Talk:List of wars involving the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Fun as it is the "Sealandic War of Independence" may not count as a war and Sealand as a country, discuss. Andrew Swallow (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The Troubles

Were the Loyalists really allies of Great Britain during the Troubles? There might not have been many shots fired between the Loyalists and the British army, but the Loyalist paramilitaries were illegal organisations and their members were arrested as well. Epa101 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As Unionist paramilitaries were definitely not allies of the British army on any official way but were instead illegal and often arrested by the army I am going to take them out as an ally as the above comment suggests mcdonnap

List format / content

User:Andres rojas22 has recently made a very considerable change to this article (as well as its Russian equivalent) which I have reverted. (See the article's history.)

Following a discussion between myself and this editor (see: User talk:Andres rojas22#Explain yourself) I am opening a discussion here, something which I feel needs to be done for such a change to be agreed to/rejected. Much work has gone into this article over the years by numerous editors and I feel that it should not be simply undone on the whim of a single editor now.

The crux of the matter is this: should this article (and its Russian counterpart) be a simple list of wikilinks, in text-only format and with no information. I disagree and suggest the current format should be retained. It is a useful overview of the wars and is not particularly long or confusing. The minimalist approach advocated by User:Andres rojas22 is in my opinion inferior to a more inclusive (information-wise) approach. A list article does not need to be just a list of wikilinks - indeed that is often not useful and/or makes the article/the topic on Wikipedia appear incomplete. David (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support keeping tables, but not those ugly-ass HTML format tables. Have copy-edited to the more sleek wikitable, which should look better. The minimalist approach is not acceptable, imo.. lists are helpful, but removing data such as he did was not appropriate in this case. The difference between a Start-class article and A-class is content. Why is the editor degrading the content? His argument is not strong. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 18:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Concur with MarcusBritish.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Ditto. Might be worth adding sources for some of the info in the list, but an inclusive approach seems more appropriate here. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed that the article lacks sources, and have tagged as such to invite further input. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 18:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• I also concur with MarcusBritish. Mojoworker (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Degrading? this is not an article nor an essay, it is a list an the information i removed hindered the easy reading and editing of this article, it was unhelpful and was already covered in the articles infoboxs. I don't know how sleek is that wikitable you say but i would like to see if it is leaner than the current baroque table, i would support a leaner table.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a defined "list" format. They can be basic bullet-point lists, or tabular lists such as we have here. The more data a list has, the more likely that tables/columns are required to organise the information. Articles are not self-referring, so having the data here provides a central article, which it is FYI, everything is "an article", for researchers to view, rather than dig through dozens of pages. The data here is comparative, as a basic list it provides nothing for users to "use", it's basically an index, and baroque in itself. Yes, wikitables are sleeker, neater, better looking, and don't have those ugly 1px borders from the 1990s. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 18:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

please show me an example--Andres rojas22 (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is already an example, I converted it ages ago. compare its current appearance to [1] there is a vast difference. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 18:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

i don't see too much difference, the issue im arguing is not so much table appearances as to the amount of content in it:allies?, enemies?, and even a different column for date of start and finish? that's what im saying its too much. My computer has a resolution of 800x600 and all i can see scrolling down the page is a couple of wars, maybe even 3, and a bunch of flags and words. that what i mean with baroque. if the fields of belligerents it would be better.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

800x600 is a highly out-dated resolution, from CRT monitors. Most monitors are now flat-screen, wide-screen at 1024 or wider. Technology moves forwards and older things get left behind, sometimes. We don't make pages basic to support stoneage resolutions, in other words. Wiki does its best to support all resolutions, by dynamic methods. But in many cases, at lower resolutions, cramping will result. We can't make columns narrow just for a small percentage of users. You're in a 0—1% minority, as evidenced here: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp. I'm afraid your resolution is baroque, not the article. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 19:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

the point is the allies and enemies part is an unnecessary accessory because what really is important is the date and name of the war. those overcharged table are nothing but a serious discouragement for both readers and editors (just look at how shorter the list is without them)--Andres rojas22 (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to invite those readers/editors you speak of to comment. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 19:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

sarcasm doesn't help a discusion. i have kept m mind open and tried to compromise, i would like the article without the table but i suggested a middle point:to go with a leaner table, please keep an open mind too.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't be daft, that wasn't sarcasm — you claimed there are readers/editors discouraged by the current format. So, invite them to comment. We work by open discussion, not one person making unsupported ambiguous remarks about anonymous groups, and personally I don't believe anyone who understands Wiki and the internet will be discouraged. There is no "leaner table", there are HTML tables which are ugly and not modern looking, and wikitables which fit the Wiki scheme best. Those are the main table designs which are known, the wikitable being the recommended format so that editors can update and edit easily, without having to understand HTML or another editors custom markup. There isn't really a middle point.. it's either a basic list, which has been opposed 4:1, or tabular data. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 22:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

i already said that i would support a table list with less data on it, while you stick with our pov and make no concessions. i want to reach a concensus but it's a 2 way road. How can one read a list if what one see looks more like a united nations meeting with a million flags and a bunch of unnecessary information?--Andres rojas22 (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Your argument amounts to WP:IJDLI more than anything, so I doubt that you can, unless you make a stronger argument. I have no POV, and given that you misuse the term because POV refers to neutrality, not style, isn't a valid argument. You haven't argued as to why the data is unnecessary, only that you think it is, which isn't a reason to remove 39,000kb of data and minimise the content to a minimise the page to a shopping list standard. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 00:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:IJDLI? funny since you were the one who complained about "ugly-ass HTML format tables", that sounds like a personal preference to me, not an argument. if you choose to downplay my arguments by calling them personal opinions then i have no problem repeating it for tenth time:this is a list, not a poster, not a pamphlet, not a graphic design project, this is to show a number of elements enumerated consecutively. a list does not include b definition a description of it's objects characteristics, if you open a book or read online a list of popes you see their names, dates of election and death. if you see a country subdivisions there's the name of the states and their capital. you don't see 4 or 5 other details. a list is direct and sober not a carnavalesque reunion of colours and data.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

