Talk:War of Jenkins' Ear

Are historians agreed as to whether or not his ear actually was cut off by the Spanish? --Dante Alighieri 07:38 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The spanish forces in Catagena de indias were 3.600 men (3000 spanish and 600 indian archers)men and not 6.000.

Said article - "The War of Jennifer's Ear is the name given to a 1992 controversy in United Kingdom politics, between the opposition Labour Party and the governing Conservative Party. The name is an allusion to the War of Jenkins' Ear, an actual armed conflict of the 18th century."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jennifer%27s_Ear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is it Jenkins's Jenkins' or Jenkin's? It appears to be in there 3 times. I know they're all the same thing, but shouldn't an effort be made to regularize usage, &c?

According to Apostrophe it would be Jenkins's --207.177.67.214 02:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It seems very odd to see the 's' missing at the end. Alpheus 10:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It should be Jenkins's. Jenkins' would be used if more than person named Jenkins had lost their ear. Jenkin's would be used if one person named Jenkin (no s at the end) had lost his ear. There is near universal incorrect use in Wikipedia of apostrophe of possession in words that denote a singular entity in possession of something when that word ends in s. I'll change it. At least I try (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how to change the title.At least I try (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your assertion is wrong: either form is correct. However, in spoken English the preference is not to add an additional 's' because that makes it more difficult to pronounce. If we have a few consistent contemporary sources we can use whatever form they do, but until someone produces them, we'll stick with the long standing version. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Merge the two - absolutely merge. Bubba73 (talk), 03:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Agree. The two Jenkins ear war articles should be merged - and their sardonic tones should be maintained. A strange war with a strange name. A real oddity of history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Provocateur (talk • contribs) 1 August 2006

The only difference in the title is the type of apostrophe. Bubba73 (talk), 15:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• War of Jenkins’ Ear
• War of Jenkins' Ear

Merge. Obviously two articles on the same subject. Make War of Jenkins’ Ear a REDIRECT to War of Jenkins' Ear --Grstain | Talk 18:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I haven't read them carefully. Is there any material in one that needs to go into the other? Bubba73 (talk), 18:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Merge Anagnorisis 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Then someone needs to do it. I don't think that I'm knowledgeable enough about the history of the war to do it. I'm only in it because a couple of the battles of it took place near here. Bubba73 (talk), 04:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, I did the merge of what was in the two articles. I also added a number of places where we citations, particularly to suppose motivations attributed to various parties' actions.Lisamh 17:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just read the article and the phrase "in 1738 Jenkins exhibited his pickled ear to the House of Commons, whipping up war fever against Spain" is totally brilliant. War over an ear. Lol. LordHarris 18:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dont merge: I suggest to read the article: ""Guerra de la oreja de Jenkins"" in Wikipedia in Spanish

States that Walpole declared war. But the Prime Minister has no such power, only the monarch. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

That was George II, and as the wiki article on him notes, "As king, he exercised little control over policy in his early reign, the government instead being controlled by Great Britain's first de facto Prime Minister, Sir Robert Walpole."... The situation was a lot like now, I think. One talks about Tony Blair, not Elizabeth II, invading Iraq, for example.

Furius (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The map on this page needs to be changed. It isn't in English. --User:Wikipedian1234 February 18th, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I removed a reference to Jenkins' Ear being the cause of the war. It wasn't, territorial and trading disputes were. The issue of Jenkins' Ear was just held up as an example of the popular mood in Britain at the time and it became something of a cause celebre. However the incident had in fact taken place in 1731, seven years before he appeared before parliament to testify about his mistreatment and eight before war actually broke out.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know where the ear is now? British Museum? Public Record Office? House of Commons Library?

Well, this is un-cited anecdote, but FWIW--when I was a child in Jacksonville, Florida, c.1958, a girl brought for show & tell or something, a human ear, which was a family heirloom.She said it was Jenkins' ear. It was brown, and a a tad shriveled; I held it in my hand. It was undoubtedly a genuine human ear; I can still recall the tiny white hairs on it. Whether it was actually Jenkins', I cannot say with any veracity.

