scott as regards San Juan.

I'm expecting that this means that the Oregon papers were advocating a militarily aggtressive solution, as opposed to a "pacific" one - or is there another context to "Pacific policy" here that connects to the name of hte ocean? And re my just-now change in the article, am I wrong in thinking that there was only ONE US settler, or were there more? Iv'e always taken it as one, which is why seeing "settlers" in stead of "a settler" seemed like yet another confabutlation of Oregon/Washington manifest destinty religtion/history.Skookum1 (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

New map

I finally made a map for this page and just replaced the previous one, which was really a locator map of the Gulf Islands (see Gulf Islands for its proper use!). My map could probably be improved -- lacking time I reused the base map I made for Haro Strait and Rosario Strait. The boundary lines are essentially those shown in Hayes Historical Atlas of the Pacific Northwest, in the section titled "San Juan Boundary Dispute" (pp. 171-173). I tried to keep the map relatively simple and uncluttered with text, especially as it needed to be understandable at 300 pixels wide. So I opted not to put the names of the straits on the map but rather in the caption, which needed to explain the line colors anyway. I also decided not to show the modern boundary, which differs slightly from the curved line as shown in the old maps used during the dispute. Instead I explained it in the caption. I thought about zooming out a little so the map could include more of the Gulf Islands and perhaps Vancouver, but between the 300 pixel size issue and my already made base map and lack of time, plus the fact that the old maps in Hayes show approximately the same "zoomed-in" area, ...well I just went with this version. Perhaps the caption could be clearer. I'll at least link the strait names so they stand out (except San Juan Channel, which doesn't have a page). I think there is a map legend template that might be able to show the line colors with labels explaining them more clearly. Finally I'm not sure if this page mentions the San Juan Channel compromise line, but it is rather prominent on the maps in Hayes. Perhaps info about it could be added to the page. Pfly (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful! Great work! - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I just figured out how to left-align the caption text. I think it looks better this way, but please change or fix if it doesn't. I'm not good at templates and css stuff. Also, perhaps the caption text needs a few more words? Something to think about anyway. Pfly (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, it's occurred to me that your map could be slightly extended northwards to include Point Roberts, or at least a different map for that area of the straits, as of course it's a slightly different topic than the Pig War adn teh San Juan boundary; "the Angle" is a peculiarity just like Point Roberts itself; what would be nice for a map of that area would be to show the low-tide waterline in Boundary Bay, which in that case helps the British POV a ltittle more understandable (as if it weren't fairly obvious to start with); that particular dispute was resolved by the border survey commands rather than winding up at the poitical level (by the Briton giving way to the insistence of the American surveyors/border commission); could have been a war/diplomatic crisis but wasn't; I imagine if it had been resolved with Britain retaining hte point the American case for the Haro Straits swould have been a lot weaker, and the Rosario Strait all too obvious as the most diredct route to the open sea - from Boundary Bay. I'm uncertain if this map would be too unwieldy if the Point/ Bay were added on, though....Skookum1 (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I hadn't realized the significance of Point Roberts to this topic until just now, reading one of the comments above. I don't think it would weaken the map to extent it north to Point Roberts. I'll try to get to it. My DCW coastline data had an ugly error at Boundary Bay though, so it may take a little more work than it should. In any case, I added Vancouver's 1798 map, to illustrate the geographic uncertainty circa 1846 (by the boundary commission era new surveys had greatly improved the maps), and this map shows Point Roberts at least. Non-ideal though, I'll try to find time to extend my map north. When I read in Hayes about the 1846 uncertainty and Vancouver's map, I had to go find it online, and was happy to see it available at the Library of Congress website, acceptable for uploading to the Commons. Couldn't resist. It is interesting to see how poorly the Gulf Islands were mapped. Even by Wilkes's time in the 1840s the maps were basically the same, Gulf Island-wise. Pfly (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Howay & Scholefield's account

What an excellent read! Just finished it at British Columbia: From the earliest times ot the present, Vol. II, E.O.S. Scholefield and F.W. Howay, 1905, pp. 299-324. Contains full diplomatic background, detail on the Border Commission troop deployments, specifics of the arms on both sides, Harney/Pickett/Scott etc relationships and much more, including a period (?1905?) map of the boundary proposals (similar to what's currently on this article but "vintage"). In hte last chapter of Vol. I by the way there's quite a bit on "Watcom", Semiahmoo and Port Townsend re the Fraser River Gold Rush and the Whatcom/Bellingham Bay Trail.....There's enough material in the "San Juan Difficulties" chapter in Vol. II to significantly enrich this article; which maybe shoudl be retitled to its reidrect i.e. San Juan boundary dispute as the Pig War was only one episode of same....Skookum1 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed material

EVen if some of the points in this paragraph are true and citable, it's essentially rehash for the US position of hte 1860s; if it's from anywhere, it's a US account. The Kaiser's motives have never been stated in any proper history I've ever seen - though lots of speculation about family ties ot the US government and general animosity towards Britain. Anyway this is waht I took out:

Kaiser Wilhelm chose in favor of the American claim because the Americans wanted to use Haro Strait as the boundary and shipping route. Maps of depth indications showed that Haro Strait ranged from 90 feet to 600 feet deep, while maps of the Rosario Strait showed its depth as 24 feet. The currents in Haro Strait are favorable for shipping, while the Rosario Straits current are treacherous. By deciding on the deeper channel as the international boundary, Kaiser Wilhelm thereby decided in favor of America.

