Talk:Burning of Washington/Archive 2

References to Capitol protests of 6 Jan 2021

Let's be careful to avoid injecting this article about a historical event with hyperbolic references to the Capitol protest of 6 January 2021. I removed a false claim that those protests were the first "storming" of the Capitol since this event, and someone undid my edit. I don't want to start an edit war, but this is not the first attack on the Capitol since 1814 (CNN provides two intervening examples here). The 2021 event is also not remotely close to the 1814 event in significance — 70 rabble-roused vandals and their petty vandalism hardly equate to 4000 trained soldiers and the destruction of the Library of Congress — and it demeans the significance of the 1814 event to bring in the comparison. Most importantly, claims about the 2021 event have nothing to do with the 1814 event and do not help provide any understanding or context for readers trying to learn about 1814 event. —Lereman (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone claimed in this edit that 2021 marked the seventh storming of the Capitol; if true, it's good evidence that this spate of edits is just recentism. Unsourced claims should be removed on sight. Insertion of content into the first paragraph (or lead) that is not present in the body should be removed on sight. WP:V, WP:LEAD, WP:DUE etc. are paramount. Will someone in 200 years who is searching for information about the Burning of Washington need to know about the unrelated 2021 event before they've even read who the current president at the time was? — Bilorv (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Did CANADA burn the Whitehouse (and Capitol) as The Smithsonian claims?

Canada Burned Down the White House https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/today-we-celebrate-the-time-canada-burned-down-the-white-house-127844144/?fbclid=IwAR3aCPtEMEnJYEsU770FSnHG-V2VUyUrWjhFJcZtEbaXgMNrkWNiq5DvoGo

That claim is ridiculous, as confirmed by this CBC News article. Trump blames Canada for torching White House. Meet the 'reluctant arsonist' https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/trump-blames-canada-for-torching-white-house-meet-the-reluctant-arsonist-1.4697058

    CBC about the troops from Halifax, led by Major-General Robert Ross There were a couple of Canadians there because they were serving in the British Army," says Boileau, author of Half-Hearted Enemies: Nova Scotia, New England and the War of 1812.

    A myth buster site: It's true that the offensive was launched from Nova Scotia, but the troops were British regulars recently dispatched from Wellington's army fighting in Europe. They weren't Canadians in any meaningful sense. Canada was part of the British Empire at the time, but to say that "Canada burned down the White House" is a little like saying that Guam or American Samoa killed Osama bin Laden.  https://www.woot.com/blog/post/the-debunker-did-canada-really-burn-down-the-white-house

The other British regulars came from Bermuda with Cockburn:

   After spending the winter in Bermuda with his troops, the Rear Admiral George Cockburn returned in February 1814 with his eyes set on Washington, D.C. ... A few of the bigger warships dropped out as the river became narrower and shallower, but the majority made it to Benedict, Maryland, where approximately 4,500 troops disembarked. https://www.history.com/news/the-british-burn-washington-d-c-200-years-ago?fbclid=IwAR03U-1HymlsgtWr8QXC3y3a60efozY6nY4FNUm5l2KS4b6sb77J7K4ZsBo

I'm a bit surprised that this Wikipedia page does not provide more specifics, about both Rear Admiral George Cockburn and Major-General Robert Ross. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Reasons

The article says “the attack was in part retaliation…” I think it should be clear to the reader that Washington was a legitimate target for a raid. It was the burning of government buildings which was direct retaliation, per lex talionis, for the burning and looting by Americans of the capital of Upper Canada and of Port Dover. The alleged perfidy of American soldiers was the final straw. As a courtesy, I am NOT being bold. If consensus agrees, I will do the edit. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

I’ve made one edit and proposed another. Reading farther, I see a weasel word CLAIMS, and scare quotes TREACHEROUSLY. I think a second source is needed is several places to ensure neutrality. (i.e. sources not reading from the same prayer book) I have the experience to recognize problems, but fixing them takes more time. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

@Humphrey Tribble: Why is this article's neutrality being disputed? Jarble (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

My post has been archived, Jarble (talk · contribs).

Here's the original:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABurning_of_Washington&diff=1187844345&oldid=1022175574

There doesn't seem much interest in discussion. So when I get a chance I will push on with a few specific edits. Other editors might then have something to argue.

But here is what I said:

REASONS

The article says “the attack was in part retaliation…” I think it should be clear to the reader that Washington was a legitimate target for a raid. It was the burning of government buildings which was direct retaliation, per lex talionis, for the burning and looting by Americans of the capital of Upper Canada and of Port Dover. The alleged perfidy of American soldiers was the final straw. As a courtesy, I am NOT being bold. If consensus agrees, I will do the edit.

NEUTRALITY

I’ve made one edit and proposed another. Reading farther, I see a weasel word CLAIMS, and scare quotes TREACHEROUSLY. I think a second source is needed is several places to ensure neutrality. (i.e. sources not reading from the same prayer book) I have the experience to recognize problems, but fixing them takes more time. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)