Wow, human ear? That was some show & tell ! I just brought rocks and frogs, mostly. Gulbenk (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

What is the relationship between this war and King George's War? It seems they're at least close enough there should be mutual references. Papercrab (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

They overlap with each other (and with the War of the Austrian Succession) in an ill-defined and messy way. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is it really that ill-defined? The War of Jenkins' Ear was the Anglo-Spanish war fought between 1739 and 1749. King George's War was the Anglo-French war between 1744 and 1748, as fought in the American colonies. The War of the Austrian Succession was a broader European War from 1740 to 1748, which came to incorporate the War of Jenkins' Ear and of which King George's War was a part. john k (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I recently found several sources in my own family that claim that one of my ancestors -- a Huguenot living in London whose grandfather had come there from France -- arrived in America as part of a British regiment involved in the War of Jenkins' Ear. There aren't many published histories of that war, and none that are recent, but it seems clear that British military activity -- by troops from Great Britain, that is -- was confined to the Caribbean. The invasion of Georgia was by Spanish forces and was met by colonial troops already resident in Georgia. The guy I'm interested in, however, almost certainly showed up first on the Chesapeake, in either Virginia or Maryland. And it's entirely possibly he was part of a "routine" military deployment, or maybe a replacement of one regiment by another. Does anyone here know whether any British units were deployed to the mainland colonies as part of the war effort, perhaps as part of contingency planning? (Assuming anyone had the time to think that far ahead.) Or can you point me to a more detailed history of units of British regulars in the war? --Michael K. Smith (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I changed the title, because -- as was evident from the text of the article itself -- the name attributed to the war was detracting from an examination of the proper causes and progress of the war itself. The name is by no means contemporary -- it was not used at the time, nor for more than a hundred years afterwards, but was invented by the Victorian historian Thomas Carlyle. The Jenkins incident, colorful though it was, had virtually nothing to do with the actual outbreak of war. Parliamentary discussions in 1738-1739 record a great deal about the different payments to be made to various parties as a result of the Convention, but nothing at all about Mr. Jenkins. The adoption of Carlyle's frivolous epithet leads to a great deal of discussion in the article about matters which are unrelated to the war, and which should be relegated to a footnote (if mentioned at all). With Mr. Jenkins out of the way, a good deal more might be said about the actual friction between England and Spain which led to the declaration of war by Walpole's government. RandomCritic (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I’m all in favour of WP:Bold but did you not think it might be an idea to propose this on the talk page first and marshal your arguments that Anglo-Spanish War is the common name for the conflict before making such a radical move?

I agree with you that the Jenkins incident wasn’t especially critical in the ultimate march to war, and it was not a direct cause of the war, (although I believe reports of the case in the press, along with similar cases, did inflame British public opinion – and had some bearing on the ultimate decision to declare war). If I remember right the article used to incorrectly suggest that the war was declared because of the Jenkins incident, which it no longer does.

However in spite of this – the War of Jenkins’ Ear is the name by which the conflict is known to such an extent that the Spanish refer to it by the same name. How this came about is besides the point with regard to the naming of the article.

I also find your argument a bit strange. The title of the article or the section about Jenkins doesn’t prohibit you from adding additional information about the non-Jenkins build-up to the war. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was interested to read RandomCritic's assertion that it was Thomas Carlyle who popularised/invented the term War of Jenkins' Ear. If this is accurate, it would be a valuable addition to the article. I have done my own research, and have found the exact quote in History of Friedrich II vol XI, chap VI (and "Jenkins/Jenkins' Ear"scattered throughout). I have thus edited the reference in to the opening paragraph of the article, line referenced. If anyone knows of an earlier literary reference, please make a re-edit.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC))Reply

The following statement in the Georgia subparagraph is not exactly true: "Border clashes between Florida and Georgia continued for the next few years, but there were no further offensive operations on the American mainland by either nation." Oglethorpe lead a less well know attempt to take Augustine in 1743, but this also failed. Shortly after that attempt, he sailed home to England to face some charges of a jealous subordinate, was acquitted, but never returned to the Georgia colony. The statement is therefore inaccurate. Unless there is an objection made on this discussion, I'll update that paragraph in a week or two. DanQuigley 03:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

