Talk:Kettle War

Kettle on 'casualties' infobox section

Since this war was named after the kettle, could we include it in the casualties section of the Infobox? Normally this would seem a little stupid but given it was the war's only casualty, and the war was named after it, it could make sense. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been reverting the addition of a kettle as a casualty stating: '"casualties" refers to people, not objects' in my edit summary. But after looking up the "casualties" parameter in {{Infobox military conflict}} I see it does also include equipment losses ("major or significant types of equipment"). I guess we could include "1 kettle" or "1 soup kettle", but without any mention of the soup that may have been lost. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course, since the wasn't named after the soup. I've added the kettle in the infoBox. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@L293D:After reading {{Infobox military conflict}} I do agree withvadding it, sorry for the confusion A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 20:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I still think it's a bit amateurish and unprofessional. Casualties under War of Jenkins' Ear don't include "Jenkins' Ear" despite that being the namesake of the war. I don't see any reason to include it, and it's certainly a lot different from including "124 tanks." It seems like improper humor, and I don't think it's something an encyclopedia would list. Also, since the status quo is to NOT include it, I don't think it's right that you added it back, then reverted the people who reverted you and are now instituting inclusion as the status quo. Anyway, cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with El cid. Also, Template:Infobox military conflict says: "Where equipment losses are reported, this should be confined to major or significant types of equipment broadly categorized such as: tanks, guns (artillery pieces), aircraft, destroyers etc.". I don't see why a soup kettle, even if the war was named after it, would be considered equivalent to those types of equipment or should be included in such a list. And to include it simply because it is the only thing that could possibly be added as a "casualty" doesn't make much sense to me either. Felida97 (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it was militarily insignificant. It is for its very insignificance that it lent its name to the conflict, such as it was. The addition looks unsuitably facetious. William Avery (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Also (just to take this absurd premise way, way too far), we don't actually know that the kettle was a casualty of the conflict. Soup kettles were made of stern stuff in those days, for all we know that very same kettle was used to prepare the night's supper. We'd have to have information that the kettle was "killed" (destroyed) or "incapacitated" (damaged beyond usability, at least until repaired) in order to list it as a casualty. ...And even then we really shouldn't. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Regretfully agree on leaving it out. However the discussion has brightened my evening. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC).

I do not think we are in any position to say that the soup kettle was not of military or strategic importance. It is self-evident that to those there at the time the soup kettle was of great importance. If the loss of this soup kettle is what caused the surrender of the ships then how can we consider the soup kettle to be insignificant? Furthermore, a kettle being struck by a cannonball can almost certainly be considered a loss. Even if the impact alone did not destroy the kettle, it was likely lost overboard from the momentum of the cannonball and thus a casualty. I find it highly likely that if the kettle had survived the war then it would have been kept. Issemir, 14:29, 04 August 2019 (BST).

Kettle as a distraction

Dutch schoolbooks upto the 20th century did not teach on this matter. The blockade of Antwerpes for 150 years after the end of the war was not to be discussed. While Amsterdam and Rotterdam were to be regarded as the Dutch miracle of mercantilism. The dead and displaced of this war were either Belgian or from Zeelandic Flanders, a poor and neglected region of the Dutch Republic.

Even as late as the 1990s the Dutch sought to obstruct Antwerpes, by refusing to dredge the Scheldt properly. --77.173.226.152 (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)