My view of HTML tables is echoed by the Wiki community, hence why global stylesheets have been produced resulting in the consensus-driven "wikitable" class, so it is an argument that has ample backing. Yes, it's a list — in tabular format. Tables are more detailed than basic lists, more concise, more populated. We're making an encyclopedia here, with complete informative content.. not writing a menu. Your view of books is moot too: Some books are thorough and detailed, some are basic and less so, depends on the author, their research, and the reading level. Wiki aims to be thorough, not to make basic details for 5–10 year old kids. There are dozens of very thorough "list of" articles on Wiki, such as this, so it's a well practised method. And yes, you do get more than just dates and basic info: List of Presidents of the United States 8 columns, List of English monarchs 6 columns, List of castles in England 7 columns, World War II casualties various tables with ~6 columns inc. flagicons, List of countries by population 6 columns inc. flagicons. Each of those exceeds your "4 or 5 other details" claim quite readily. Seems you're on the wrong line of thinking. Please present a better argument, you're just going round in circles.. so repeating yourself 10 times won't achieve anything, your point is already noted and proves nothing. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 02:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC) PS: List of popes – 7 to 9 columns per table. ;)

it's pointless for me to debate deft catchphrases like "we're not writing a menu here" or "Wiki aims to be thorough, not to make basic details for 5–10 year old kids", i expect a much higher level of debate than that. tables are not unknown or uncommon, but they generally stick to a defined pattern:they are used when the amount of objects listed is short, like the number of uspresidents or the castles in england. but this list covers more than 300 years of conflicts, from giant wars to colonial campaigns, definitely by far much more than the lists you mentioned. with at least a minimum of 200 wars to list in this article (from which the present state of the list falls far short) it would be a nightmare to read such a huge cumbersome table list, getting lost in all the pretty and useless colors, flags, columns and details.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You expect a higher level of debate? Ironic. I expect no debate and a higher level of article content. Your point is poorly conceived. There are only 2 columns, that of Allies/Enemies that contain flags. There are no colours, nor any of the other hyperbole you speak of. At only 6 columns wide, it's smaller than some of the previous examples given, including your disproved "Popes" example. There is nothiong cumbersome about it, really. Tables stick to a pattern? Care to share what that is, and your reliable source to support this further example of an ambiguous claim? Tables only follow 3 patterns: headers, columns, rows. Content is dependant on material. Simple as that. There is sufficient material here to warrant 6 cols, and flags. Not to tone it down to dull lists, which do not relay anything comprehensive, informative, or worth being assessed beyond Start class. Ever heard of Featured Lists? They contain a lot bloody more than a single column of bullet points. Get with the times. I've made my points, and the current format is supported by 3 other editors. As I said, find those so-called readers/editors who are discouraged by this format, or speak for yourself. Until then, drop the stick, because there is no debate here that you can expect to win with the same old argument. The WP:MOS also supports use of tables/flagicons. People don't want lengthy boring lists, they want some visual eye-candy to break up the text, and a couple of rows of flags is hardly evasive. IF you think otherwise, prove me wrong. I've given examples that prove that the current format is accepted across Wikipedia, if you think it's the wrong approach, then you have a lot of articles and editors to contend with in the long-run. Good luck, I won't be responding to any more repetition. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 03:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Disappointing really to see this debate is still going on, so I'll add my thoughts. Which are wholly in support of the current status quo of a list with details. The debate seems to be over a misconception on the part of User:Andres rojas22 that details in lists are undesirable. He may think so, Wikipedia does not. Have a look at Wikipedia:Featured lists, which shows the very best lists that Wikipedia can produce. List of castles in Cheshire is not just a bare list naming the castles, it has all sorts of extra details, the same can be said for List of freshwater islands in Scotland, List of Ohio class submarines, List of accolades received by Gosford Park, etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseam. As to the claim that wikipedia uses tables "when the amount of objects listed is short, like the number of uspresidents or the castles in england". I will note that List of Castles in England actually probably lists more entries than the wars list...and does so in table format with generous amounts of extra detail. And as for List of Presidents of the United States, if you suppose that at some point in the future when the number of presidents is much higher, the table format is going to be thrown out in favour of a bare list, that is frankly ridiculous. Given that Andres rojas22 is short both on accurate examples or policies/guidelines that support his interpretation, it does smack of WP:IJDLI and far from one side having to make concessions to him, if consensus is in support of the current approach, nothing more needs to be said or changed. Benea (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that there is support in keeping the tables with details, rather than just having a basic list of wikilinks. As has been shown (in the above discussion), there are many list articles on Wikipedia with quite detailed tables with a number of columns. Obviously they should be clear and concise. But they do - and this article is a good example - give a good overview of summary information from all connected articles within a topic.

Can someone look into the Russian equivalent of this article too? The massive edit made by User:Andres rojas22 is still in place, meaning that article has had its table removed and a basic list of wikilinks put in place. David (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Already done, just spent 20 mins copy-editing it to wikitable MOS standards. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 18:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates your effort. (I'm staying clear, for now, in editing these articles as the one who challenged the major edits made by User Andres.) David (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

by all standards of civility the most important rule for a discussion is that the contending parties exchange their arguments but what a surprise to wake up and see the opposing debater become judge, jury and executioner. a partie entitled to "conclude" a discussion, unless you surrender our argument and let the other part implement his plan, until both parties have agreed to a common plan. neither is a discussion a voting pole, "support" or "oppose" are reserved for votations and just because another editors have expressed some support for one side does not mean concensus have been reached, concessus is reached when the opposing views reached an understanding not with a votation. as i said before, tables are cumbersome and obey more to the whim of editors who want pretty tables with colors regardless of how distracting and hard to read the are than to functionality, still i would support a lighter table with less ornament and more functional, please show an example.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be confused about how consensus works. The article/s in question were of a format that was considered appropriate. You changed them to basic lists and the format was questioned. There is such thing as WP:BRD meaning Bold, Revert, Discuss. Your version was boldly reverted to the last stable version, and developed to current MOS standards (i.e. wikitables), and here we have a discussion. Unfortunately, you only present a linear opinion, without support, and no reference to wiki policy, no examples, nothing that suggests basic lists are better in value than tabular lists. The discussion has raised the support of several editors who favour the original, tabular, format. Voting is neither here nor there, as votes don't mean anything, the arguments do. Your arguments haven't presented anything other than a personal dislike of tables, or flag icons, or "an over abundance of information". To be honest, you're not quite with the consensus process. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 20:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

forgive me but i believe you"re the one appearing confused, consensus is not built between several people who have the same idea but between opposing views on a subject, meaning that just because other editors have expressed an opinion similar to yours that does not mean consensus has been reached because WP:PNSD. concesus is reached after a dialogue between opposing views in which both sides exchange their arguments and ideas and with this dialogue the reach solution that adresses the problems each side was debating.