David Casado Rabanal (Madrid, 1954). Degree at Universidad Complutense de Madrid in Information Sciences, in Political Sciences and in Sociology, is currently the press manager of the Museum of America in Madrid. He is editor of the weekly review of National Association of Finantial Advisors. Former manager of Diario del Júcar newspaper (Diario 16), and redactor in the Review of Cultural Information. He has been press manager of the Provincial government of Jaen, press manager of the Queen Sofía National Museum, and colaborator, redactor and publisher of several newspapers and reviews. He is considereed an expert in Spanish modern history, and in European naval policy during the XVIII century.

Casado Rabanal, David (2009). La Marina Ilustrada. Sueño y Ambición de la España del XVIII. Ediciones Antigona. ISBN 978-84-92531-06-6. ^ Casado Rabanal, p. 250-251:

[Guerra de la Oreja de Jenkins]...España, a cambio, se obliga a intervenir en la guerra de Sucesión de Austria (1741-1748) a la vez que avivaba su enfrentamiento contra los británicos, que dentro del marco de la mencionada "Guerra de la Oreja de Jenkins", que para España se llamó "del Asiento", ya habían saqueado la ciudad panameña de Portobelo, sitiado Cartagena de Indias y atacado otros puertos de la costa venezolana. El que resultará ser el primer gran conflicto colonial de envergadura contra los británicos terminará no obstante, con una clara victoria para las armas españolas, ya que gracias a las espléndidas fortificaciones defensivas de las plazas americanas y a la sostenida intendencia que proporciona nuestra recuperada marina mercante y de guerra, España podrá finalmente contener la ofensiva británica y resultar victoriosa en América

Translation:

[Jenkins Ear War]...Spain, in exchage, forces herself to intervene in the Austrian Sucession War (1741) at the same time that bitters her confrontation agaisnt the British, who whitin the frmae of the already discussed "Jenkins Ear War", that in Spain was known as "del Asiento", had already looted the Panamanian city of Portobelo, sieged Cartagena de Indias and attacked a number of ports in the coast of Venezuela. This, which turned to be the first great colonial conflict agaisnt the British, will end nevertheless in a clear victory for the Spanish arms, given that thanks to the splendid defensive fortresses in the american cities, and thanks to the sustained supplying provided by our renewed merchant and military navies, Spain will manage finally to hold the British offensive and to result victorious in America.

Now, please stop destroying my contribution. If you think this source is not valid, then you must explain clearly to me and to a (not-English) moderator why. Watching your log of contributions I am starting to suspect what is the real problem here, and it is not my source, I am not the biased one. Regards, Miguel.

Thanks for the translation, but obviously you're not a "moderator", whatever that's supposed to be, or you'd understand that all Wikipedias operate a policy called "verifiability". In the English-language Wikipedia that means we use (primarily) English sources; in the article we have three English sources which say one thing, and one Spanish source which says something else; we go with the weight of the three English sources. Bias would be attributing undue weight to a single source making an exceptional claim, so the real problem most assuredly lies with you and your IP meat/sockpuppets. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry but you don't understand. I will explain you again: Spanish source and English sources are not contradictory, you can add 100 more sources in the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle and I can add 100 Spanish sources more in the very same Aix-La-Chapelle. Aix-La-Chapelle is the treaty that ends the Austrian Sucession War and by extension hostilities between Spain and Great Britain. Casado does not neglect at any moment Aix-La-Chapelle, nor claims anything agaisnt Aix-La-Chapelle, does not enter in contradiction with the English sources, and therefore there is nothing to discuss about the verifiability. Military result of War of Jenkins Ear, which is the topic of this article, is what he talks about. And he doesn't make any exceptional claim, what he does is to state an obvious fact that is implicit in the very same article, only looking at the number of loses of each side, and status quo ante bellum reached when British attacks were repelled, de result of the most significant battle in the conflict by a longshot, and the fact that Britain failed in all its goals in America. Please, provide a source that states that Britain won the war, that result was unconclusive or that Spain didn't win, and then your point about contradictory sources will be right. I have provided a valid source and you are reverting my contribution based on your own biased, ilogical and dogmatic point of view.