Again, even the wording here is essentially POV, and there's at least six different points that would need separate citation; not admissible from an IP edit; Rosario Strait has better weather, fewer reefs, no corners; and I don't think there were depth soundings done in the 1860s; it's turned out since that, yes, Haro is the deeper of teh two straits; the actual deepest channel between the Georgia Strait and the STrait of Juan de Fuca goes through Active Pass before joining up the last leg southwards of the Haro Strait. "By deciding on the deeper channel....Kaiser Wilhelm therebyd decided in favour of America." - makes presuppositions that hte Kaiser even cared what hte deeper channel was, and the use of "America" in that sentence points to high school-style research/essay-writing. The Kaiser decided in favour of America; it's generall \y cnceded even by US historians that that was his motivethe legal arguments were a pretext from thestart, as with the Oregon Question and the Alaska Boundary; legalities shoved aside in favour of bullying and sword-rattling....Skookum1 (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The deleted material is not only without source, it is not correct. The depths these straits are not as given and in any event are irrelevant once greater than the draught of the vessels using it. The preferred channel to this date is Rosario and it is marked as such on marine charts with traffic lanes and navigation beacons. See Morris, Frank; Heath, Willis R. Marine Atlas, Vol 1 Olympia to Malcolm Island. Seattle: Bayless Enterprises. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Text "date 1979" ignored (help) page 7. --KenWalker | Talk 19:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
We could mention that this was the American position, no? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The views there are the result of American propaganda/curriculum; they were not the American position, though related to it/reflective of it. Again, if reworded, and stated as being hte American argument, such material can be in here. One advisory: on many cross-border issues hte Aemrican zeal for quoting only their own accounts has reuslt in a lot of content-imbalance ,e.g. on teh Oregon and Alaska articles. this particular one seems to be, as noted, high-school or lower in origin; maybe even from a textbook, or paraphrase of one. A proper citation would sound quite a bit different IMOSkookum1 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) If a reference can be found -- I was surprised by this addition because I thought it was not really known why the Kaiser made the choice he did. If there's a source it would be great to add. Also with the depth sounding info -- if it was known at the time that would be interesting to learn about. A few soundings had no doubt been done but I'm skeptical that anyone had done a systematic sounding survey useful in comparing the 2 straits, by the time of the Kaiser's decision. Would love to know if there is a source for this info. Pfly (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
One big problem with IP edits - no one to ask.Skookum1 (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
PPS; ;;what do youguys think of the name change proposal in the previous section; should I start a move/rename sectin/vote, or would one of you?Skookum1 (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


I believe this link will describe the Kaiser's motives for the final decision. http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5725 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.4.27 (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And hey, I looked at the maps in the Hayes atlas dating from the dispute era and they are rather peppered with depth soundings. There are a few of them, but this one is available online and looks pretty nice. It dates from 1859. I quickly looked at the depth soundings in Haro and Rosario Straits and it does appear that Haro is quite a lot deeper, at least according to this 1859 info. My cursory tally shows that the Haro Strait route is almost always over 100 fathoms, with a few areas in the 80s and 90s, and one place where the deepest sounding along the route is 74 fathoms. Rosario Strait in contrast is mostly in the 30s and 40s, a few spots in the 50s, and one area where it shallows to 30 fathoms or less. The map says is it based on H. Kellett's 1847 survey, and it was one of the maps used in deciding the dispute. Anyway, I just thought I'd mention this, with no personal agenda or much of an opinion over which strait "ought" to have been chosen or is more "natural", etc. Mainly just surprised to learn that they did in fact have fairly decent depth soundings at the time. Will check that historylink page in a bit. Pfly (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, read the historylink essay. Unless I missed it, I didn't see where it described the Kaiser's motives, just that he went with the decision of 2 of the 3 German commissioners appointed to study and offer answers (the 3rd commissioner wanting San Juan Channel, which was not an opinion). I didn't see anything about why the 2 commissioners chose Haro Strait. And he Kaiser is described as simply "adopting the majority award". Still, I suppose one might be able to find the reasons the 2 commissioners had for their choice of Haro Strait... somewhere... Pfly (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Name change proposal

Making a new section for this because I didn't even catch it buried up above. Skookum1's proposal is to change this article's name from "Pig War" to "San Juan boundary dispute".