you repeat that the only point of my arguments is that i "dislike" the tabular presentation and calling WP:IJDLI even when you where the one expressing personal preferences (like disliking "ugly-ass HTML format tables"), tough firmly in favor of a list without tables i have repeatedly proposed a middle point of table with less content but you seem to be fixed in what you want and you're "arguments" are either reductio ad ridiculum ("we're not writing a menu here" or "Wiki aims to be thorough, not to make basic details for 5–10 year old kids") or our preferences on table design (without trying to reach a compromise). since you consider your opinions well supported by policies, please cite a policy that outlaws simple, untabled lists.

i propose a table with the a single column for date (instead of 2 columns for start and finish like it is now), without the 2 columns of belligerents and with a reduced description in the outcome column:concise descriptions like victory or defeat or treaty of beijing, not those extensive listings of territory exchange and war reparations.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:WHENTABLE. I don't speak Latin, and your own interpretation of what a consensus is doesn't change matters. Nor does repeating yourself. I've already explained the "ugly ass HTML tables" and wide support for wikitables, so I'm not repeating again, I suggest you go back and read it, and remember it this time. Policies don't "outlaw" each other, nor has there been any polling here, so you're making claims that are not truthful. As for your proposal, I don't see the benefit of minimising the information and having to force readers to go digging through each related article to determine the reasons/outcomes. Lists are meant to provide links, tables provide data. Your titt-for-tatt retorts still don't explain why you want to minimise the content to basic reading level, less content, useless menu-format lists. People studying the history of a country would find the dates, aggressors and outcome of its conflicts far more useful than just the name/date of the wars fought, which, in reality, is about as much use as a disambiguation page (i.e. useless). Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 21:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Andres rojas22, you have an entirely wrong idea of what consensus is. You say that consensus will be achieved when we have a result 'that adresses the problems each side was debating'. No, if the consensus is that your problem is, well, your problem and that the current situation is the optimum one, then your proposed changes can be rejected entirely. Wikipedia does not have to be held hostage and forced into a middle-ground compromise by a minority viewpoint. We are now getting into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point is accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you." Andres rojas22, we have heard your arguments, and rejected them. No one here who has commented supports your stance, five users have rejected it. That's consensus, barring further input. The article can stay as it is, I think further back and forthing on this without fresh input will be wasting everybody's time. Benea (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

so as lists are permitted in this encyclopedia and there are no policies against them this discussion is entirely valid. now addressing our argumentation on WP:WHENTABLE, WP:WHENTABLE#Appropriate clearly says: "[tables] are a complex form of list. Tables might be used for presenting mathematical data such as multiplication tables, comparative figures, or sporting results. They might also be used for presenting equivalent words in two or more languages; for awards by type and year; complex discographies; etc."

"Often a list is best left as a list"

"If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice"

so simple lists are in no way inferior to tables, both serve different functions, tables are better for math charts, statistics, etc. list are better for chronologies like this. just look at all the pages lists about years and dates, see 2012 or March 24 and hundreds of other examples.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

For goodness sake, let it go. It's clear no one agrees with you on this matter. You could continue this debate forever, but Wikipedia is not about debating it's about compiling an encyclopaedia so stop wasting editors' time. David (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

for real? if you're feeling stressed or something i suggest you leave the keyboard for a while and cool down before you write something to regret later.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one arguing ad infinum on this talk page. Indeed, unlike yourself, I've been making useful edits elsewhere on Wikipedia in the meanwhile. David (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And - having re-read your comment - that appears to be a threat. I suggest it's you who needs to cool off. David (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

unless you present argument with policies or examples as proof to your arguments then i wont fall in the trap of a war of accusations. reappearing in this discussions with the only thing to say is that "For goodness sake, let it go" is making the editors who actually present arguments or at least try to, to waste their time--Andres rojas22 (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You failed to prove that there is no benefit to the tables, beyond your own prejudices for them. You haven't acquired any support for list format or a simple, watered down, junior version of the data. Now do us all a favour and drop the WP:STICK, a polite euphemism for STFU, as you're simply making WP:SOUP of this debate rather than coming to a relevant point, and I'm reaching the point where I don't feel the need to be polite because you're playing ignorant "I just don't get it" games and wasting everyone's time including your own! Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 23:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and FYI [2] the initial version of this article from the history was never a basic list to begin with, it's always been tabular, so "Often a list is best left as a list" is an invalid point. Sometimes a table is best left as it is and not reduced to meaningless bullet points. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 23:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

User Andres, not content with wasting our time enough already, has opened an arbitration on this matter.

See here.

He's trying to keep it quiet and not invite all those involved in the discussion on this talk page. David (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out it's not at RfAR - it's at WP:DR. Hopefully it doesn't keep escalating :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Headings

I do not like the headings as "Allies" and "Enemies", esp the "enemies" which appears non-neutral and also presents confusion, e.g. down in The Troubles row UK and Irish are both listed in the "enemies" column. It makes them appear to be allied as "enemies" but against no one. Need ideas as to how to reword these columns neutrally. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 18:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Troubles mention "Unionist paramilitaries" as enemies not the British, so this is not even a problem.

As for the word "Enemies", when a person replaces a simple honest word by double talk it normally means that he is trying to trick you. His aim is frequently to steal something or to escape punishment. If you believe him, you lose. Britain had enemies whose aim was to win by killing us. Andrew Swallow (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Adversaries" or "opponents" instead of "enemies"? Hchc2009 (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

'Enemies' it is war not sport. Andrew Swallow (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd keep it as "allies" and "enemies". They are the commonly used terms in describing the sides in war. In the few cases where it's not strictly accurate that could be clarified specifically in the entries for those particular wars.

