Talk:Bibliography of the War of 1812

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military historiography task force

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bibliographies Low‑importance

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Changes

This is a terrible name for a page and I removed the books I added in the first place. Editors really ought to discuss their radical actions on the talk page first. Thanks.Rjensen 22:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as I advised you on your talk page, please post a rename +tag at the top of the article to request discussion, vote and a consensus before moving an article of this nature. Thank you. Octopus-Hands 22:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List items

Whether a list of this sort is allowed or allowable I do not know. I think the admins will have to rule here. Whether allowed or not, most of these items have editorial comments. This is editor opinion. I'm failrly sure that is not allowed, but correct me if I am wrong. A list of editorial mini-book reports is not according to WP policy. I am not, however, working on this article until its legitimacy is resolved.Dave (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an annotated bibliography = an alphabetical list of research sources. In addition to bibliographic data, an annotated bibliography provides a brief summary or annotation. the WP:Further guideline states that "Editors may include brief annotations." A statement about a book is allowed just as much as a a statement about a historical event, and the book itself is the RS. Rjensen (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks rjensen. Since WP policy appears to allow comments in this annotated review of bibliography I will not get involved. There is one thing I noted in passing that definitely is wrong: the sentence is "see (item) in JSTOR." No, we don't want them to see the item in JSTOR, we just want them to see it. This statement as is means that WP endorses JSTOR and recommends it as a source. No such agreement exists as far as I know. Do you know of any? Is WP endorsing JSTOR? Moreover, this is not a free item on JSTOR. You have to join to see it. Some will be able to join for free, or use library membership, not everyone will, but that is not the point. We are not recommending they see anything on any specific organization's site, unless WP has an agreement or the site is a free public service. JSTOR is definitely NOT a free public service. Regardless of who you are you must purchase a membership. WP IS a free public service and a non-profit organization. I find this statement especially unhelpful seeing it just after out debate on the topic in War of 1812. I am not however going to blame you. I am taking it out. However I only have so much time for troubled articles so I am not doing a review of this article at this time. Frankly if I were going to review the 1812 group many of the articles need a LOT more work. I know that you will see I am right and will not even think about trying to put it in so I will not even mention it. admins, you might want to take note here and inform us a little more. The way I see it, if you follow a link and cannot access the item without joining for a fee, this is NOT a free public service. If I see the page I am trying to access, well, I am not going to look a gift horse in the mouth unless I have to. If the site is a commercial one, such as Amazon, then I have to. Thanks.Dave (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a person who owns a personal copy of the journal in question can easily find it without JSTOR. The vast majority of Wiki readers will have to use a library, which requires access through tuition or taxes. Many millions of Wiki users can access the full article with one click via JSTOR, and all of them can access the first page and then judge if they want to go the inter-library loan route. JSTOR does NOT sell subscriptions to individuals (only libraries can belong). Frankly, the way to edit the article is to READ the article and discuss it rather than talk about library fees. Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR is the world standard for online archiving of scholarly articles, as used by many thousands of libraries worldwide. It makes it very easy for a person to get the article free via their local library (academic library, school library, public library), AND anyone can get the first page immediately. Without JSTOR most Wiki users would be totally in the dark on these RS.Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alert: lists of publications in Articles for deletion

Some lists of books have been added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You can find the discussions here. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chesapeake Bay

Would it be a good idea to have a separate section on the Chesapeake Bay? It appears that this area is being included under secondary sources for naval operations. Two books are listed including one from Charles Muller and a minor book by Gilbert Byron. Some significant works need to be added such as those from Walter Lord, Joseph Whitehorne, Anthony Pitch, and Christopher George. There are also some new books out in the last year or two. Dwalrus (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bibliography of the War of 1812. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907234731/http://www.press.uillinois.edu/s95/hickey.html to http://www.press.uillinois.edu/s95/hickey.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]