This makes sense to me, even though the term "Pig War" is colorfully fun while "San Juan boundary dispute" is bland. Still, the Pig War is part of the larger boundary dispute, and this page is about the larger dispute -- which mostly falls under the blandly named section "Background". Also, for what's it's worth, the Hayes Historical Atlas of the Pacific Northwest titles its section on this "San Juan boundary dispute", and describes how the impasse eventually became critical due to the Pig War events. And anyway, it wasn't even a war but rather, as Hayes puts it, a "standoff". So, yes, I think this proposed name change makes sense. Pfly (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Support: per Pfly and because I would expect that in a regular encyclopedia, it would not be found under Pig War.- --KenWalker | Talk 23:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment name options:
I suppose a google comparison might work to resolve which is more common; t he "Islands" one seems overdone but between the other two which is most correct; if there's a "correct"? I've seen "San Juan(s) Crisis" somewhere but that's synonymous to the war episode, or is roughly the same in meaning.Skookum1 (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
In Gough (Gough, Barry M (1974) [1971]. The Royal Navy and the Northwest Coast of North America 1820-1914: A Study of Maritime Ascendancy. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. ISBN 0-7748-0000-3. p 150-168) there is a detailed and balanced chapter about this dispute which he refers to as the "Dispute over the San Juan Islands" We may look at a map and think that it is the boundary line that is the dispute, but it is really about the island. I would favour something like Gough's title but with the island name first: San Juan Island dispute. If it is a dispute about a boundary, it isn't the boundary of the San Juans or of San Juan Island it is about a boundary between British North America and the US. As to whether it is plural or singular, I would say singular. The present San Juan Islands have one meaning and include several islands not part of this dispute. The San Juan Archipelago includes the present Gulf Islands and another historian refers to the "Archipelago de Haro of which San Juan is the most westerly island.." ( Morton, Arthur S (1973) [1939]. A History of the Canadian West to 1870-71 (2nd ed ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-4033-0. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); More than one of |location= and |place= specified (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) p 787). General Harney saw San Juan Island as a counterpoise to the British base at Esquimalt as important as Cuba was. Governor Douglas regarded it as British territory. It was all about the particular island. My vote would be for San Juan Island dispute. Comments?--KenWalker | Talk 03:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
oppose - there's nothing wrong with the name Pig War. That no shooting broke out doesn't matter; there was maneuver of military forces of opposing nations. More importantly, that is the name by which it is broadly known; the San Juan Island dispute or any such are mere a made-up names. There are thousands of references to Pig War including official sources, e.g. http://www.nps.gov/archive/sajh/pig_war_new.htm If it is desired to have a different pages for the boundary dispute and for the Pig War itself, fine, but the Pig War itself is far more notable. rewinn (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, well I see there are some articles referring to the San Juan Border Dispute or variants thereof. That's not a reason to rename the article, since "Pig War" is just as good, a lot shorter and far more likely to be known to the general public; a re-direct from San Juans boundary dispute may be appropriate and I can't think of any reason against it. rewinn (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about this point myself. If the name is changed to "XXX boundary dispute" then the actual conflict sparked by the pig is just one subsection, rather than (as currently) the point of the article with a background explaining the dispute. I'm not sure that's a great idea since the conflict is (arguably) more notable than the general dispute over the boundary. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE - Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), "Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage." "Pig War" is the common usage.--Bark (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This reason for opposing isn't really valid, since "Pig War" only refers to the military escalation, not to the larger boundary dispute, so the two aren't synonymous. Besides, books from 1939 and 1971 hardly represent "recent scholarship." Still, whether the larger boundary dispute really needs its own article or if it should be simply located within the background of a Pig War article is another issue altogether. I'm undecided. TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
By "recent scholarship", I meant recent "book-learning" by my fellow wikipedians. Sorry for the confusion.  ;-)
If you want to get into the "larger boundary dispute", you'll be traveling to Maine and Minnesota as well since the U.S. and Great Britain had territorial issues there too. It's all one border. If you want to limit it to the Pacific Northwest, that will need clarification as to what events what locations are considered relevant. By all means, feel free to create that new article. I would find it interesting.
As far as this article goes, the first sentence of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) states, "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." "Pig War" is the common name, so why change the article name to something less well-known albeit more technically accurate? IMO, I think it's just change for change's sake. Out of the seven sections, four contain the bulk of the article. Except for the first section and the last couple of sentences of the fourth section, the bulk of the article deals exclusively with the pig's death and the political-military consequences. That seems pretty on-target for me to think the current title is appropriate.--Bark (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The dispute over the international boundary in the San Juans (whether it is through Rosario, Haro, or San Juan Channel) pre-dates the Pig War. The term "Pig War" only refers to the military escalation. Consider the difference between Kashmir conflict and Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. In that case, the two articles are clearly both notable. A hypothetical small outbreak of violence on that border might simply be included in Kashmir conflict (even if said violence had a well known name). To the contrary, the Aroostook War was the result of a boundary dispute, but seems to be more notable than the general boundary dispute, so the boundary dispute was simply described in the article on the War. With this discussion, it's a question of notability more than a question of common usage, since they don't refer to the exact same thing. Should this article be about the boundary dispute (including the pig war) or should it be about the pig war (over a boundary dispute)? - As you've suggested, the article is currently about the war, not about the boundary dispute. I'd suggest if the name is going to change, the article needs some serious additions/revision/re-organization. TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree about the article needing additions/revision if the title is to be kept the same; but I also agree, as from the start, that the Pig War is the military escalation, ending in the truce and stand-down that led to the nominal posts left in the military conflict's wake. The pre-Pig War background to the dispute as well as the post-war ongoing situation, aka the dispute. The Pig War waas a military debacle; the San Juan dispute a diplomatic debacle, they're different. F.W. Howay and his partner E.O.X. Scholefield politely call it the "San Juan difficulty" in the title of their chapter on it in British Columbia: From the Earliest Times to the Present, Vol. I", "the present" being 1914 or so. That link is a valuable resource for British Colubmian and British perspectives/positions on the war; I'm perusing that same book right now for anything about the Alaska Purchase but it would seem to be in Vol II in relation to the chapter there on the Alaska Boundary Dispute (which had its roots much earlier thant is 1898-1903 fever pitch). "Best know to the general public" is debatable; the general public know the name because it has been popularized - wars are trendy, diplomatic disputes are not; the general public is better left educated, than simply catered to....Skookum1 (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Rationale: 1,2,& 3) People are more likely to type "Pig War" in an external search engine, especially if they forget the name of the island. 3) "Pig War" requires less typing. 4) We do in fact "cater" to the general public here. These are official Wikipedia policies. In fact, the goal of Wikipedia is to both educate the general public while catering to them. As it states above the "Rationale" section, "The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage." I read this to mean that the titles should be short, simple, and specific while the article should be educational and referenced. The title "Pig War" qualifies as short, simple, and specific. The scholarship belongs in the article. As far as notability over this specific conflict, the United States and the United Kingdom almost fought a war with the catalyst being the violent death of a pig! I find that quite notable. If you would rather have an article about the ongoing boundary dispute, you'll have an article ranging from the American Revolution to (about) the American Civil War, encompassing a border from Maine to British Columbia, basically buring (if not erasing) this historical incident among the "clutter" of additional information. Sorry, I see no compelling argument for changing the title here and a few arguments for leaving it be.--Bark (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Fine, this article can then start off with "The Pig War was a military escalation in 1859 during a diplomatic dispute known as the San Juans dispute that had its roots in the Treaty of Washington (1846) and was not resolved until arbitration by the German Emperor in 1872". The Pig War did NOT last until 1872, but the boundary dispute did. The opening line of the current article only mentions the date 1859, it does not state teh time span of the dispuate (1846-1872). So the general public who needs short names can type in Pig War and they'll find a dab line and intro paragraph directing them to the fuller coverage of the whole dispute; not just the military escapade. There IS a need for two articles, if no need to directly rename this one; the whole point of hte renaming was if there was to be only one article, the current title is not suitable if the dispute is meant to also be included in its content, and the content is sorely lacking if the boundary dispute is also the topic of the article. The Pig War was an episode of the larger dispute, not t he other way around; it's that simple. The Pig War is, yes, notable "because the Us and teh UK almost fought a war over a pig". Fine, nobody's saying it's not. But what you're saying is that the Pig WAr is more notable than the dispute which gave rise to it. they're both notable, and both shouyld have articles. And the dispute article does have to cover the Aeerican Civil War, if only in passing (Gov Douglas wanted to invade Puget Sound while the American were busy...) (I can't imagine why you think it has to do with the Revolution), and it does have to do with the Aroostook and Angle disputes because Britain - not BC - had to view them all as one package, alongside other Us relations. What you're basically suggesting, though, is that Battle of the Bulge should be the name of the World War II article....or that the Maine and Manitoba boundary disputes should be the same article.....or that all US-British relations are all the same, all interlinked. EVERYTHING is interlinked, but we still have articles for various parts of everything. The Alaska boundary Dispute was a consequejnce of the Alaska Purchase and also of the Oregon Treaty and previoius Russo-British and Russo-Spanish treaties; should they all be merged into one article? Obivously not.Skookum1 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that's consensus then. Start a new summary style article San Juan Boundary Dispute (or whatever other name you wish) and include a paragraph summary of and link to this article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Sounds like a plan. We can fine tune this article when the other is online.--Bark (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For what is it worth, and having sorta started this debate, taking up Skookum1's idea: I've read all the above comments I'm left without a strong feeling one way or the other. On one hand, "Pig War" may well be the better known term. On the other, the boundary dispute is the larger issue. I see how there are two slightly different topics here, but I'm not sure it is sensible to have two articles. The article isn't that long, so it seems counter-productive to split it up. Also, even if the Pig War phase is a subset of the larger boundary dispute, the Pig War certainly brought the dispute to a climax. Then again, I'm familiar with "Pig War" from a US perspective and am not sure how common the term is in Canada, or how is it generally seen. Finally, I'm not a big fan of wikipedia debates over page names. It always seems that a great deal of the energy put into article name disputes would be better served going into improving the articles themselves. Not to say that this page name debate is that bad, just that my gut reaction to such things is to ask "does is matter??" The lack of a good, standard term for the larger San Juan boundary dispute, plus the colorful name "Pig War", along with some of the points made above, makes me lean toward supporting the "Pig War" title. But then I am wary of the bias of American terminology and history over British and Canadian, which on this point I am not sure about. So I still abstain from an opinion, but thought I'd post these thoughts anyway, with the caveat that I'm not all that invested in the article and am basically fine with whatever anyone chooses to do. Pfly (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE Keep article name as "Pig War", for all the confirmatory reasons mentioned by Pfly. I would like to close this discussion, if possible. --FeralOink (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
      • FeralOink, you're responding to a discussion that has been quiet for five years. It wasn't an "official" name change request (using {{Requested move}}), just an informal discussion, so there is no "official" closing. Five years without further discussion is pretty "closed" though! I had totally forgotten the discussion and my thoughts about the topic. But now that you bring it up and I reread—well, I don't think the page should be renamed, but it is true that the Pig War was just a part of the larger San Juan Boundary Dispute. If someone cared to make a new page about the larger topic that would be fine with me. Pfly (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