In the Falklands War article it appears status quo ante bellum and on the top of it, it appears British Victory. It is the same if in the Spanish Wikipedia an Argentine deletes British Victory and leaves status quo ante bellum and then he ads 1, 2, 3, 10 sources in the status quo ante bellum note, and says that that British victory claims are not valid and in the Spanish wikipedia because Spanish sources must prevail.

In the World War I article, there appear Treaty of Versailles, Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine, Treaty of Trianon, and Treaty of Sèvres, and all this does not prevent the words "allied victory" appearing in the section of the result. Is the same if in the German wikipedia somebody deletes allied victory and ads 20 sources to each one of the treaties, and then he claims that allied victory is not a valid claim because it enters in contradicton with all the other sources that he provides and in German wikipedia there must prevail german sources. It is ridiculous and something typical from a biggot.

But it seems that in your mind "status quo ante bellum" or "treaty of X" are reason enough to avoid typing "X victory" only when Britain is in the loser side.-Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Drop the incivility, you're already on very shaky ground using sockpuppets as it is.

Sources agree that the military result of this conflict was inconclusive so that is what Wikipedia reflects: Apart from a few treasure ships, Spain didn't lose anything to Britain, but Spain didn't gain much at British expense. Britain didn't gain much at Spanish expense, but apart from a few captured French merchant ships Britain didn't lose anything to Spain either.

The difference seems to be in the historiography: Spanish popular history apparently presents this as some sort of glorious victory solely because Spain succeeded in not losing Cartagena. English language sources (try checking those cited in the article instead of lazily challenging me to provide some) look at the wider picture and do not describe this as a victory for either side. From the British perspective it was simply a "war of smash and grab raids" (Lawrence); sometimes they succeeded (Porto Bello, Manilla), sometimes they didn't (Santiago de Cuba, Cartagena) - no big deal. The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle was returned things to the way they were, but settled nothing. It only lasted six years before the Seven Years War, which is seen as a continuation of the War of Austrian Succession; there is no doubt about who came out on top there.

Your example of the Falklands War is poor. First it was a concerted attempt to grab territory, unlike Vernon's raids on Carribbean ports, and secondly for Argentina there were significant consequences (political upheaval, loss of military projection power, and further economic woe) when it lost every battle, unlike Britain which was stronger in 1748. The other examples don't even make sense.

All in all this is a pretty terrible article - unbalanced weighting of different sections, lack of sources especially in sections relating to Spanish successes, and the inaccuracy of some of the information presented. This needs to be dealt with.

Also, this discussion doesn't belong on my talk page - I'm moving this to the article talk page.Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify, your source is contradicting the other sources by suggesting that one side came out ahead of another at the end of the war. Since it is outweighted numerically (and to a lesser extent because it is not in English) it is not included. The history of specific battles is described within the article and those sections speak for themselves; linked articles accurately describe the outcomes. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what a sockpuppet is.

The intention of Spain was not gaining anything to Britain expense, but to protect its colonial posessions, which managed to do. The intention of Great Britain was to take, at least partially, and divide the Spanish colonial posessions in Central America (Batista González), they failed with huge losses in men and assets. What did the British win at the expense of Argentina in the Falklands War? Nothing, simply retaining the islands as Spain did with her colonial posessions, consequences for the enemy can be better or worse, but it doesn't affect the result of the military engagement. According your logic, the concept of pyrrhic victory would not exist, or it should even be classified as a defeat. As far as I know winning all the battles is not a must for winning the war, or maybe the allies won all the battles in the WWII? It is an utterly absurd claim. You are expressing your personal opinions and views, which are not relevant. I am providing you with a source, and you don't do the same thing. This does not appear in the Spanish popular historiography, because among other things, if 99,9% of British never heard of this war, at least 90% of Spaniards never heard about it either. Don't invent arguments based on prejudices, which in your case seems to be much more numerous than your sources. Spain didn't "succeeed in not losing Cartagena", Spain defeated the British at Cartagena. Not a big deal? A fleet of 30.000 men and more than 100 vessels was not a big deal? And supposedly, I am the biased one? So you are claiming, if I understand, but I have to be wrong, that the siege of Cartagena, was not an attempt of taking and retain Cartagena? This is indeed, a exceptional claim that would need many sources. And yes, I agree that this article must be improved, but not by you if possible, or we can expect some British victory claim one of these days-Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

You don't know what a sockpuppet is? You were a "moderator" earlier.

