Talk:Nine Years' War

message: Should Scotland be included among the list of belligerents? PatGallacher (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: First comment

message: The reference to Pondicherry was changed to Puducherry with the edit summary :  
"Wikipedia uses Puducherry not "Pondicherry" (which is the name of the city, not the territory)" 
Whether this is actually the case is a moot point (as is whether it should) but as far as the article here goes, the French colonial territory referred to was called Pondicherry, and that is what all reliable sources here will say. So changing to the modern Indian name here is confusing at best, and misleading at worst. 
In any event the piped link here leads to Pudicherry page, which has an explanation that Pondicherry was the name until 2006, so I cannot see the point of changing the text here. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puducherry? 

message: Another testing point concerned the pro-French Archbishop-Elector, Maximilian Henry, and the question of his succession in the state of Cologne... When the Elector died on 3 June 1688 Louis XIV pressed for the pro-French Bishop of Strasbourg, William Egon of Fürstenberg, to succeed him. The Emperor, however, favoured Joseph Clement, the brother of Maximilian Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria. With neither candidate able to secure the necessary two-thirds of the vote the matter was referred to Rome. 
Whose vote? What was the procedure for electing the Archibishop?
Top.Squark (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The canons of the cathedral voted, I believe. john k (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this clarification to the article Top.Squark (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Btw, was this the normal procedure for appointing Catholic bishops? Or, was it specific to the Archibishop of Cologne? Is it still the way they do it today? Top.Squark (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This was how it was generally done in the prince-bishoprics of the Holy Roman Empire.  In France, I believe, the king appointed bishops.  I don't think either of those situations is what happens now. john k (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election of the Archibishop of Cologne 

message: According to this article
The Allies had offered Victor Amadeus handsome terms to join the Grand Alliance, including the recognition of Savoy as a sovereign state and the return of Casale to Mantua and of Pinerolo to himself
However, according to Peace of Westphalia
The independence of the Netherlands, Switzerland, Savoy, Milan, Genoa, Mantua, Tuscany, Lucca, Modena and Parma from the Empire was formally recognized
Thus Savoy was already officially independent since the Peace of Westphalia.
Incidentally, it's also unclear what was the interest of Victor Amadeus in returning Casale to Mantua
Top.Squark (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Peace of Westphalia is wrong; Savoy remained part of the Upper Rhenish Circle of the Empire after 1648.  More broadly, I think it's absolutely wrong to say that the independence of Milan, Genoa, Mantua, Tuscany, Lucca, Modena and Parma from the Empire was formally recognized.  They continued to be de facto independent of the empire after Westphalia, just as they had before, but nothing in the treaty changed their status.  The imperial overlordship continued to be intermittently applied - the emperor seized Mantua as an imperial fief upon the extinction of the ruling line in 1708, and the treaties resolving the Modenese succession later in the century were signed by the emperor qua emperor, and approved by the Reichstag.  See heraldica for the Modenese succession.  Velde has other useful material which bears on this.  The Treaty of the Quadruple Alliance (1718), for instance, calls Parma and Tuscany "undoubted male fiefs of the Holy Roman Empire."  Northern Italy's relationship to the Holy Roman Empire was not changed by the Peace of Westphalia.  As for Casale, my understanding is that Victor Amadeus had a reversionary interest in Casale - he would inherit it upon the extinction of the then reigning duke, who was childless. According to the article on the last john k (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx for setting this issue straight! I added the clarification regarding Casale to the article. Top.Squark (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction with [[Peace of Westphalia]]: Independence of Savoy 

message: According to this article
Emperor Leopold I... initially resisted the treaty, but... also sought terms and signed... However, the Emperor had netted an enormous accretion of power: ... the Emperor's candidate for the Polish throne, August of Saxony, had carried the day over Louis XIV's candidate, the Prince of Conti.
Thus, this article implies the victory of Augustus in the Polish elections was the result of the Nine Years' War, possibly an item in the treaty of the Empire with France. However, according to the other article
It is sometimes incorrectly stated that Augustus "defeated" the other leading candidates, Jakub Ludwik Sobieski, son of the previous king, and the French candidate, François Louis, Prince of Conti. Augustus actually received fewer votes than Conti (despite a massive bribery campaign), but he rushed to Poland and had himself crowned before the French candidate could set foot in the Commonwealth.
The later text creates the impression Augustus won only because he "got there first". The war isn't mentioned at all.
Top.Squark (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wary of the Augustus II article, which sounds rather partisan.  It is astonishing what strong POVs make their appearance in articles about obscure questions of early modern history.  I don't think the Polish election had anything directly to do with the Treaty of Ryswick - for one thing, Augustus became king of Poland five days before the treaty of Ryswick was signed.  This could probably stand to be looked into more closely, though. john k (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article seems to present an accurate picture of events, and I don't think it implies anything about Augustus's election being related to the war.  Instead of dropping that ugly template on this lovely article, why not just clean up the POV in Augustus II?  Coemgenus 10:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it does imply. Augustus' victory is listed among the gains of the Empire during the war. It might be the error is in other article but I cannot know it. Top.Squark (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix it.  Coemgenus 15:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would gladly fix it if I knew how. Who is right? Was Augustus' victory in Poland a result of the Nine Years War in some way? John K thinks it should be looked into more closely, and I agree. Top.Squark (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent contradiction with [[Augustus II the Strong]]: Reason he was elected rather than Francois Louis 