Saying that, I'm not terribly fussed. It's just I don't see it as an issue. David (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

"Enemies" is the wrong word because it appears too aggressive. For example, during Napoleonic Wars against France, or WWII against German we were "enemies" almost entirely, due to political, social, cultural, economic and military hostilities. But take Britain in other wars, where the entire population is not involved as it was in such Total Wars.. can we call someone "enemies" when the scale of the war, e.g. in Afghanistan or Libya, is limited to a smaller scale front? Or "The Troubles", not really a war, more a focused conflict or campaign that doesn't involve the entire British army or UK population tot he point that every Brit would call the Irish "enemies" as much as they did the Germans in WWII. Hence why I would prefer a more neutral, less hostile term such as "aggressors" or "opponents" rather than the more final term "enemies". Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 00:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The IRA were definitely "enemies" of the British. They probably still are, just having a long holiday. Every British regiment has been sent to North Ireland and most lost someone. The IRA actually managed to kill English civilians in England, making this very personnel. Railway stations are only just bringing back waste bins.

This leads to the question, "Why the coverup?" Andrew Swallow (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The Troubles are not the only war on the list, and I'm not interested in which were enemies to whatever extent, the heading covers the entire table and needs to be worded to reflect the full history of the table, not one or two rows. Not sure what you mean by "coverup", correct neutral wording of a table heading is hardly a conspiracy: but I suggest you watch it with the "waste bins" talk, per WP:TROUBLES policy, which is strict policy and can lead to blocks, as determined by ArbCom. Irish editors don't like discussions about the period, you'll find it only leads to friction. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 15:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Each war has its own Wikipedia article that provides most of the links. However a 6th column for references may be useful. Since it only the reference numbers will show in the table the column can be narrow. Andrew Swallow (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Slave Trade Wars?

The West Africa Squadron was created to suppress the slave trade. Naval actions went from 1808 to 1860. Lots of sailors and marines were killed. Does this count as a war? Andrew Swallow (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Creating a flag

The flag instructions does not have an entry for the Dervish State. However the Dervish State article has a flag. How is the picture converted into an entry usable by the flag instruction? Andrew Swallow (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

To add a flag

a. Obtain/make a picture of the flag and save it in .svg file format

b. Upload the file into Wikipedia as a picture and answer all the copyright questions

c. Insert the flag at the appropriate line(s) of the table using the Flagicon template

{{Flagicon image |<file_name_of_flag>.svg}} [[<name_of_country>]]

Andrew Swallow (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No info on wars fought by Britain in the Carribean or Africa before the mid 19th century

Is there a reason they are missing? First Maroon War in Jamaica 1731 Tacky's War in Jamaica and the rest of the Wars and uprisings in Jamaica.

I also don't see anything about the wars between the British in America prior to the dec. of independence. Is that attributed to USA or proto USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapblack (talk • contribs) 02:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Missing War?

Did Britain really manage to go an entire decade without going to war between the Dummer's War (1721 - 1725) and the War of Jenkins' Ear (Start 1739)? Or is there a missing entry?
Andrew Swallow (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Can't seem to find anything, though I'm sure there must have been something! Perhaps something more minor than a full war, involving the navy or colonisation? Even so, it wouldn't necessarily be suitable for this list. Incredible really that you have to go back to the 1730s to find a 10-year-plus period/a decade without Britain waging armed conflict/war..!! David (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This war free gap appears when Robert Walpole was Britain's first Prime Minister. He actively avoided wars. Andrew Swallow (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Cresap's War occurred during this decade. A border dispute between the American colonies of Pennsylvania and Maryland. Since Britain's role was to act as mediator between its colonies this may not count as a British war.
British forces and traders appear to have been involved in the Indian wars against the French in what is now the USA and Canada. Andrew Swallow (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 29 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move C. 22468 Talk to me 19:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

---

List of wars involving Great Britain → List of wars involving the United Kingdom – The official name of the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland however WP:Common Name is United Kingdom which it is mostly known by. Great Britain is not official and rather a name of the main Island. C. 22468 Talk to me 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support: clearly current article name is incorrect. Ebonelm (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: the UK has had 3 official names during the scope of this article. All 3 contain 'Great Britain' but only 2 'United Kingdom'. Suggest leave article where it is and create redirects for the 'List of wars involving United Kingdom' and the 'List of wars involving United Kingdom of Great Briton and Northern Island'. Andrew Swallow (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose if you rename, then you have to remove all of thelist relating to the "Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1801)" which will not fit the new name. Make redirects per Andrew Swallow. ww2censor (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Propose split to
  • List of wars involving the the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1801) and
  • List of wars involving the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom was still considered as the United Kingdom in both instances only that the republic of Ireland had chosen independence in the second case. I think that the term Kingdom of Great Britain may be unfamiliar to many and that the dates help to clarify. GregKaye 12:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I would advise against too many webpages covering the same country. There is already List of wars involving England.
People are just as likely to search for Britain as for United Kingdom so both are needed as titles Andrew Swallow (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - yes, the country wasn't called that for some of its history, but we should use the current title, as we do for the country itself, United Kingdom, even though that also includes history dating from when it was not called United Kingdom yet. The current title is inaccurate, since it excludes Northern Ireland, despite the fact that the army includes citizens hailing from that territory.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Amakuru. You can't have them all, and the proposed title is recognizable and precise enough. When an article topic spans a period in which a polity used multiple names, the default is to use the current/most pertaining one, not to split it in order to satisfy unreasonable demands for shrubbery. No such user (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Victory/Defeat