Falklands: - if neither side has a net gain or loss then it's inconclusive, but if one is a net loser then clearly there is a difference.

There are three (four until you deleted it) sources cited in the article against the result. I am not expressing an opinion, I'm explaining what they say - including the fact that some historians consider the attacks on the Spanish Main as "smash and grab raids". If you don't believe me read them. Or go away.

There might be a general point to be made that articles on wars should not have specifc "defeat"/"victory"/"draw" results and should point to specific articles on treaties or a section on consequences. Battles are easier to describe in this way, but winning one or two battles, as the Spanish did, did not make the war a "victory". Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't know what is that thing that you accuse me constantly to use, which is another evidence of your character. I never claimed that I was a moderator, I typed we need a moderator, which obviously you don't want, for obvious reasons.

I already explained to you my view on your multiple references to Aix-La-Chapelle, I wont go again on it, read my previous comments or go away.

Falklands: another utterly absurd claim from your side. If somebody attacks me and tries to take my wallet, and I manage to defend myself and to keep my wallet, until the attacker withdraws with the face smashed, I won. My goal, to keep my wallet on my pocket prevailed over his, to take my wallet away. It doesn't matter how serious the injuries of the attacker are.

From the Wikipedia, victory: Victory (from Latin victoria) is a term, originally applied to warfare, given to success achieved in personal combat, after military operations in general or, by extension, in any competition. Success in a military campaign is considered a strategic victory, while the success in a military engagement is a tactical victory.

From the Wikipedia, defeat: the opposite of victory. That is, unsuccess military operations in general. Unsucces in military campaign is a strategic defeat, while unsucces in a military engagement is a tactical defeat.

Spain repells British attack on overall, causes heavy losses, retains 100% of her American possesions, suffers much lesser damages than Britain. Britain fails in overall goals, heavy losess both human and material, fails to gain 1 squared meter of Spanish possesions, fails to interrupt Spanish commerce, fails to attack Panama, fails to gain free commerce in America, fails to change a bit the Spanish attitude. Status quo ante bellum. Cartagena de Indias: Spanish tactical victory, British tactical defeat. War of the Jenkins Ear: Spanish strategic victory, British strategic defeat. This is a fact, and you can't hide it with cheap philosopy about defeat/victory/draw. I am providing a valid and documented source that only states what is an obvious fact. According your contribution logs it seems that you are not so relativist when dealing with British victories.-Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you'd been wiki-stalking properly you'd have seen I asked for a third opinion several hours ago. I imagine the contribution below is a result of that (correct me if I'm wrong User:Cdtew).

Now let's look at your example. Let's change it a bit: (a) You see someone on your patch and cut their ear off, then they try to take your wallet, you successfully keep hold of your wallet and give them a bloody nose, but they kick you a few times whilst also fighting off one of your friends. (b) You all back away for a few minutes, then the guy you punched comes back and beats both of you up, takes both your wallets and keeps beating you up, on and off, for the next 75 years. That's more like what happened between 1740 and 1815. At the end of (a) we have status quo ante and by the end of (b) the other guy has won. The sources support this and that is what Wikipedia reflects. Your point of view is interesting and you might even find a few sources which vaguely support it, but nothing like as strongly as the references cited here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

LOL at the end the biggot couldn't hold anymore and came out, this is the kind of thing that I was expecting to read from you. It took to much for my initial guess, I must confess. I don't want to go on the personal feelings, but believe me, I am honest when I say that I very much envy Captain Julio León Fandiño, what a great pleasure must have been to cut that ear off, only to to see Vernon's fleet and crew in the botton of the sea a few years later. And that commemorative medals man, LOL. Did I told you that I personally uploaded them to the Wikipedia a few years ago after one of my multiple visits to the Madrid Naval Museum? They are too good, it was a pitty that nnobody knew about them. It will stay like that here, but believe me, the Spanish wiki will be a different story. Regards-Miguel