message: According to this article
From their fort at Pinerolo the French were able to exert considerable pressure on the Duke of Savoy and force him to persecute his own Protestant community, the Vaudois... Amongst other concessions Louis XIV also promised not to interfere in Savoy's religious policy regarding the Vaudois...
Thus, the Duke desired to grant religious freedom to the Vaudois and it were the French who forced him to do otherwise (initially).
However, according to the other article
Victor Amadeus II began a large scale persecution of the Vaudois (Piedmontese and Savoyard Protestants) in 1685. Due to his alliances with England and the Dutch Republic during the Nine Years War, he was forced to cease this practice from 1688, and in 1694 granted an Edict of Toleration.
Here the picture is reversed: the Duke persecuted the Vaudois out of his own will, and it were the Allies who forced him to stop the persecution.
Top.Squark (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also not a contradiction.  Both articles say that Victor Amadeus initially persecuted the Vaudois, then stopped when he joined the Grand Alliance.   This article just discusses the reasons for the prosecution in more detail.  Why not just add that detail to Victor Amadeus's article instead of all this templating.  This article is quite good, and these templates make it appear that it's as flawed as those two biographical articles you've contrasted it with.  Coemgenus 10:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the two articles state very different reasons. One article depicts the Duke as "tolerant", and the persecutions being due to French coercion against his will. The other article claims the Duke was "intolerant", and that the end of the persecution was imposed on him by the William III of England. This is not a difference in level of detail, this a difference in essence. Regarding the templates, the aim is not making the article "look flawed". Since the articles are contradictory, there is a problem in at least one of them, and the templates draw the attention of editors towards the problems. The templates here have already done a lot of good by leading to correction of the Peace of Westphalia article and clarifications within this article. Top.Squark (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish an article corrected, then find a reliable source and fix it.  It is not for you to leave assignments for other editors.  Why not contribute with well-sourced additions to the text, rather than this template-grafitti that purports to command other editors to fix problems?  This article didn't get written because someone dropped a template and moved on; it got written because editors (mostly User:Rebel Redcoat, I believe) saw a bad article and put in the hours of work to make it a good one.  Coemgenus 13:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Templates are part of official Wikipedia policy, and I'm using them exactly as they were intended. Top.Squark (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't see that this is much of a contradiction.  Under pressure from Louis XIV, Victor Amadeus started a persecution of the Vaudois; then under pressure from the allies, he stopped persecuting the Vaudois; then in the treaty Louis XIV agreed not to pressure Victor Amadeus to persecute the Vaudois any more.  I don't think one needs to view Victor Amadeus as either tolerant or intolerant in this.  In all cases his religious policy is due to external pressures. john k (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, but Victor Amadeus might have had an agenda of his own as well. Anyway, if the situation is symmetric than both articles must present both sides. Otherwise the result is not only omission of information but also introduction of POV. Top.Squark (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then, you should look up sources on the subject, see what they say, and correct the articles accordingly.  john k (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I don't have access to any such sources. Top.Squark (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then, there's not much to be done, at the moment.  I'm not familiar with the details here and don't have time to look into it right now.  Remind me about this in a month or so, and maybe I'll get a chance to do it. john k (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction with [[Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia]]: status of Vaudois inside Savoy 

