Talk:Embargo Act of 1807

Wording

The present wording of the article is awkward, approaching incomprehensibility.

In particular this period:

"The Embargo act was to strictly stay with the precedent George Washington set (the Neutrality Proclamation) doing this act let them stay well clear of the option of war, ..."

S. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.172.214 (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved Article

"Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_Act_of_1807" WTF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.29.124.26 (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone could have pasted the article over itself. Fixed now. Thanks, -Willmcw 01:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks.--Jasminekellis21 (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ograbme the Turtle

Any chance that famous picture of Ograbme the Turtle can be incorporated into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.39.207.100 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it has been incorporated. - Bagel7 04:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikified

Wikified as part of the wikification drive

also spell checked. feel free to de-wikify any dead links --Wavemaster447 03:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied text?

The text seems like it was copied from a termpaper, and needs reworking. I started on it. Rjensen 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

...And I finished it, at least the lede, which needed a major reworking, with proper sources. This will do for the time being. 36hourblock (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone played a joke

It looks like someone played a joke with this page. Someone added the name "Mickey Moust" as a historical figure on this page. Just thought I would report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylimesp (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?

... "flagrant violations of U.S. neutrality"? ... "egregious example of British aggression"? ... "presumptuous official orders"? ... "President Thomas Jefferson acted with restraint as these abuses mounted"?

What's going on? I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia? AWhiteC (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You've come to right place. Wikipedia is indeed an online encyclopedia - and not merely a site for Anglophiles.

All the quotes you've cited from the lede are accurate paraphrases from the sources listed in the "References" and "Further Reading" sections: Hofstadter, Perkins, Kaplan, Levy.

If the editor wishes to provide commentary from historians of comparable stature and reputation, please do so, and we will consider citing them. 36hourblock (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic language might be acceptable in quotations, not in ordinary text in an article. How about getting somebody unbiased to rewrite this article, or at least the lead section? At the very least, words like "flagrant", "particularly egregious", "presumptuous" should be removed as superfluous and biased. AWhiteC (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

These complaints have no substance. What sources have been provided to demonstrate that the historians cited about are "biased" in their analysis of the events? As editors, our job is NOT to revise what the authors have written to suit our POV. Rather, we develope an article to reflect the reporting by mainstream authors. If the sources are unsound, then kindly provide evidence to support that position. Otherwise, we are merely being treated to a stealth form of POV - and that's a form of vandalism. 36hourblock (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I must protest that this article is blatantly lacking in objectivity. There was a sharp reduction in NPOV when you, 36hourblock, performed this series of edits. It is not proper to incorporate biased and exaggerated words into an article and then turn around and say that your sources support them. In any case, the sources are all American; some non-American sources (and there will be some) would improve things. Please tone down the emotional rhetoric and non-encyclopedic language that you added into the article with the above edits. (And please stop throwing insults like 'anglophile' and 'vandalism' at me!) AWhiteC (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Aha - I see - AWC is accusing these "American" historians of bias. At Wikipedia, we reject this nationalistic and throughly fraudulent approach to developing an online encyclopedia. "Flagrant violations", indeed.

As visitors to this talk page can see, AWC refuses to "tone down the emotional rhetoric", and thus far, has declined to offer any constructive criticism, indulging exclusively in personal attacks and sarcasm. Let it be noted that I've "acted with restraint as these abuses mounted." 36hourblock (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I'm responding to the third opinion request as an uninvolved third party. My role is to assist in resolving the dispute. The third opinion process is informal and nonbinding. Our Manual of Style explicitly discourages editorializing, the use of puffery, and words expressing doubt. The article should be written in an impartial tone, as per our policies on neutrality, and unless in quotations, words like "presumptuous" and "flagrant" should be avoided. The language that the sources use has no bearing on Wikipedia's guidelines. The sources are not subject to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, but articles on Wikipedia are.--SGCM (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The words "presumptuous" and "flagrant" are used to convey realiites, based on the research of the historians cited - unless you have evidence that they are politisizing the issue. There was not "cherry-picking" on my part, I assure you. Are we to empty the article of any descriptive words supplied by the authors? This only leads to an eviceration of the material, based on an editor's nationalistic bias. Nonsense! 36hourblock (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Are we to empty the article of any descriptive words supplied by the authors?" Yes. Nationalism has little to do with it, unless presented in quotations, it's discouraged by the Manual of Style. Again, sources are not subject to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, but articles on Wikipedia are. If there are objections to the conventions established on Wikipedia, editors are free to discuss it on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Consensus can change, but unless a new convention is established through discussion, the current guidelines are as they are. --SGCM (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a careful look at the Manual of Style to see if any violations exist in the article, as you claim they do; namely, the word "presumptuous" and the word "flagrant". But where does it say that "we [are] to empty the article of any descriptive words supplied by the authors"? I'm curious.