List of wars involving Russia has a clear 'victory' or 'defeat' (or whatever result) in the Outcome box. Adding this to the outcome column in this article may help make it clearer, followed by the elaboration afforded by the specific results of the end of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.1.177 (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Wars fought by the British rarely end in a simple 'victory' or 'defeat'. So the 'Outcome' has to say what was won, what was lost and what else happened. Andrew Swallow (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Swallow, precisely, if one isn't careful this simply becomes a crude 'scorecard'. For that reason I have removed Osama bin Laden's death from the Afghan war (how is that an outcome of British presence or action?), and 'Stalin's rise to power from the 'Russian civil war' (happened 7-10 years after the Brits had gone home and not an 'outcome').Pincrete (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Swallow, regarding this edit, firstly the 'war on terror' was a term coined by GW Bush, secondly ObL was not leader/king/pope of the Taliban, he was not even a member, he was leader of an organisation with similair religious attitudes and there is not the slightest reason to imagine that his death had any effect on the Taliban's effectiveness, nor the political situation in Afgh. (though, understandably, his death was important to the USA). MOST IMPORTANTLY, how is his death an outcome of UK presence or actions in Afgh.? Your post above suggests that you are aware that this list should not be simply a 'score card', however his death was never even an objective to the UK. Pincrete (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Swallow, I intend to remove ObL killed unless a RS can be found clearly describing it as an 'outcome', 'consequence' or 'result of' UK presence/actions in Afghanistan.Pincrete (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete Denying Usama Bin Laden and Al-Qaida safe haven in Afghanistan was a major aim of the war. This can be seen from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1378 (2001). Since the UK both joined the war and agreed to this resolution it was an official UK war aim. Andrew Swallow (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Swallow, 'denying Osama Bin Laden safe haven in Afghanistan' would be achieved by him living in Pakistan, what is the equivalence of 'denying safe haven in Afghanistan' and killing him elsewhere? The UN source anyway does not put 'denying ObL safe haven' as an objective, it condemns the Taliban for giving him safe haven (ie for not offering him up to legal process, for operating outside Int. law). What I object to about this article is that it attempts to turn everything into a simplistic war-game 'score-card', the UK were there to attempt to support implementation of the rule of law, not to kill ObL.Pincrete (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete History is not about morality Andrew Swallow (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Swallow and WP is not about WP:Synth, so, where are the reliable sources that say ObL's death was an outcome of UK presence/actions in Afghanistan? … … ps history is not a 'score-card' either, we won/we lost/we drew. There are some instances in the list where 'victory' is indisputable (eg WWII), however how on earth can you have a victory in a peace-keeping mission? There is not even a defined 'enemy' to defeat! Suez is generally regarded as a humiliating fiasco by British historians, but is listed as 'victory', says who?. A list or info-box is meant to be for indisputable FACT, whenever the truth is more complex, it has no place in a list or should link neutrally to the more complex truth.Pincrete (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

General observation, a list cannot obviously give the 'whole picture', however at the moment this list is crudely simplistic. I've fixed a few things (how was the Bosnian war a UK victory?), however there are many simplicitudes, for example, the Greek Civil War does not even mention the Communists who were the principal adversaries against the Monarchist Greek state.Pincrete (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Cod wars

The National Archives file this under Industry, agriculture and commerce > Fisheries. A dispute about over-fishing by the fishing industry#Problems in Europe. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (A historical perspective) describe it by saying "The so-called "Cod War" between Iceland and the United Kingdom had brought about the spectacle of British Navy ships dispatched to rescue a fishing vessel seized by Iceland for violating its fishing rules." This does not meet the definition of war "armed conflict between societies". Whizz40 (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Please cite a couple of reliable sources that present a list or description of wars involving the united kingdom, such as those included in this article, that also includes the 'cod wars', or that describe the 'cod wars' in a way that would fit within the definition of a list of wars between countries. Whizz40 (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia articles rely on what the majority of sources say, and almost all sources call it a war (including the National Archives); individual definitions doesn't matter here. Even the description you provided of war ("armed conflict between societes") matches what happened between Britain and Iceland:

Were there armed forces involved? Yes, it involved the deployment of state-of-art frigates by the Royal Navy and the whole power of the small Icelandic Coast Guard. Constraint in the use of force or largely bloodless engagements (rammings, warning shots, non-explosive rounds fired) doesn't mean it was not an armed conflict.

Was this a conflict between societies? Yes, since it was about a key resource for both countries. The loss of fisheries caused the decline of the economies of cities like Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood, with the consequent increase of the unemployement rate. Civilians from both sides got involved from the beginning to the end (British and Icelandic fishermen, icelandic protesters blockading Keflavic NATO airbase) and Iceland broke diplomatic relations with the UK in the winter of 1976.--Darius (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The Cod wars are listed as "small wars" in Peter Young's Defence and the Media in Time of Limited War and by The Chambers Thesaurus. This article under the title Small Wars and Non-Lethal Force at Sea: The Wave of the Future? also mentions the conflict. And the official name of the conflict in icelandic is Landhelgisstríðin ("the war for the territorial waters")--Darius (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The Cod war Wikipedia lists with references a collision occurred between ships belonging to the Icelandic Government and the British Government in all 3 Cod Wars. One man died and a live shoot was fired at a war ship. Care was taken to prevent the action getting too hot. The borders of both counties moved. Andrew Swallow (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There are several issues here, the list presents a list of conflicts between Britain (and allies) and belligerent(s) that led to an outcome. In the example of the cod wars, it implies the use of military force and armed conflict led to the outcomes in the final column, which i would argue is misleading. There is WP:Synthesis needed to get from the sources to the way the information is presented. There are forces involved which are given no weight- the UN conferences on the laws of the sea had a pre-existing mandate to define territorial waters, a process that was ongoing during this time at led to changes in territorial changes for many countries, and the Cold War raised the stakes and involved the US and Soviet Union, so there is WP:undue. There are no sources here and the only source of information for the reader is the article Cod Wars which itself suffers from the same issues of synthesis and due weight to the extent that it is not neutral. I tagged the article Cod Wars with these issues. Whizz40 (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The United Nations, USA and USSR did not take part in fighting so they do not need adding to the list of combatants. The idea that the Cod Wars were one of the causes of the Law of the Sea being changed is an important one but is not made by this article. Consequently WP:Synthesis and WP:undue do not apply.

Outcome First Cod War Jóhannesson, Gudni Thorlacius (2004-11-01). "How 'cod war' came: the origins of the Anglo-Icelandic fisheries dispute, 1958–61*". Historical Research. 77 (198): 573. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2281.2004.00222.x. ISSN 1468-2281.

Outcome Second Cod War Ingimundarson, Valur (2003-12-01). "A western cold war: the crisis in Iceland's relations with Britain, the United States, and NATO, 1971–74". Diplomacy & Statecraft. 14 (4): 94–136. doi:10.1080/09592290312331295694. ISSN 0959-2296.

Results of all 3 wars Georg H. Engelhard One hundred and twenty years of change in fishing power of English North Sea trawlers, in Advances in fisheries science: 50 years on from Beverton and Holt (Ed.) Andy Payne, John Cotter, Ted Potter, John Wiley and Sons, 2008, ISBN 1-4051-7083-2, p. 1 doi:10.1002/9781444302653.ch1, mirror

Andrew Swallow (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

These sources say a) there was a fishing dispute b) there was a diplomatic-stand off with NATO in the middle c) the Royal Navy was deployed to protect British trawlers from harassment by Icelandic gun boats. These sources are not sufficient to say that losing the fishing dispute combined with losing the diplomatic stand-off because Iceland changed its territorial waters via a unilateral and international process amounts to a war with a military victory/defeat. That is what the table says which is misleading and synthesis. Equally, a war with a military victory/defeat did not result in losing the fishing rights nor the territorial waters changing. Whizz40 (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is a list of wars, who fought and the outcome. It does not say how they were fought so the unstated information does not need a cite. Andrew Swallow (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That is precisely the issue. There is a theme running through the comments on this talk page of editors raising the issue of synthesis, that is, implying more than is in the sources. The Cod wars were raised in section 2 above, acknowledged they were not armed conflicts and then removed but added back later. Section 6 debated the list format; the danger with using the table format is synthesis so if that format is retained particular attention should be given to avoiding that. Exactly this issue is brought up in section 10 on victory/defeat where the outcomes summarised were misleading. And that is exactly the issue being raised again here. To quote from the policy

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

Including the Cod wars in this list of armed conflicts implies that it they were wars involving combat. Including the outcomes summarised implies that they arose as a result of the armed conflict. That is misleading. Whizz40 (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The outcome definitely happened. Andrew Swallow (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree the outcome happened however the article title List of wars involving the United Kingdom gives us the scope of this article and quoting below from the article Cod wars

The term "cod war" was coined by a British journalist in early September 1958. None of the Cod Wars meet any of the common thresholds for war though, and may more accurately be described as militarized interstate disputes.

therefore, per WP:SAL, this should not be included in this article. Whizz40 (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

For interest, there is further discussion at Talk:Cod Wars#Militarized interstate dispute? and Talk:Cod Wars#Point of view. Whizz40 (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

References

First kandyan war

British was defeated from it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandyan_Wars#First_war_.281803.E2.80.931805.29 Yet here it states british won the war. just because british could capture some territories it doesn't mean it won the war. their primary object was capturing the kandyan kingdom, but they couldn't complete it in the first kandyan war.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceylonpedia (talk • contribs) 05:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It's listed as "Kandyan Wars", not First Kandyan, Second Kandyan, etc individually. The Wikipedia article, moreover, doesn't have a clear winner or loser in the first of the wars. Do you have a reliable source for your claims? Unfortunately, especially considering where we are, content from Wikipedia is not considered reliable unless it's backed up by reliable sources. Paris1127 (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your claim too? why I only have to provide a source for my claim ? Basically you can edit, delete, twit as you wish but if I want to correct something I have to provide a source?. also just because it's listed as kandyan war doesn't mean it's just a single conflict. there were multiple kandyan wars, in the first one british was defeated, and in the second one british could win with the support of the nobles. if you have studied history in the grade 10 in any sri lankan school, you know what I am talking about.

"moreover, doesn't have a clear winner or loser in the first of the wars." the british troops were wiped out, and their object couldn't fulfil (capturing the kandyan kingdom) so the conclusion is they were defeated.

As you can see in these sources, the conflicts are grouped numerically. It's not just a single conflict.

https://books.google.lk/books?id=dByI_qil26YC&pg=PA225&lpg=PA225&dq=first+kandyan+war&source=bl&ots=qku5VuM1sY&sig=aEWlGayC79LAK5QGowCiD_JtQaI&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%20First%20Kandyan&f=false https://www.takealot.com/the-first-kandyan-war/PLID35368226 https://www.snapdeal.com/product/first-kandyan-war/637551620200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceylonpedia (talk • contribs) 06:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits so that what you want can be discussed here (apologies, clicked a button that didn't let me provide an explanation). This requires the input of more editors than just us, preferably from WikiProjects about Sri Lanka and military history, perhaps British specifically. The question: should the Kandyan Wars be split into separate listings, or remain as one? If they remain joined, then it is a British victory overall. If they're split, the British won at least the third; I don't know how to categorize the first, fog of war and all that. Article isn't clear. Until this is decided, the page should be restored back to its previous form.

As to the rest of your comment: when you make a claim and are challenged, it's up to you to prove it. The Google Book is a potential source, but the other two are just the titles of books. Paris1127 (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I provided just the title of a book to prove that there was indeed a first kandyan war which is further proved by the google book, which you don't agree with. Since there was a first kandyan war, the necessity of joining the conflicts isn't necessary. In the book it states that british was defeated in the first kandyan war, but won in the second one. There wasn't a third one as far as I know. You already have enough proofs which you asked at the beginning. so the problem is already solved, there is no need for reverting it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceylonpedia (talk • contribs) 07:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If there were two wars and the dates are known them make them separate entries. Andrew Swallow (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Dates are known. First Kandyan War (1803–1805), Second Kandyan War (1815). also the dates were already stated before I even made the changes, so I dunno why he wants to merge it into a single conflict now. It doesn't make any sense. Like I said the first kandyan war was won by the kandyan kingdom, and the second war was won by the british with the help of the nobles (read the source I posted above.) I can't make the change here (I see once again Paris1127 reverted my change back to his edit which doesn't even have any source, irony is he asks me to provide a source) because Paris1127 and his supporters keep reverting back, and also threatened me for blocking my edit privilege if I reverted it back once again. They are trying to twist the history. even in here sri lanka schools teach that british was defeated in the first kandyan war, so how come wikipedia allows these group of people to change the history as they want? it makes the wikipedia completely unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceylonpedia (talk • contribs) 13:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The Cod Wars?

Is this really the right section for them, they were just trade disputes, yet are listed amongst wars.

Really seems wierd. 176.27.117.78 (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The Cod Wars already have 2 sections on this Talk page.