"Story" sums it up. Anyway, you'd better paddle yourself and your POV back over to the Spanish wikipedia, I expect you'll find we're all "biggots" over here, if that is the what we are for referring to reliable sources. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

So, Miguel, you're admitting to socking for User:Avieso, who uploaded File:"Toma" de Cartagena por Vernon.jpg and File:Medalla Lezo y Vernon.jpg, both of which are found in the Battle of Cartagena de Indias article? Sockpuppeting is the use of multiple accounts or IP's by the same editor to edit the encyclopedia. Sounds like a job for WP:SPI... Cdtew (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

OH, Ok, somebody at the end explained me what is sockpuppeting, thank you. Not really, I don't do it, at least not on purpose. I uploaded the pictures from my account Avieso a few years ago, when I used it and I used to leave in Madrid, and I was frequent user. I don't use my account since years ago, I don't even remember the password. Unfortunatelly for job reasons I didn't have anymore time to use it, today is an exception this is why I have so much energy. I don't even leave in Spain since years ago, my company sent me overseas, like in the old times! My IP changes often, because I am using a wireless net from an office, each time I switch on my laptop the IP changes, it has nothing to do with some kind of sockpuppeting conspiracy (that Wiki-Ed supports), this is why also I try to sign always with my name. By the way, with my last comment I was just joking a little bit with Wiki-Ed, he seems all the time angry. My only interest is the History, and particulary the military history of Spain, therefore frequently I face Patriot Englishmen like Wiki-Ed, it also happens with Moroccans. No source that contradicts their dogmas is valid, believe me, usually I don't waste time, but today as I said I am full of energy. This is the story of our discussion. I only provide valid sources and data,and never try to impose a personal bias on my contributions, otherwise it would be to cheat myself.--Regards Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here's my two cents (or my thoughts on the matter, for our Spanish friend). I've reviewed sources on this war in English, French, and have read translated Spanish sources. I see no need to label this war as a victory for either side, because truthfully, this conflict didn't end with any sort of finality until 1763. The brief respite Spain and Britain had from war lasted a mere 6 years, at which point the two were back at each others' throats, including the rest of the European powers. I understand Miguel's point that a complete defense is a victory in a sense, but I also encourage us to look at the non-military goals Spain and England had:

• First, there was the prevention of English smuggling on the Spanish Main. The Spanish failed to accomplish this, as smuggling continued to occur at large rates well into the late 18th century.
• Second, England wanted to retain the Asiento, which England did, but for what? The War of the Austrian Succession resulted in the Asiento being worthless at best, and England gave it up two years after Aix-la-Chappelle. Spain retained Cartagena, but Portobelo was destroyed.
• Third, the English eventually won the right to trade on the Spanish Main.

All around, I think the current infobox stating "Status quo ante bellum" says it best. Really, it should also include "Treaty of Madrid", which fully resolved the issues raised on the war. I will also note that over on the Spanish Wikipedia, this article stated the War resulted in a Status Quo ante bellum as late as April 2013. Then, IP editor 213.98.71.110 added "spanish military victory" to the result box. Clearly, the article passed a rigorous featured article process on the Spanish wikipedia in September 2006 without indicating the war was a "Spanish victory" of any sort. It does mention that the war was an English "defeat" in the american theater, but that's a finer point. See that version here. I'd say if not calling it "Spanish victory" was sufficient for our companions over at es.wikipedia, then it should be good for us.