If it transpires that no violations have occurred, then we may discover that "nationalism" has everything to do with it. When an editor (see above) makes the spurious claim that "some non-American sources...would improve things" is blatantly nationalistic, that editor is arguing that American historians are endowed with a bias due to their citizenship. Hold your laughter until you log off, please. 36hourblock (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Articles should be written in an impartial and neutral tone, "descriptive words", as you've phrased it, should be avoided. There's no prohibition on words, but "flagrant" is not considered encyclopedic in tone, as per our point-of-view policies. There's nothing unique about the word flagrant, the same guidelines and policies discourage words like horrendous, reprehensible, admirable, egregious, or acclaimed. If the source uses it, then quote from the source.--SGCM (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I examined the guidelines on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.

"Neutral point of veiw" requires that we "convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately" based upon "reliable sources". What authors seriously contests that the lede in question fails to do so? Name them.

"Words to watch" reminds editors that "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias." A malcontented editor has lodged a complaint as to the handling of some sourced material. What evidence has been provided that contradicts the statements that flagrant violations of U.S. neutrality occurred, or that Chesapeake–Leopard Affair was an egregious example of British aggression? Name the authors who dispute this, or question it. Name them. I'm not saying they don't exist, just name them. The editor claims "some non-American sources (and there will be some) would improve things. "There will be some" when, and if, the editor provides them. 36hourblock (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate your desire to improve the article, it's not the content that's problematic, or the sources, it's the wording of the article that is at issue. There are ways of expressing the statement "an egregious example of British aggression" while still being neutral in tone. As our NPOV policy states, articles on Wikipedia must be impartial in tone, even if the sources cited aren't impartial. On Wikipedia, an incident cannot be described as "egregious" or "alleged" or "horrendous", even if the source calls it that, without directly quoting the source. As the policy states:

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone... Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view."

The Manual of Style applies this principle to word choice.

Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorse a particular point of view.

Reliable sources can editorialize all they want. But articles on Wikipedia can't. As a third party participant brought to this discussion from Wikipedia:Third opinion (where a request was filed) I have no interest in the subject, or a particular opinion on it. But from what I've seen so far, the word choice of the article is far from impartial.--SGCM (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely this article would convey the same information with much less bias if the following replacements were made:

• "flagrant violations of U.S. neutrality" to "violations of U.S. neutrality"
• "The Chesapeake-Leopard Affair was a particularly egregious example of British aggression violating American neutrality" to "Americans saw the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair as an example of violation of their neutrality by the British"
• "The deliberate diplomatic insults and presumptuous official orders issued in support of these depredations by European powers were widely recognized as grounds for a U.S. declaration of war" to "Alleged diplomatic insults and unwarranted official orders issued in support of these actions were widely recognized as grounds for a U.S. declaration of war"
• "President Thomas Jefferson acted with restraint as these abuses mounted, weighing public support for retaliation" to "President Thomas Jefferson initially acted with restraint, weighing public support for retaliation"
• "This grave incident was perceived by Americans as a profound insult to American honor" to "This incident was perceived by Americans as an insult to American honor"

AWhiteC (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears that AWC is willing to forego his "non-American sources" and settle for the "biased" Hofstadter, Perkins, Kaplan, Levy. Perhaps edits can be made that comform to the (unnamed) historians who AWC favors. Is this how we are proceeding in this sordid matter? Very well.

Fla-grant (adj.) So offensive that it cannot escape notice: flagrant disregard for the law. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flagrant

E-gre'gious (adj.) Conspicuously bad or offensive. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/egregious

These words convey historical realities, not judgments, as understood by the historians who used the words to describe the events. Are there any sources that contradict these historians?

Insertion of the word "initially" implys that the editor had read the matieral cited and paraphrased to include the word. Am I correct in assuming this?