BCPOV resource

History of British Columbia from its earliest discovery to the present time, Chapter V San Juan Boundary Question (1894) and subsequent chapters give a British/British Columbian perspective to the various episodes in the article, including so-far missing details of the earliest seeds of the dispute . Very interesting, haven't had time to digest it all, but other editors interested in balancing the content of this article will find this very, very useful.Skookum1 (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Bancroft's chapter

I just found on nosracnies.ca Bancroft's chapter on the dispute - History of British Columbia, 1792-1887, Chapter XXXI The San Juan Island Difficulty, Hubert Howe Bancroft.....Haven't had time to read it yet; Bancroft is known for being generally or relatively anti-British/HBC in tone so it sill be interesting to compare his versions of things with Begg and Scholefield/Howay. I do note that he uses the4 same term - "San Juan Island Difficulty" - that Scholefield & Howay chose to use.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Freshly public domain image!

I was looking in BC Archives, searching just "house", and among the many intersting things I stumbled across was this which is a 1956-taken image of the British blockhouse on San Juan Island. It's public domain as of 2006 so it can be used; just trim it of the BC Archives border and it's fair game, license is {{PD-Canada}}.....(hmmm that it was taken in the territorial US might mean thte 100 year thing applies rather than the Canadian 50....we can pretend, can't we?).Skookum1 (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

this is the image-information page for further reference.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory or confusing information?

There were three main proposals considered, Haro Strait, Rosario Strait, and a compromise line running through San Juan Channel. The extreme US proposal was "in accordance with the strict letter of the treaty", and ran between Vancouver Island and all islands off its coast, including the San Juans and Gulf Islands. This line was never seriously considered.

Does the "extreme US proposal" refer to the Haro Strait line, in which case it could not seriously be all that extreme (since it was in fact the line ultimately chosen), or does it refer to a fourth proposal not otherwise discussed or even mentioned? 76.21.8.213 (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There were more than even four proposals; the extreme US one was not one of the main three as it was never seriously considered, nor offered by either party; it was a propaganda dodge, I don't think ever used by the US negotiators but by US media agitators/commentators. The 49th Parallel bisects Galiano, so it must have been via Active Pass and southeards from therek implitly leaving Saltspring still in BC but takign Saturna, Mayne, Pender and the smaller ialnds....there's a map of this line in Derek Hayes' An Historical Atlas of British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest. AS it happens, the Active Pass route would follow the letter of teh treaty precisely, as it's the deepest channel, surprisingly given how narrow Active Pass is....but the intent of the treaty wording aws "deepest channel [for shipping]"....the main shipping lane was, in fact, Rosario which though narrower than via Haro Strait is less ridden with reefs and contrary winds/currents...so it's not a contradiction, anyway, just maybe confusingly worded; the extreme position was not one of the main three. The extreme British posistion, or British Columbia position, rather, was that teh Yanks shoudl be kicked out of Puget Sound entirely LOL....Skookum1 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Canadian reaction

