# Talk:Battle of Frenchman's Creek

The template (added March 09, 2010) that appears above this article says, "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with North America and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject".
I would have thought it obvious that an article about a military engagement that took place in North America would deal with the subject primarily in a North American context. This was a small-scale battle in the War of 1812 and one that had no strategic consequences whatever. The article clearly states that the incident was part of the War of 1812 and the user has the opportunity to click on the War of 1812 in order to find out all about that conflict and its wider international context.
What sort of "worldwide view" is being asked for here? What sort of "examples and perspective" are being suggested as more appropriate?
It is all very well adding a template saying that the article has an insufficiently global persepective: but unless you explain what you mean by this in real terms, i.e. by giving examples of what is wrong and (ideally) suggestions of how they could be put right, nothing can be done to help the situation.
Flonto (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You should read more history textbooks.--俠刀行 (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
And YOU should read a book that teaches you good manners.--92.8.2.102 (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This template would seem, to me at least, to have no justifiable reason to be here.  The user who placed it indicates on his/her user page (which is written chiefly in a language other than English) that he/she speaks little or no English, and therefore one may reasonably conclude that he/she may not be considered the most qualified person to critique contributions to the English Wikipedia (just as I would not be qualified to critique the Japanese version).  The article refers to an occurrence which took place in North America. It clearly documents British involvement (the only non-North American element directly pertinent to this subject).  Obviously, there was a broader international context to the grander subject of the War of 1812, but this article is about a small part of that conflict - not the entire war.  I think this is a very well written article which draws from several sources to give the reader interesting information about one of the lesser known battles of the War of 1812.  It's my opinion that Flonto has been the chief author of one of the finest new articles I've read in quite some time.  If no one provides arguments to the contrary, I will remove the globalization template in a couple of days. Miranda1989 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
中文：请勿移除该模板，条目仍需要检查。--俠刀行 (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you put this comment (and any future ones) in English please? LadyofShalott 04:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
hmm...Using English is hard for me. That's it. This explains why I always put comment in Chinese or Japanese.--俠刀行 (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I can empathize with that - I have absolutely no ability to contribute in Chinese or Japanese, but this is indeed the English Wikipedia. Using less than perfect English will still be more effective here than using Chinese or Japanese. LadyofShalott 05:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this globalization template is serving any purpose - this was a conflict between British/Canadian forces and American forces and is documented as such.  Within the limited scope of the article's subject, no other part of the world was involved.
No specific issues were presented in conjunction with the placement of this template other than a statement on the talk page of the user who placed it stating that the article did not include information on British involvement.  The Chinese text above simply says to keep it and that there are still issues, but does not detail the issues in any way.
Since this battle represents an American incursion into British held territory, it stands to reason that the planning and forethought leading to the action would be chiefly American - the British just reacted.  Also, Chance seems to have given certain American officers more interesting biographies than their British adversaries after this incident - unlike Smyth, Cecil Bisshopp does not figure prominently in history. Beyond this, the participation of both sides is represented in the article in a reasonably balanced fashion.  The template will be removed. Miranda1989 (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed - 俠刀行 has to date refused to offer any opinion on why the globalazation template is required.  Furthermore, he has told a WP:3O contributor to "mind his own business" and insulted him in a clear violation of multiple guidelines.  We are clearly dealing with an alternative form of a vandal here who has placed no justification for the globalization template.  On the same day he placed this template, the same individual placed an equally irrelevant template on RNA in a completely unrelated sphere of discussion.  This individual has exhausted his credibility and should be ignored completely.  Furthermore, I've reviewed this article and advise that the irrelevant template removed.  I will also nominate this article for Good
Article status. Radtek67 (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I've replied for your argument on my talk page.--俠刀行 (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph to the 'Background' section of the article explaining that the British c-in-c in North America had forbidden his forces on the Niagara Frontier from taking offensive action and that all they were able to do was distribute his forces to await possible American attacks. I hope that this sufficiently describes the British intentions. I have also added a paragraph at the end of the 'Aftermath' section that describes the British/Canadian view of what had happened.Miranda, may I thank you very much for your kind words! Flonto (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


### Re: Third opinion
There seem to be more than two parties here, so I'm hesitant to offer a third opinion.
However, 俠刀行 has asked for assistance in explaining why they feel a globalization tag is required. I'd recommend waiting until Rjanag has had an opportunity to reply.
In the meantime, the globalization tag doesn't really do any harm - anyone confused by it will be directed here.
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 02:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to look at this. I agree that the globalization tag no longer seems necessary. It seems that what User:俠刀行 was trying to request with this tag was that more information be added about how this battle affected the British...since that was unclear, there has been some misunderstanding here. But according to User talk:俠刀行#New improvements to Battle of Frenchman's Creek, another user has added some information on that, and per the discussion above there does not seem to be much more that can be added. It appears that the desired improvements have been made, so unless I hear otherwise from 俠刀行 I think we can consider this issue resolved. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
No worries, Rjanag, that all makes sense. An editor removed the tag, anyway, sometime after the additional information was added. I suspect I first saw this article after the information was added, too, because I have to confess to scratching my head at the globalization tag... It makes much more sense now! Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 12:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Frenchman's Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
There are a couple of references to "James" but the reference isn't included in the bibliography. Gatoclass (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Somebody else has now supplied the missing reference, so the article can now be passed. Gatoclass (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall: Straightforward and accessible account, presented logically and which appears to cover all major aspects. Gatoclass (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Pass/Fail: 

An American victory?  If this was a raid intended to weaken British forces, I guess they met with some success.  However, capturing gun positions without moving or destroying the guns would be a temporary success.  If Smyth attempted a later landing, he would be faced by the same guns.  The bridge was not destroyed and if it was destroyed, again that would be temporary since the garrison of Fort Erie could fix it in a day or two.  Considering, no further landings were attempted, due to an inability to get into boats(?), the American commander fought a duel with a subordinate, the American camp was breaking up and Smyth left in disgrace, this was hardly a victory.  If this was a trial run, the British commander could re-inforce his guards at the bridge and the Red House and wait for the 'real' attack.   As you point out, based on orders issued and numbers involved, clearly the Americans are on the offensive and that offensive never materialized beyond the events of Nov 28th, 1812.69.158.180.45 (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

repositioned.Keith H99 (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
signoffKeith H99 (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Some of the previous casualty information for this engagement that I put into the article was based on my faulty interpretation of a poor copy of Eaton's Compilation. Having obtained a fully legible copy, I have been able to supply the correct data. Sincere apologies to any Wikipedia users who were misled by my erroneous contributions.Flonto (I cannot log in because I have forgotten my password).86.131.91.127 (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)