As a final note, the Spanish Wikipedia article infobox cites as its sole support for the "spanish victory" contention -- you guessed it, Casado. See here. Cdtew (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, yes, you guessed it, I modified it in the Spanish Wikipedia, and it seems that it will remain like that there unless sources claiming the opposite are presented, since the valid source that I provided was originally writen in Spanish and everybody can check it, and nobody can say that it is not a valid source, because it is, and there was not, and probably there is not going to be controversy at all. Is there any rula that forbiddes to use the same reference in different wikipedias? I don't think so. But here, my point is that I read with a lot of interest your comments, I can agree or disagree, but it is not the key question, the key question is not what I think or what you think, is that I provide a valid source that does not enter in contradiction with the English sources. It is not that I think that it was a Spanish victory, which I do, it is that I provide a source. English sources, as Spanish sources, state that the Treaty of Aix-La-Chapelle formally ended the military engagement between Spain and Great Britain, but it was indirectly, since this treaty marks the end of the Austrian Succession War. This is not related with the military result of the engagement between Spain and Britain in America (Jenkins Ear War). The goal of Spain was not to end the British smugglering in the Caribbean, this goal was not related to the war at all from Spanish side, the goal of Spain was to defend her possessions in the Caribbean from the British attack, it was Britain that unilaterally declared war on Spain after the incident of the ear of the poor Jenkins. And the goal of Britain was simply to obtain control of key commercial cities in the Caribbean (they thought in La Habana and later in Cartagena) in order to supress the Spanish domination, hold control in the Caribbean, and freely engage in commerce with all the area. They spectacularly failed in America as a matter of fact (J E War). A different thing is what they obtained regarding other goals in other places, as a result of the end of the Austrian Sucession War. As you provided a third view I will respect that, even I don't agree. But the Spanish wikipedia will be a different story. Valid sources are not the ones that fit with what each one of us think should be the best. Regards-Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

By the way, the source I provide was first published in 2009, therefore it is impossible that somebody had quoted it in 2006. Unless you say that, lets say, books published after 1950 or whatever the specific date that fits better to support your point of view are not valid. -Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Miguel, you are perfectly allowed to use the same source on both EN and ES wikipedia; I was merely pointing out that, prior to your edits to both the EN and ES wikipedia, both articles were in agreement that there was no "spanish victory". Now, in an effort to conciliate, I would be willing to add British military defeat to the War of Jenkins Ear article, but leave the status quo ante bellum language therein. I think that would also accurately portray the outcome of the war. Let me know if this is something you'd find consensus with me in. Cdtew (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think the point that is being missed by our sockpuppet Spanish friend is that from the British perspective this war was not restricted to the Caribbean where, admittedly, British military victories were outnumbered by defeats (as covered by linked articles on specific battles). English language sources, looking at the bigger picture, treat the war against France, Spain et al as inconclusive, which is reflected in the result box for the article on the War of Austrian Succession. The fact that the Spanish were victorious in a particular battle should be reflected, the fact that the overall war was a draw should also be reflected. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree, and disagree. The British had a more metropolitan view of the war, especially after 1741, being so intimately involved in the Continental war. But, on the other hand, the actual War of Jenkins' Ear, from an encyclopedic standpoint, is limited really to Anglo-Spanish conflict in the Spanish Main and Antilles, with some spillover into the Atlantic (see Voyage of the Glorioso). So, from that perspective, I think it's safe to say that Britain suffered military defeat (also, 3/4 of your land forces being destroyed due to disease and casualties during a siege being fairly significant). I don't, however, consider it a "Spanish military victory", because malaria did more to defeat the English than did Spanish force of arms; additionally, Spain lost its goal of preventing British interference in its colonies. So, that being said, I think it may be best to segregate the conflicts for encyclopedic purposes and acknowledge the British took it on the nose in this one. Also, British failures in the Caribbean caused Walpole's defeat at home... Cdtew (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Take it easy Wiki-Ed, there are worse things than being involuntary sockpuppeting, such as being voluntarely a stubborn patriot. It makes no sense to call something "War of Jenkins Ear" and then to state that actually, that entity was some kind of plasma that didn't exist, and that all the whole thing was just melt into a bigger confrontation with France and Spain. The war of Jenkins Ear can be a branch of a wider conflict, but it is a specific branch in which Britain was defeated. It has own entity, and there are books dedicated specifically to it.