Re this edit, the problem I have with a result, though I understand why you made it, is that it gives the mis-impression that the Pacific Northwest was a "national interest" of the Canadian colony, which is only true indirectly, i.e. it gives the impression that this was part of Canada, which it was not (until 1871).Skookum1 (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but the sentence immediately follows the description of the German Emperor's arbitration ruling, which happened after B.C. joined Confederation. The phrase "already angry with the Oregon Treaty" is a problem, because in 1846 that treaty was probably little noticed in Montreal and Toronto, but no doubt it was a concern in Victoria and New Westminster. I'll try to think of a better way to word it. Indefatigable (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, since New Westminster wasn't founded until 1858, it's unlikely that the inhabitants (Kwantlens, Coquitlams, and Tsawwassens...) cared about the Oregon Treaty; Douglas was mortified on behalf of their southern neighbours of course (he knew what the consequences would be of a formal American presence in the region would be...fifteen years of warfare). I didn't blink when I saw that bit about people in "Canada" (meaning pre-1867 Canada, though I see the temporal context that phrase came in was in reference to 1871...as you note, it comes off sounding ilke it was the Oregon Treaty that was being protested), because the Hay-Herbert Treaty (the Alaska Boundary Settlement) did set off riots in Central Canada, as the Alaska boundary dispute article does cover (though not, as yet, touching on politics and responses in BC so much). So,as suggested, it wouldn't surprise me if the media of the day whipped up crowds in Central Canada.....and hmmm I'll see what I can dig up in the BC papers for 1871 (why should only Central Canadian reaction be mentioned; though maybe you were meaning BC in that phraseology). What's interesting, and most Central Canadians, and Central Canadian historians even, aren't really aware of is the number of times Britain and another power came to the brink of war, or diplomatic crisis anyway, over affairs in teh Pacific Northwest. Nootka, the Russian American dispute of 1821-25, the Oregon dispute, the San Juan dispute, the Bering Sea Crisis (1885) and the Alaska boundary dispute; all had the makings of global crisis and any one of the Oregon, San Juan or the Alaska boundary questions would have touched off continental warfare. "Squeezing" the British off the Pacific was also partly the motive for the US purchase of Alaska, and likewise for the Russians to sell it, but the Americans didn't push the issue (though they did try by harrassing steamboats heading for the Stikine during the Cassiar Rush, and earlier see Fort Tongass which partly mentions this). Anyway this page, the Oregon and Alaska pages, and certain others need more "CanCon" and also "BCCon", I've just never gotten back to them (at one point I was steepedin the Alaska material but real life took me away and my focus/story line evaporated).Skookum1 (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Photographs

The external links show the 'war' notable as the first one photographed; shouldn't that be worked into the article somewhere, tiptoeing around the long-dead amateur Brit photographer's copy rite? --Pawyilee (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be a cool addition if the photos could be posted. At this point, they would be public domain, I would think. However, where could good quality photos be found? --Bark (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Members of the Third Artillery at American Camp JPG
The deck of the H.M.S. Satellite by Lieutenant Richard Roche, R.N., an enthusiastic amateur photographer. JPG
San Juan Island National Historical Park on the web
--Pawyilee (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Eh, the quality and size could be better. These look like they were reduced and compressed for web hosting. --Bark (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Stephens

I have deleted the mention of Governor Isaac Stephens because

  • The citation does not mention Isaac Stephens
  • A quick google search finds no relevant "Isaac Stephens"
  • There *was* a Washington Territory Governor Isaac SteVens (not StePHens) but, in the absense of evidence, it's not terribly likely that he was involved in these negotiations, since at the time he wasn't a governor. If there's any evidence to support the story of him delaying negotiations by insulting a fellow countryman, it might not be worth including since it seemed to have little ultimate impact anyway. If OTOH it's an entirely different governor named Isaac, perhaps he needs his own wikipedia page rewinn (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A few comments

Having just spent four days in the San Juans I was curious to look at this page again. Rereading the comments above, I have a few thoughts.

  • It is still unfortunate that there is no information here about why the Kaiser (or at least his commissioners) decided on Haro over Rosario Strait. Perhaps such information simply does not exist, but it would be nice if we had at least a clue as to why Haro was chosen.
  • In some comments above the idea that Point Roberts played a role in all this--that if Point Roberts was not south of the 49th parallel, or if it was not known to be south of the line when the Oregon Treaty was made, then the "middle of the channel" would start from a point much more to the east on the 49th parallel. And that this more easterly point would have made Rosario Strait the obvious "middle channel"--that in fact the Oregon Treaty's intent was clear: the border would lie on the 49th Parallel along the mainland, then through Rosario Strait (from a comment above). When I first heard this idea, a few years ago, it seemed to make sense. But thinking about it again now, it doesn't really. I'd explain why, but it would be a lot of words over a minor point. So instead let me just say I'm skeptical about this idea, at least without a source to back it up.
  • It is claimed a few times that the deepest channel runs through Active Pass--that this connection between the Strait of Georgia and Juan de Fuca is the deepest overall. I don't think this is true. While on Orcas Island this weekend I got a lovely map of the islands and the surrounding region, using satellite imagery and showing bathymetry (smallish online version: [1]). A glance at that map clearly shows Haro-Boundary Pass as much deeper than Haro-Swanson Channel-Active Pass. Active Pass is less than 100 feet deep.

These things said, I'm not arguing for or against either side. I've taken the ferry across Rosario Strait a few times now, and it is clearly significant--wide and fairly straight. I have never crossed Haro Strait, so I can't compare the two from personal experience. Pfly (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Casualties

As stupid as this may sound... would it be appropriate to list the pig under the British casualties? After all, the article states that it was the only casualty of the war. Interchangeable|talk to me 21:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Casualties refer to human deaths in conflicts for the infobox. That's the context of that entry. There were none here. The details of the pig's fate is completely and accurately covered in the body of the article. That's enough. --Bark (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do we need the "Casualties and losses" section in the infobox? The main paragraph makes clear that this was a bloodless conflict, and reverting that section constitutes 99% of this page's edits. IMO, we can cut it without detracting from the article. --Bark (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I have removed the "Casualties and losses" section of the infobox. The rationale being it's not needed. There were none, and this fact is posted in the opening paragraph. Combine that with the fact the jokesters love putting "1 pig" here, for years now, I honestly don't think we need it. Is it really worth maintaining a problematic section of the infobox that doesn't relay anything substantive?--Bark (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Don;t you feel the least bit of sympathy for the poor animal?! If nothing else, we could at least commemorate its fall in that section. 5.1.21.254 (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
In fact, many sources, including the older histories as well as modern "pop" history, often mention the pig as the sole casualty. That should be reflected in the article, and given its citability, should be in the infobox. Animal casualties of war are rarely considered, e.g. the equine death/casualty rate from World Wars I and II, which was in the tens of milions.Skookum1 (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
To illustrate a key difference: The horses from the World Wars are materiel in that they belong to the military forces, i.e. their losses would potentially contribute to the outcome of the military conflict. The pig was private property of a private resident killed by another private resident on the island. It did not belong to either military. It had no political affiliation. It is notable in the article due to it being the catalyst for a military standoff, and is appropriately mentioned there already.--Bark (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
OK - I'm an impartial reader here: This is easy folks:
  1. The pig died BEFORE the war started. No question about that - RTFA. Pig dies...no war...neighbors debate about value of said pig...still no war...argument escalates, now we have a war. Ergo, the pig was NOT a casualty of war - it died LONG before the war started.
  2. I think it would be a good idea to include the "casualties" section of the info-box to "none" because people who want a quick piece of information will go to the info-box to find it. The lack of a "Casualties" section kinda implies that we don't know (which is wrong because we do) and if it's missing then the reader-in-a-hurry has to trawl through the article to find that out - which definitely defeats the entire purpose of having an info-box to start with.
The fact that idiots keep adding "1 pig" to is NOT a reason to degrade the quality of the encyclopedia...doubly so now that we can all (hopefully) agree that the pig wasn't a casualty to start with. Cause != Casualty. SteveBaker (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Cannon