The Cod Wars are one of the most important disputes of the 20 century. So important that they should form part of the history taught to children of every country that has a sea coast. (The lack of deaths and destruction simply means they are boring.) Andrew Swallow (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Though certainly not "one of the most important disputes of the 20 century", the Icelandi/UK conflict over fishing rights involved the use of some degree of military force (15 RN frigates damaged only in the third conflict) and it became a classic case-styudy in exclusive economic zone disputes.--Darius (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The argument was over territory as well as fish. Iceland's sea limit went from 3 to 200 nautical miles. Something like fifty to a hundred countries copied this expansion - permitting the countries to claim money from oil companies that extract oil from beneath their seas. World War 1 and 2 are probably the only twentieth century wars with equivalent movement in borders. Andrew Swallow (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If we want the Cod Wars to be included in the article, all that is needed is for the definition in the lead to state militarized interstate disputes are included (see WP:SALLEAD). Moving the article to "list of conflicts..." by @Ebonelm in June 2016 [3] was unnecessary and unstable, it has been moved back once, which was then reverted. Apart from being unnecessary, the current title is not WP:PRECISE and not a common name: Every other article on this topic begins List of wars involving [country]. Every other page beginning List of conflicts involving is a redirect. Whizz40 (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 October 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed, without objection. bd2412 T 03:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

List of conflicts involving the United Kingdom → List of wars involving the United Kingdom – Restore stable article title before unnecessary page move. As dicussed on the article Talk page, if we want to include militarized interstate disputes and other conflicts in the list we can simply state this in the lead per WP:SALLEAD. Every other article on this topic begins List of wars involving [country]. Every other page beginning List of conflicts involving is a redirect. Whizz40 (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support A list of conflicts isn't feasible. Appah Rao (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

MNF Lebanon

I don't see how the 1982 MNF intervention in Lebanon can be considered anything but a defeat, even if it was the US that made the decision to withdraw. The Lebanese government requested western assistance, and the US specifically announced that bolstering the Lebanese state was the main objective, not just supervising the withdrawal of the PLO. Instead, the Lebanese Army colapsed into sectarian militias as soon as the MNF was withdrawn. There is no question that the decision to withdraw was made because of the horrific car bombings of the US Embassy and US Marine barracks. Reagan essentially cut and run. I have made the same argument on the List of US Wars page. TrendBronco (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of wars involving the United Kingdom. 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/20150927160708/https://social.shorthand.com/DefenceHQ/nykRkuxBgf/op-shader to https://social.shorthand.com/DefenceHQ/nykRkuxBgf/op-shader

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) 09:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Outcome Headings

I've changed the wording of outcome headings to match the template for the military conflict infobox more closely, as recommended in a RfC on the US wars page. DeepSolstice (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the nine out of 10 countries

There have been contentions that this isn't entirely correct, for example the book claims that the British marching through another country to get to another counts as an invasion, examples are Moldova, Swizterland, Equador, Slovakia, Angola, Mongolia, Sweden and Belarus, while some of these (like Sweden) may have been at war with Britain they weren't really invaded as per the definition of invasion. I'm aware that these could be seen as semantics however they do give a somewhat false impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notumengi (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the First and Second Saudi State.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality?

Shouldn't we put USA on the side of Ireland during the "troubles" ? It is well known that people in the USA supplied funding to the IRA (see NORAID) and it's alleged that the CIA supplied them with weapons, funding and training too but that's just conspiracy theory until someone turns up some evidence.

But in the interest of being neutral (I'm neither American, nor British) the article has groups/clans/factions listed but not an entire organisation that was well known and not prevented from funding the Irish during the troubles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.80.121 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Cod wars

given that no shots were fired or people killed during the cod wars I am going to take them out, they don't fall under the definition of armed conflict and cod war was a name given to them by the british tabloid press, I don't think either the UK or Iceland considered themselves to be at war, and if we entered in an entry for every time Britain sent the Royal Navy into an area the list would be unending. Also there were three seporate disputes rather then one long one. mcdonnap

The Cod Wars may not have been armed conflicts but they did involve the two countries' navies. Deliberate damage to civilian property occurred - cutting of fishing net cables. The disputes were settled by issuing treaties that changed both the location of borders and International Law. Many wars have cost more and produced fewer results.

If anything the Cod Wars are examples of how small countries can beat the British. Think through your demands, behave honorably and make sure that you do not kill anyone. The British could have won any time they wanted to simply by sinking Iceland's ships, shooting a sailor would have triggered this. Andrew Swallow (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to categorise the cod war as a war. Look at wikipedia's own definition of war and it doesn't fit. The only reason it's called a war is because tabloid journalists liked the way it sounded a bit like the Cold War. By that definition, Super-Cally-Go-Ballistic-Celtic-Are-Atrocious should be listed as a well-known musical theatre song, or the current UK dispute with Spain over Gibraltar should be called the Gibraltar War (diplomatic dispute involving navy vessels and angry fishermen). I'm going to chop it out, but I'm doing it in good faith and if it's reverted for a solid reason by a proper editor that's fine by me, I wouldn't go to war (ahem) over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.117.216 (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Whizz40 (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Also agree, doesn't meet the criteria for a war. Makes the list misleading, because my first thought was "Iceland was at war with the UK three times and won!" which was entirely not the case. Kyle MoJo (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Belligerents in War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)

The belligerents on the British side currently includes "Afghanistan" (with Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan on the opposing side). Shouldn't the former be either the Islamic State of Afghanistan (the pre-Taliban regime that hung on as the Northern Alliance, and whose flag is shown) and/or the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (the post-Taliban regime established after the Taliban was initially overthrown)? Iapetus (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Sealand?

Where is the Sealandic War of Independence? DA9523 (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Sealand is not a nation state and the UK has never been at war with Sealand. Marlarkey (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Inconclusive French Revolutionary Wars

Given that I might be biased and that the subject is of subjective matter, I prefer to open a discussion about the fact that the French Revolutionary Wars are marked as inconclusive. Both coalition wars are noted as French victory on the French Revolutionary wars page and on their respective pages. It seems to me appropriate to switch the status of the entry to British loss but I might be missing some subtlety here on the differences between revolutionary wars as a whole and the coalition wars. Astarixi (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand this either. It is a widely accepted fact the French won the French Revolutionary wars. Britain being drawn to the negotiating table marked a failure to contain and crush the Republic. It was a short lived victory for France and Britain re-entered conflict with France in less than two years.

As stated France won both the Wars of the First and Second coalition.