message: According to this article
The Allies had offered Victor Amadeus handsome terms to join the Grand Alliance, including the recognition of Savoy as a sovereign state...
Thus Savoy became sovereign during the Nine Years' War.
However, according to the other article
As a result of his aid in the War of the Spanish Succession, Victor Amadeus II was made King of Sicily in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht which ended the war. Victor Amadeus was forced to exchange Sicily for the less important kingdom of Sardinia in 1720 after objections from an alliance of four nations, including several of his former allies. Yet he retained his new title of King. The rule was that there were no kings within the Empire, but if a ruler subject to the Emperor also possessed a large territory outside the Empire he might claim this title as the Elector of Brandenburg had done, styling himself King in Prussia based on his sovereignty over the Duchy of Prussia.
This suggests Victor Amadeus was still subject to the Emperor after the War of Spanish Succession.
Top.Squark (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be a case where small details could mean that both articles are correct.  As far as I know, the statement in Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia is correct, and Savoy technically remained part of the Holy Roman Empire until the end (or 1792/1796, at any rate).  But there might have been some other type of "recognition of Savoy as a sovereign state" involved, I don't really know.  Looking for a specific source would probably be the best option here. john k (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Being "subject to the emperor" was kind of a hazy standard, anyway.  If a nation was strong enough to defy him, his technical status didn't matter much.  Princes defied the Emperor left and right after the Reformation got started.  Coemgenus 16:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes and no.  The Emperor and the Reichstag obviously had very limited power, especially over the more powerful secular princes, but what power they did have was real, and had real consequences.  The old idea of the Holy Roman Empire as completely irrelevant after 1648 has been pretty much abandoned by more recent historians; there's a lot of interesting work about the old Reich and how it worked. john k (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction with [[Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia]]: sovereignty of Savoy revisited 

message: Nijmegen is in the wrong location on the map labeled 'Low Countries c. 1700'. It is located on the south bank of the Waal river, not the Meuse. It needs to be moved a bit to the north-east, just west the small bends in the Waal after it splits from the Rhine. Coordinates: 51°50'51.1"N 5°51'49.2"E (map)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.126.97 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you comment directly to the author, who posted this map here: File:Low_Countries_1700.png His original actually showed Nijmegen in the location you describe. — Andy Anderson 22:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of Nijmegen

message: To add to the infobox: the number of casualties/deaths. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article

message: @Waylon1104 Stapleton writes in a footnote on page 147 that Sweden never declared war on France, altough they were part of the League. What does your source say exactly?
Source: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu1061304400&disposition=inline DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In more modern wars belligerents indeed don't declare war on eachother every time, but in the 17th century declaring war was far more common. And Sweden didn't just not declare war, but also didn't wage war against France in any real way. They, just as Denmark, loaned out troops to the Grand Alliance. The only difference between Denmark and Sweden is that Sweden was originally part of the League. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweden belligerent? 

message: @Waylon1104 @Elxa izhne Can we please discuss here what should and what shouldn't go into the infobox. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure! Thank you for reaching out to me about this, it is my opinion that one of the most important things to have across Wikipedia articles is constancy. If something is said in one article (assuming it is correct) it should be followed in all others referring to the same topic. For example in the King William's War page the text explicitly states that "King William's War (also known as the Second Indian War, Father Baudoin's War, Castin's War, or the First Intercolonial War in French) was the North American theater of the Nine Years' War". In the Williamite War page, the article also references being a theater of the Nine Years' War, though not as explicitly as in the King William's War. If both the King William's War and Williamite War are theaters of the same conflict, it would make sense to include them in this article in the same level as other theaters and fronts in the war.  It is also my belief that when talking about a conflict, it is important that all aspects of the conflict are included in order to broaden the scope of understanding for the reader.  Why should we just focus on the war in mainland Europe and Britain and not include the other participants in the war that fought in the other theaters?  What possible purpose could it serve not to include all aspects of the conflict?   Elxa izhne (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: Do we have a source that states that Portugal joined the war? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portugal a belligerent? 

message: So i am aware this is far from a new issue, and there are many opinions to be made about the legitimacy and importance of names of this conflict, but thats not the main point here.
Around a few months ago the article had War of the Palatine Succession, War of the League of Augsburg, and War of the Grand Alliance in the first paragraph. This has since been removed, the only thing remaining is a footnote that includes some of the names. To get to the point: 
There are still very much redirects from names like War of the Palatine Succession, but they just link to the Nine Year's War without the reader getting any elaboration on the name. This isnt a case of a slightly different spelling or formulation, this is a pretty big point of confusion and arguably inconsistency.
there are all these links under historical names to this article which doesn't reference those names adequately, do you think we could have a name section
An old thread related to the name(s) of this page:
[]
Solution: A "Name"/"Names" section, both to clear up redirect/linking-related confusion and it feels like this is a topic that deserves a section about the name considering both historical and modern differences in naming this event. SpokenClaw (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Section? + confusion about redirects and alt. names