I would like to remind everyone that the plural of 'cannon' is 'cannon'. So, stop changing the word to 'cannons' as this makes the site look like it was written by an inept 12 year old boy. Learn some English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.109.140 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Both forms are used. Eric talk 15:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Military ranks

Moved from User talk:Indefatigable

Indefatigable Re: The Pig War. There is no hard and fast grammatical rule. To describe a man as a general is not sufficient. General can be used as an adjective. i.e. Pickett was a general fuck up when he joined the Confederacy.

In a similar vein I am a retired Colonel, not a retired colonel. I was a Master Sergeant (not a master sergeant) when I was commissioned a Second Lieutenant (not second Lieutenant) in1972.. Facts not metaphorsOldperson (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Oldperson (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson:: No, you were a colonel. Your title would have been Colonel Oldperson. Also, no need to ping someone on their own talkpage. Eric talk 11:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Oldperson:: Please refer to MOS:MILTERMS: "For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general." Indefatigable (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

==

cannon and cannons both are acceptible== }ping|Erik|Akbermaps}} What's with you guys, are you anal orsomething.; Cannon or cannons are both acceptable forums for plural https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/4568/cannon-as-plural. Who care. Knock it offOldperson (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

??? Eric talk 16:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Compensation for Pig?

Did the farmers ever settle up for the piggo? I feel like this joke is missing its punchline. --24.178.25.124 (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The headings

So, for people not involved: this article was recently featured in a Reddit community, and the titles were especially of interest since the names "Before the Pig" and "Pig" is considered LOLXD for such netzines. Personally, I realized from that Reddit post that the titles seemed unprofessional and unspecific and changed them. But after doing so, multiple separate IP editors have changed them back with no edit summaries. Other non-IP editors (such as @15: and @Ortemis: ) seem to agree with me that the headings should not be childish, but we stand helpless against the brigading Reddit hivemind.