I shall also add the point to quote ‘unsourced’ for a French victory while not sourcing ‘inconclusive’. FR1914 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Iraq 2003-09

One of the enemies of the coalition effort in Iraq was the 'Islamic State', known at that time as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and then as the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) - then ISIS, or ISIL, and now just IS apparently. How can this be called a victory when coalition countries are still fighting them? In fact, how can it be a victory when IS reached the height of their power after the coalition left? TrendBronco (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The coalition defeated the caliphate and Iraq now governs themselves in their own version of a democracy. The Country is no longer a threat to the free world and is no longer a safe haven for international terrorists. That is what the coalition of allied forces set out to do in the first place. It took a leader that wasn’t bought off by the military industrial complex to finally put an end to that war, and give Iraq their liberated sovereignty that they were told the coalition would provide. This war was finally a success that should have been completed years before it actually did. 216.215.61.216 (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistency including GB/UK in belligerents list

I noticed an inconsistency here in including Great Britain/the United Kingdom in the lists of belligerents here. I understand that the East India Company fought under its own flag and therefore GB/UK might not be listed but there are other wars in which nothing British is identified (I added GB to the American Revolution in which they were obviously involved). Perhaps there is someone who is more an expert at British wars that wants to take that on. Valley2city^‽ 14:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes and this was not a neutral outcome with no clear victory either. The Brith under the banner of the East Indian Company did not recognize the US sovereignty from the revolutionary war of 1775. Like common pirates they would raid the US coast line enslaving American maritime ships and sailors claiming they were drafted British. When the US finally had enough of it, they fought back, and the British ordered, “British controlled”, Canada to invade in the north while sending the Royal Navy to invade in the south. At first, the Canadians had a good measure of success and managed sac and burn down the White House. However, the British failed to secure a stronghold in the south as the American Militia sent them packing with their tails between their legs. In the north the militia regrouped along with the US Regulars and managed to pushed the Canadians back, and subsequently conquered most of their territory. It was only then the British agreed to recognize the US independence and promised never to attack again. In return the US ceded the concord lands from Canada back to Great Britain. This list has it listed has “no clear winner” with vague and misleading details. It was obviously a very decisive victory for the American United States, and another embarrassing loss for Great Britain and the tyrannical east Indian company. 216.215.61.216 (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The American Revolution started as a civil war within the British Empire.

A question has come up if it is accurate to list the American Revolution as : Civil War / American Allied victory Along with the text:

• The American Revolution started as a civil war within the British Empire. It became a larger international war in 1778 once France joined.

It seems self evident that this was the case as the Colonies were seen as part of England and "Rights of Englishmen" was a phrase used frequently on the eve of the American Revolution[4].

I hope these quick quotes and references will help:

• David Ramsay, the first patriot historian of the war, held that the Revolution was “originally a civil war in the estimation of both parties.” [5] You can read part two of his 1789 book in full here
• Cited in Wikipedia: Some historians name the 1861–1865 war the "Second American Civil War", because in their view, the American Revolutionary War can also be considered a civil war (since the term can be used in reference to any war in which one political body separates itself from another political body). They then refer to the Independence War, which resulted in the separation of the Thirteen Colonies from the British Empire, as the "First American Civil War". A significant number of American colonists stayed loyal to the British Crown and as Loyalists fought on the British side while opposite were a significant amount of colonists called Patriots who fought on the American side. In some localities, there was fierce fighting between Americans including gruesome instances of hanging, drawing, and quartering on both sides.

• France entered the American Revolution on the side of the colonists in 1778, turning what had essentially been a civil war into an international conflict.[6]
• The Revolution was both an international conflict, with Britain and France vying on land and sea, and a civil war among the colonists, causing over 60,000 loyalists to flee their homes.[7]
• A group of Bristol, England merchants wrote to King George III in 1775 voicing their “most anxious apprehensions for ourselves and Posterity that we behold the growing distractions in America threaten” and ask for their majesty’s “Wisdom and Goodness” to save them from “a lasting and ruinous Civil War.”[8] You can read the 1775 petition in full here
• The “constrained voice” is a good synopsis of how the British viewed the American Revolutionary War. From anxiety to a foreboding sense of the conflict being a civil war,[9]
• In the early stages of the rebellion by the American colonists, most of them still saw themselves as English subjects who were being denied their rights as such. “Taxation without representation is tyranny,” James Otis reportedly said in protest of the lack of colonial representation in Parliament. What made the American Revolution look most like a civil war, though, was the reality that about one-third of the colonists, known as loyalists (or Tories), continued to support and fought on the side of the crown.[10]
• Until early in 1778 the conflict was a civil war within the British Empire, but afterward it became an international war as France (in 1778) and Spain (in 1779) joined the colonies against Britain. Meanwhile, the Netherlands, which provided both official recognition of the United States and financial support for it, was engaged in its own war against Britain.[11]

146.200.65.214 (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

References

The US War of 1812

This war was considered the second American revolutionary war. Great Britain did not recognize the independence of the United States after the war in 1775-83, and continued to enslave American maritime ships and sailors for their own needs. The war started when the King ordered Canada to invade the US, and they managed to burn down the white house during this invasion. Very soon however, the tide of this war turned to the Americans favor, and dramatically. As the British Navy attempted to attack in the south the Militia/National Guard repelled them. They never managed to even gain a foot hold on the shore in a large scale crushing defeat. The Militia in the North not only drove back the Canadians but, also Captured most of the British Controlled Canada. The US only returned Canadian control back to Grate Britain after they agreed to recognize the United States as a sovereign independent Nation and to never attack again. This war was another decisive and embarrassing loss for Great Britain to the young United States of America. 216.215.61.216 (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Very true!!!!!!! 216.215.61.216 (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I think whomever made this list knows his or her history but, lies to make Britain not look so bad. The British only won any wars in North America against the French and Indians with the help of the 13 American Colonies. Once The 13 Colonies won their independence the British lost every war in North America and badly. 216.215.61.216 (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Very true, thank you for correcting the record. This is an example of wikipedia not being a credible source. I am sure if you look in to all of the wars this guy says had no clear winner you would find that Britain actually loss 216.215.61.216 (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

well no--it's full of major errors. The UK did recognize US independence in 1783. The war of 1812 started when the US declared war. The king did not order "Canada" (who?) to invade. etc etc. See War of 1812 and my own: Jensen, Richard, "Military history on the electronic frontier: Wikipedia fights the War of 1812" Journal of Military History (2012) 76 (4): 523–556. It's based on a talk I gave at a Wikipedia convention. online here. Rjensen (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)