On the matter of inserting the word "alleged", we should ask if historical data supports this - according to mainstream sources. I don't want to see any "piggy-backing" on the existing citations unless the editor is certain that the citation can support them. And no postmodernist interpretations of the subject. 36hourblock (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"Alleged" is actually another word to avoid, because it also implies a point of view. Again, it doesn't matter how the sources phrase their arguments. Wikipedia has its own stylistic guidelines. The problem isn't reliable sources, the issue is Wikipedia's Manual of Style and policies on neutrality. Even the Wikipedia article on Adolf Hitler (apologies to Godwin) doesn't directly call Hitler evil, even though he was an evil bastard, using the more impartial "Historians, philosophers, and politicians often apply the word "evil" in describing the Nazi regime" instead.--SGCM (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in accommodating a tag team operation. If the editors wish to engage a panel to pass judgment on the matter, then do so. 36hourblock (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

All I tried to do, in my suggestions above, was to rephrase the sentences so that they meant exactly the same but without the POV language. That process didn't need any reference to citations. Let's try and close this down: if anybody has any better suggestions, can they please post them here. AWhiteC (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I was brought in here from Wikipedia:Third Opinion. My views are mainly as an uninvolved third party who has not edited articles on, and has little interest in, American history. The Third Opinion process is nonbinding, and I apologize if the Third Opinion was unsuccessful in resolving the dispute. The next step in the dispute resolution process is to take this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.--SGCM (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 36hourblock's suggestion of a wider discussion. I've opened a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Both editors are invited to participate.--SGCM (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes done as per above and per the dispute resolution noticeboard stuff (now archived). I've tried to simply remove unencyclopedic wording without changing the meaning. Please don't say I've been unfair in my rewording! AWhiteC (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I find the tone of the article to be partisan and ideological, using the Embargo's defects to support a doctrinaire "free trade" posture against protectionism in support of manufacturing. While a complete embargo is, admittedly, an extreme form of protectionism (and deserving of criticism on economic grounds), there were plenty of people, like Tench Coxe and the late A. Hamilton, who thought the U.S. public should be discouraged from buying so many British manufactures, especially those that could be produced at home. With the exception of slavery, this was the most divisive issue facing the United States prior to the Civil War. The author implies that the Act itself produced the divisions. What would Henry Clay say to that?

I could be wrong about the author's "free trade" ideology and motive, but I would like to hear from him/her on that score. To try to discover the author's compulsion for using such strong judgments as "inflicted devastating burdens," I offer up my favorite Clay speech in which he threw scorn on the call for “Free trade! Free trade!”

“Gentlemen deceive themselves,” Clay thundered. “It is not free trade they are recommending to our acceptance. It is, in effect, the British colonial system that we are invited to adopt.”

Clay thought free trade existed only in proponents’ imaginations. “The call for free trade is as unavailing as the cry of a spoiled child, in its nurse’s arms, for the moon or the stars that glitter in the firmament of heaven.” Free trade that is fair, equal and reciprocal “has never existed,” he said, alluding to all of the government support that Britain and France gave to their own manufacturers.

Bill B. Lastudies (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Background, locally

There is a problem of focus with the standard "Britain supreme on the sea, France on the land" in a context extending beyond the continental struggle. Does there exist any subtle manner for referring to "land" while restricting the suggestion to continental Europe ? --Askedonty (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead too long?

To the regular editors of the this page: I just stuck a "lead too long" template on the article. If you disagree, you can remove it, but please at least think about rewriting the lead section into a few paragraphs. As a casual reader who wants a quick summary, it's a bit daunting. Just my $.02. --Alexbook (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't agree with these edits on the introduction. If reading a 500-word lede is "daunting" on a topic this caliber, we should create another Encyclopedia for young readers.

The "long" intro, based largely on Perkins, was cannibalized to create a "background" section, which is in fact simply rehash of the lede, and not "background".

I am replacing the Perkins sourced lede, and retaining a portion of the "background" section. The lede is now less than 500 words. Let me know what you think. --36hourblock (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Damage to America--Estimated 5% of GDP was lost?!

"The embargo, which lasted from December 1807 to March 1809 effectively throttled American overseas trade. All areas of the United States suffered. In commercial New England and the Middle Atlantic states, ships sat idle at the wharves, and in the agricultural areas, particularly in the South, farmers and planters could not sell their crops on the international market."

" 2005 study by economic historian Douglas Irwin estimates that the embargo cost about 5 percent of America's 1807 GNP."

This is laughable globalist propaganda. Great job, wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.75.35.165 (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Even in Las Vegas, we follow the Reliable Sources. If you have a source that contradicts, feel free to add - but the Talk Pages are not a Soap Box for venting your frustrations. -HammerFilmFan 74.37.206.38 (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Insurrection Act

According to the table on Insurrection Act of 1807, President Jefferson invoked the Act in 1808 to help enforce the Embargo Act on Lake Champlain. Sounds like there's more to the story there. -- Beland (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)