So, let's create consensus on the issue. I say the two first headings should read "Background" and "The pig incident" respectively. Anyone opposed or having better ideas? Gaioa (T C L) 16:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way while we're at this: Should the pig be listed as a casualty in the infobox? I'd say a weak support since the pig dying is notable in this specific context. Gaioa (T C L) 16:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree - Aforementioned headings are unprofessional, and should be reverted back to your edits. Imperator Storm (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree as to "Background", but not sure as to "The pig incident" —it could also be "The spark" or something like that. It would also be a good idea to include text in "Background" to the effect that the San Juans were settled by both sides, and patrolled/garrisoned to the extent they were. Was the pig the only casualty? It might be worth mentioning that.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The headings should absolutely be changed and I will go ahead and be WP:BOLD and do it shortly. **strong oppose** to adding the pig to casualties, this argument has been done to death over in Kettle War and excatly the same justifcations apply. Maintaining proper tone is really important. Ask yourself, would a professional do it in their book? If not, it's likely not appropriate here either. 81.108.229.77 (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Before the pig 184.19.142.221 (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Casualties (revisited)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In order to summarise this RfC in question, we have to consider a few things:
  1. Did the pig die as part of the war or rather triggered it? The text makes it clear that the latter is true, as the military standoff started after it was shot. This argument, as invoked by several editors here, is quite strong and a convincing one.
  2. Are animals to be included in the infobox as casualties? There is in general nothing that prohibits it, but the only example that was provided was countered by the fact that the camels, unlike the pig here, were used by belligerents. The usage in RSs, as was admitted, was rather jocular than serious. What is relevant here is the infobox template documentation that says that inclusion of information must follow guidelines for the lead section and that whatever controversial/doubtful information should not be included there but should rather be have a reference to the relevant fragment. The very fact that an edit war occurs goes against the intended usage of the parameter means it should better stay out of the infobox, while using second/third meanings in dictionary entries (which are, as in the case of word "casualty", figurative) to justify inclusion is clearly not good enough, as the infobox is supposed to deliver straightforward information.
  3. Crucially, no editor has convincingly argued that the pig was killed in action, and it seems that there would have been consensus for inclusion had this been shown.
However, due to the fact that the !votes split roughly equally, I close this as no consensus despite my finding that the opposes made a much more convincing case. Either way the pig will not be included in the infobox. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Should the pig be listed in the infobox as a casualty of the Pig War? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Support. There has been (since 2011) a slow moving edit war to add the pig as a casualty to infobox. While @Gaioa brought it up in passing above, it didn't receive substantial discussion. An IP user responded with the case of the Kettle War and the Kettle (which people wanted to add as a casualty), but I don't think the comparison holds true here. The pig (a living creature) did die in this incident. Listing the pig as a casualty would help readers understand that pig for which this incident is named died.
    I can see why people (like MrBark) might feel differently (for example, we don't list the amount of horses that died in the Napoleonic wars), but I feel strongly that it makes more sense than not to list the pig here as an exception to that general trend. Regardless of the outcome, I would like to settle this issue once and for all and have opened up this formal RFC to settle the matter. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support As I reasoned back in May, context makes the pig a notable war casualty. And since it was alive and of noteworthy value to its owner, this is distinct from the reasoning one might give for Kettle war and Bucket war. Though one might also reason that the pig was killed by a civilian and not through any state-sponsored act of violence, making it dubious if it's a war casualty or not. Gaioa (T C L) 20:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • No, emphatically. This has been discussed before, and there is zero new information in the filer's argument. If you need me to, I'll reiterate and reinforce the points made in previous discussions, since they're all still true.
    • "Casualties" refers to humans. Animals are not casualties within the military context of the term's use. The term has a specific meaning defined by well-respected international and transnational bodies such as NATO, and should not be used flippantly.
    • Even if we ignore the fact that "casualties" refers to humans, the pig was not a victim of the war. Instead, the war was caused in part by the reaction to the death of the pig. There was in fact a period of negotiation and progressive escalation before troops were deployed. Consider, as an analogy, the absurdity of listing George Floyd among the deaths in the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul. You could equally not list Archduke Franz Ferdinand among the casualties of the Serbian campaign, an armed conflict that began partly as a result of the reaction to his assassination.
    • Even if we ignore the fact that the pig is not a casualty and that the pig did not die in the war, we still can't include the pig in the list of casualties because it's not verifiably described as such in reliable sources, making the claim that the pig is a casualty original research.
That leaves the only realistic argument for the pig's inclusion as WP:Ignore All Rules, which should be used judiciously, and not to appease a meme-fueled edit war. The RfC filer should close this discussion speedily, as they have added no new information or policy-based reasoning that might overturn the previous consensus. You might even get a trout for this, MJL. AlexEng(TALK) 23:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Quote from an academic bibliography of the war by CUNY: Athough the Pig War had lasted for over a decade, the total casualties consisted of one pig.[2] :P
Let's also not forget the infobox calls it "casualties and losses" rather than just casualties. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, but Template:Infobox war clarifies what "losses" means: casualties1/casualties2 – optional – casualties suffered (including: dead, wounded, missing, captured and civilian deaths) and equipment losses. Note that this section of the infobox is headed "Casualties and losses". ... Where equipment losses are reported, this should be confined to major or significant types of equipment broadly categorized such as: tanks, guns (artillery pieces), aircraft, destroyers etc.[emphasis mine] With respect to the CUNY document, I'd argue that they're using that term hyperbolically as a rhetorical tool to underscore the bloodless nature of the war. AlexEng(TALK) 00:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Ditto: the source is using "casualty" as a sort of joke. If it come to that , most wars kill a large number of animals. It can even be significant in the war, but they're not caualties in the usual sense. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@DGG and AlexEng: I mean, sure, I would accept that if it was a one-off thing. That was just the first source I could find, though. Here are a few more:
Sure, they seem to be a bit tongue-in-cheek with how they mention it, but I don't see how that disqualifies us from following their lead. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I should also specify that when I search the term "Pig War (1859) casualties", the only source that didn't specify the pig was a casualty explicitly was the Canadian Encyclopedia. However, it also didn't exactly leave the door closed to the possibility, Though called a war, it never actually degenerated into an armed conflict, and there were no human casualties. [emphasis added] [3] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This is just the result of confirmation bias; while searching for "pig war", and "casualties", one would expect that only references to the pig being a "casualty" – which you correctly identified as tongue-in-cheek – would be returned. In fact, most works that deal with this subject, such as The Pig War: The Most Perfect War in History (which is actually cited by one of the papers you provided above) do not even use the word "casualty" in reference to the war. Moreover, the references that do refer to the pig as a "casualty" do so only to underscore the fact that there were no casualties in the war. The two Canadian sources you provided above, which are the only two that I can access, are primarily devoted to discussions of the lack of casualties in the war, using the pig as a case in point. To extract these quotations out of the context of the overall focus of the source material is to ignore that the fact that the pig is the only creature that died in this conflict is a vehicle for the authors to drive home their point that the conflict's peaceful resolution is a model for the resolution of future conflicts. The use of the infobox template, however, is agnostic of context: readers compare data presented there across different conflict-related pages and expect that Wikipedia uses a standardized definition of "casualties". We cannot therefore use these authors' loose redefinition of "casualty" which only applies to this particular conflict as a separate criterion for inclusion into the template data. AlexEng(TALK) 23:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@AlexEng: Okay, so I bought a copy of The Pig War: The Most Perfect War in History. I really don't agree with your citation of it here. First of all, according to Coleman, it was mostly the Hudson Bay Company that was involved in the first half of this conflict (so that would need to be changed in the infobox).
Secondly, I really don't agree with your interpretation of what content belongs in an infobox. Someone should be able to, add a glance, tell you after reading the infobox that the war which was fought over a dead pig involved a dead pig. Much of what is written within Coleman's work supports that fact. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@MJL: we can discuss other aspects of the conflict outside of this RfC. Someone should be able to, add a glance, tell you after reading the infobox that the war which was fought over a dead pig involved a dead pig. But that's not what they're able to tell from your proposed change, now is it? The implication is that a pig died as a casualty – a term that refers to humans – of a war not fought (there was no actual fighting), over a dead pig. That's the gist of points 1 and 2 of what I said above. In your recent replies, you seem to be leaning heavily on the dubious use of the word "casualty" in references, but I haven't seen a response to the other two points. This isn't policy debate; you kind of need to address all of the issues with the proposed inclusion. So if the pig didn't die as a consequence of the war and the pig doesn't meet any definitions of casualty, including the one in the infobox, what is the argument for inclusion in the infobox? AlexEng(TALK) 05:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@AlexEng: For the first argument, I kind of can concede that. However, it can be rectified with proper wording; ie. A pig - killed at the onset of the incident (possibly as a footnote if desired; I'm open to ideas here). As for the second point, there is a definition of the term "casualty" which the pig would fall under: Someone or something adversely affected by a decision, event or situation. (from Wiktionary). It's a pretty loose definition of casualty, but it does fit here I would argue. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@MJL: you would argue that because you really believe that's true, or you would argue that because we're a few days into this debate and there's not much left to argue? The "casualties" section of the {{Infobox war}} template is explicitly for the military context of the word casualties: (military) A person in military service who becomes unavailable for duty, for any reason (notably death, injury, illness, capture, or desertion). Wiktionary is far from authoritative, but I'm pretty sure even the definition you cited isn't intended to be for animal deaths associated with a military conflict; based on the example usage, it seems more like a colloquial description of the demise of something, like: "Pets.com was a casualty of the Dot-com bubble." AlexEng(TALK) 07:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@AlexEng: lol you were the one who asked about my definitions! I wasn't going to actually make this argument otherwise –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