Cdtew I agree with your proposal of adding British military defeat and of course to leave the status quo ante bellum, because my point, since the beginning is that they are totally different things. A treaty or a status quo is a consequence of the result of a military engagement. But in the War of the Jenkins Ear article, what is missing, is just that, the result of the military engagement itself. --Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

If we're going down that route and ringfencing it within a particular theatre then we would also need to change the dates (i.e. 1739 to 1742). I'm not convinced that this is supported by sources (I haven't seen many that cover it in any great detail anyway), but Cdtew's proposal would be logical and as a compromise would save me endlessly reverting stubborn 'patriotic' Spaniards fiddling with this article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

There, I've implemented what I believe is a workable compromise based on the War of 1812 article's result scheme. Miguel, I hope you'll find this satisfactory, as it gives a more thorough explanation of what occurred; Wiki-Ed, I hope you also concur. As far as ringfencing, I think it ought merely be partially fenced -- by acknowledging that this is a war which later became merely a theatre (and an inactive theatre at that) of a larger conflict is the messy truth. For all intents and purposes, the war "raged" until 1748, when a treaty ended its hostilities. There being no formal truce until 1748 (as evidenced by, for instance, the 1748 Spanish invasion of Brunswick Town, in the Province of North Carolina), 1748 is a fine date on which to rest the end of the war. The "War of Jenkins' Ear" very much was exclusively an American conflict, except for instances of assaults on convoys to Europe or Asia from the Spanish Main. Cdtew (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article says "on 10 July 1739 King George II authorized the Admiralty Board to seek maritime reprisals against Spain." It has no source citation for that.

The king's two orders are actually dated 15 June 1739. See Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series: America and West Indies, 1739, ed. K. G. Davies [London: HMSO, 1994]): Documents 215, 215i. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.236.227 (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Added. If you have any more references then please let us know. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

As discussed by Alpheus and others above, "Jenkins's" is the more correct spelling and is the one used in most reliable sources. Does anyone mind that change to the name of the page? Moonraker (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's that simple. Different sources use different conventions. Some prefer the additional S, some don't. I haven't been able to find a contemporary source - I think that would be the best way to decide in this case. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean you haven't found a historical source that uses the correct punctuation? Perhaps. But should we be forced to watch for a historical source when the question here is grammatical? No. "Jenkins' Ear" implies that multiple people named Jenkins lost an ear. Obviously, that's not correct. It should be Jenkins's. If, however, you're looking for a source about the punctuation, there are plenty. Any Google search of how to correctly punctuate a singular possessive ending in s will tell you it should be Jenkins's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.34.120 (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia works before commenting. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Actually, multiple sources claim that the additional s is either optional or omitted under certain circumstances. clpo13_(talk) 21:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

"After a fiercy defense of governor Gabriel José de Zuloaga troops, the commodore Knowles having suffered 97 killed and 308 wounded over three days, decided to retire west before sunrise on 6 March. [....] On 28 March, he sent his smaller ships to cruise off Puerto Cabello, and once his main body had been refitted by forces of governor Zuluaga, went to sea again on 31 March." Are governor Zuloaga and governor Zuluaga the same person? If so, why would he be fiercely fighting Knowles on the 6th, then "refitting" him three weeks later? Could use some clarification by someone with a good source.Tomseattle (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

O Hai, I just fixed this problem in *2019*. Introduced by this edit August 2015. Maybe more of that editor's edits should be reviewed. I guess not only do people not read the talk pages, but don't really read the article! (yourself excepted) Shenme (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War of Jenkins' Ear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160504211438/http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/archives-practical/archives-faqs/records-frequently-asked-questions/ to http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/archives-practical/archives-faqs/records-frequently-asked-questions/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

"At a favourable moment, when English traders were urging a renewal of aggressive war against Spain, earless Jenkins was exhibited in the House of Commons" Samuel Eliot Morison "The Oxford History of the American People" (1965) OUP, p155 194.207.86.26 (talk)

Are you suggesting an addition, or a change? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)]Reply

I've added a mention of this fact, with source, to the article. Thanks, IP user. Carlstak (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Carlstak. And thanks IP. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

What became of Governor Spotswood’s remains? What was the name of the vessel he was on? Who was the ship’s Captain? Was there a ship’s log?

gjkenner@verizon.net 2600:1003:B105:FCC6:7D2C:1A87:CF2F:9BD3 (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bayes' theorem which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect War of Jenkin;s Ear has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 27 § War of Jenkin;s Ear until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply