Humanities desk
< August 5	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 6

"We have to tell the police"

I have seen in TV series that when someone goes to a hospital with an injury that may involve a crime (such as a gunshot) the medics usually mention that they have to inform the police about it. Is that a real-life procedure? Does it have a name? Cambalachero (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are called mandatory reporting laws (as a general class) and this document gives a state-by-state synopsis for the U.S. If you are looking for another jurisdiction outside of the U.S., laws will vary, but if you let us know which country, we can help you find it, hopefully. --Jayron 32 16:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Disclosure of Information to the Police Procedure for the National Health Service in England: "If the public interest and safety out-weighs the duty of confidentiality; this is likely to involve crimes of a very serious nature or where a serious offence is being investigated, such as rape, murder, kidnapping, causing death by dangerous driving or fire-arm related crimes... if information relating to terrorism has been acquired... if the provisions of Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 apply... any person must give information that may lead to the identification of the driver of a vehicle, where the driver is alleged to have committed an offence under the Act". Alansplodge (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolution historiography

US popular accounts of the American Revolution, understandably, tend to pay no significant attention to warfare outside North America, with the occasional exception of John Paul Jones' naval exploits. (It's like the Seven Years' War, which in US popular publications is typically restricted to the French and Indian War; your typical American reading about Plassey or Rossbach likely wouldn't have a clue that they were part of the same war.) What about British popular accounts of the war? If you read a UK-published popular account of the war, is it likely to be US-focused (with or without reference to Canada), or are you likely to find coverage of the Second Anglo-Mysore War, or the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, or the Anglo-French War of 1778-1783, or the conflict with Spain? Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Irrelevant responses

It seems you have found information for theatres of the war outside of North America. It's important to note that in those theatres, American troops did not participate in any part of it. Are you looking for additional places where the fighting occurred? Because I'm pretty sure you've hit all of the highlights across the globe. --Jayron 32 17:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: "What about British popular accounts of the war? If you read a UK-published popular account of the war, is it likely to be US-focused..." Nyttend (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This and this and this would be some good launching points for your research into British scholarship and accounts on the Revolution. You can find more probably here, which is where I went. --Jayron 32 17:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those addresses the question one bit. I'm looking for a discussion of how British sources handle the question, not looking for a few British sources on the question. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are looking for discussions of how British sources handle the American revolution, here and here are just two such discussions I found here which may help direct your research in hopefully the correct direction. --Jayron 32 11:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the question is about American Independence or 7 Years War now, but at my British secondary school we briefly studied American War of Independence and the Canadian aspect was definitely touched on, including the role of native Americans. AFAIK, the 7 Years War never came up at all in any context whatsoever, connected to or disconnected from American independence. I've not done any subsequent reading on the subject. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer. I have a history degree. That probably implies I have more interest than most in history. I'd doubt many of my classmates would even remember studying the War of Independence, let alone Canadian involvement. Perhaps ironically, I'd doubt that many of my friends/colleagues would have a clue who Paul Revere was. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, the National Curriculum for England calls it the "The American War of Independence"[1] - that may be a more fruitful search term than American Revolution.

Anyway, I'm not completely clear on the distinction you are making between how British sources handle the topic and individual British sources that handle the topic. For example, do you want to see how the BBC handled it on a recent popular TV programme? If yes, you might want to look at Rebels and Redcoats, and the accompanying article by the historinm who narrated it: [2]. The Wikipedia article includes a link to an American review of the programme, discussing how "British eyes look at 1776," which you may be able to read if you have a New York Times subscription. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do Brits call the War of 1812? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either War of the Sixth Coalition or the Napoleonic Wars.
Sleigh (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although "War of 1812" is the usual British name for that part of it, similarly the Peninsular War is also part of the same conflict. Alansplodge (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason for that is that Britain Proper didn't really fight much in the war; per se, its focus at the time was on fighting Napoleon. The was of 1812 was primarily fought between Canada and the U.S. Sensu stricto, Canada was Britain, but most of the fighting happened between Canadian residents and the U.S., and on Canadian soil. There was a small British contingent from the Regular Army, but most of Britain Proper's actual fighting force was tied down in Europe, so most of the fighting in the war of 1812 was done by the Canadian militias. Also, the Americans tend not to think of the war as part of the Napoleonic wars, because they had no dealings with them, and there was no formal alliance, nor were any Napoleonic French forces involved in fighting in the War of 1812. They really were two different wars, and Britain Proper was really only tangentially involved with the day-to-day fighting in the War of 1812. Indeed, that Britain left the war to the Canadians themselves led to a sense that Canada was really on their own, and started to think of themselves as possessing a unique Canadian identity separate from that of the British. See [3], [4], [5]. --Jayron 32 18:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be talking mostly about the land war, and in the north. I've always thought of the War of 1812 as largely a sea war, with even the land battles involving seaborne troops. Is that not so?

As regards land battles, our articles on the burning of Washington and the Battle of New Orleans don't seem to mention Canadian troops (at least using that word), and the "Canadian units" article you pointed to doesn't seem to mention those engagements. --Trovatore (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From War of 1812#British "The British Royal Navy was a well-led, professional force, considered the world's most powerful navy. However, as long as the war with France continued, North America was a secondary concern...The British Army in North America was a very professional and well trained force, but suffered from being outnumbered...The militias of Upper Canada and Lower Canada had a much lower level of military effectiveness.[67] Nevertheless, Canadian militia (and locally recruited regular units known as "Fencibles") were often more reliable than American militia, particularly when defending their own territory. As such they played pivotal roles in various engagements, including at the Battle of the Chateauguay where Canadian and Indian forces alone stopped a much larger American force despite not having assistance from regular British units." --Jayron 32 19:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Fencibles, which was a term for troops in many theatres around the world, not just in Canada. Akld guy (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that fully addresses what I was asking. It mentions that the Royal Navy was tied down as long as the war continued with France, but some of the key events of the war were later than that, including both of the engagements I named directly. --Trovatore (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did name two engagements that directly involved British regulars shipped over directly from Mainland Britain specifically to fight in the war of 1812. Naming those engagements does not make words like "most" or "more" or "much" synonyms of "all". Of course there were some engagements that did involve the Regulars. I never said there weren't, and the source material does not say that either. What the source material I have already linked in all of the sources I linked above says is that in the Canadian theater of the War, it was mostly local Canadians that did the fighting. That is also all I have said. If you have a problem with what those sources say, you had probably write to the people that wrote them. I had nothing to do with it. --Jayron 32 12:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in The British View the War of 1812 Quite Differently Than Americans Do from the Smithsonian Magazine. Alansplodge (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill had a lot to say about the Battle of Plattsburg. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]