REJECT - The pig is not a human, so it does not qualify as a casualty. The pig was not owned by the military, so it does not qualify as a loss. The pig was private property involved in a civil dispute. This dispute led to an international incident that suffered no consequences for the military nor governments involved. --Bark (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose, per AlexEng. BilledMammal (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per repeated usage by reliable sources. That they are doing so in a humorous manner is inconsequential to me, and explicitly stating that it's a pig makes it clear we aren't talking about a human casualty. More specifically, we can use the casualties box to list significant equipment losses as well-- I know other editors are arguing that we only use it for "significant" equipment losses, but defining what counts as a significant loss by ourselves could be seen as WP:OR. It goes back to the sources. The sources all note it. If they are all noting it explicitly, it's significant. Fieari (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the infobox is not the whole article. The infobox is for straightforward, undisputed (generally) facts and statistics. The article discusses the unfortunate death of one pig. It's not like we are ignoring it. For the reasons above (and common sense) incidental losses such as pigs, kettles, and ears are are not actually considered causalities in any real sense. In any conflict, there are incidental non-human losses. The Charge of the Light Brigade does not list the noble horses as causalities in the infobox, despite being a significant part of that event. Ultimately, even if common sense did not dictate that we not include the pig, there is the fact that if we include this pig, there is no limit to what could be included under the same reasoning. Also, we should not give in to Wikipedia meme-ers. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 15:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
    @El cid, el campeador: RE: there is the fact that if we include this pig, there is no limit to what could be included under the same reasoning. You mean the reasoning that if reliable sources definitively state something Wikipedia should include it? I fail to see how that is a slippery slope.
    The only way you get to your conclusion is by ignoring what reliable sources actually say on this specific matter. No source has disputed the pig is a casualty of the incident here, and most (out of what I have found) of have supported that premise pretty explicitly. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Should we include kettles destroyed in a battle? Horses killed in battles? Buildings destroyed? Bridges? Cows? You will find sources on all these things for various battles and wars. You’re conflating RS and WP policy on inclusion in info boxes. No one is claiming the pig wasn’t killed. Just that he is not a casualty in the sense we are concerned with. Cheers ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 23:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@El cid, el campeador:Yes, if and only if the sources regularly and consistently and explicitly do so. I doubt you will find they do for kettles, horses, etc, so in reality no... but only because we follow what the sources say. Not because we judge kettles and horses to not be casualties, but because the sources do not judge kettles and horses casualties. (To be fair, I would not be surprised to find a particular war somewhere in antiquity that did count horses explicitly as part of the casualty count, but I would not be surprised to find this is not the case either) Fieari (talk) 07:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The pig's killing was the catalyst for a military stand-off, the WP:COMMONAME of which is Pig War. The pig was not even killed during that 'war' sny more than Archduke Franz Ferdinand was killed in WWI. Rhetorically it may be referred to as the only 'casualty', but 'national pride', 'prestige' and numerous other things can be thus referred to rhetorically as 'casualties of war'. The purpose of the infobox is to record human deaths and injuries, since these are an important indicator of the scale and impact of a conflict or incident. Many infobox parameters use shortened descriptors for reasons of brevity, as in this case. The argument for inclusion seems very semantic. Pincrete (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. The context of this battle makes it notable for inclusion. There is a precedent here: and it's similiar to this battle, where there was an unusual presence of camels in the battle, so the camels are included as casualties in the infobox. It's clearly NOT the same as including a kettle or buildings as casualties(inanimate objects that aren't alive), or the numbers of dead horses!(mundane information that is generally not recorded anyway)Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    Lot to unpack here...
    1. Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles.
    2. Wikipedia does not operate based on "precedent"; we need an actual reason for inclusion rather than other stuff exists.
    3. You appear to have misunderstood the use of "Casualties and losses" in the infobox, which I described in the above discussion based on the template documentation: casualties1/casualties2 – optional – casualties suffered (including: dead, wounded, missing, captured and civilian deaths) and equipment losses. Note that this section of the infobox is headed "Casualties and losses". ... Where equipment losses are reported, this should be confined to major or significant types of equipment broadly categorized such as: tanks, guns (artillery pieces), aircraft, destroyers etc.[emphasis mine] You could make the argument that the camels in Battle of Longewala are "military equipment" since they are used as such; frankly, I think they should be removed from that article's infobox too, since it seems like a stretch. The pig in this article is not equipment and did not die in a "battle". Your comparison falls flat.
    4. I've fixed your broken hyperlink above.
    If you have other reasoning to add, please feel free, Deathlibrarian. AlexEng(TALK) 21:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for your responses here Alex - just some quick responses of my own:
    1I really I meant its a notable/noteworthy *fact*, rather than notable in the guidelines sense. Its relevant information to the article, and to be reflected in the infobox.
    2In discussing changes to articles, people regularly refer to what's been done in some articles to see how other editors have interpreted the rules. Yes, certainly Wikipedia doesn't operate on legal precedent, but we can look at how the rules were applied to similiar articles to see how other editors interpreted them. I'd like to think that the context of that particular battle was similiar to this one (an unusual situation) and it could be reflected in the infobox as has been done there.
    3Thanks, yes I didn't get the difference between casualties and equipment losses. I was assuming they had either been included as casualties, or just "generally" put in the infobox as relevant to the article. It is possible they were put in as equipment, or as all of the above!
    4Thanks for fixing the broken link! cheers.
    As an extra note, I will add that there are plenty of sources, listed above by the diligent editors, that refer to the pig as the casualty, or the sole casualty. I think in keep with the sense of how the phrase is used in writing about the battle, it makes perfect sense to include it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunately, though I think that the description of the lost pig as a casualty in a number of the named sources is very funny, I am inclined to agree that the pig's death appears to be a catalyst of the conflict, not a participant in it. The Archduke Franz Ferdinand comparison is apt. RIP the pig. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 03:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pig_War_(1859)/Archive_1&oldid=1225106583"