Talk:1812

Untitled
The United States came into existence the moment it declared itself to exist. England recognizing it was nice, but it had to exist prior to recognition in order to be recognized to begin with. -º¡º — Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 15 April 2003‎ (UTC)

Nice try, doesn't work, thus:-

- ENGLAND didn't exist as a sovereign state;

- Lots of people made attempts at rebellion that didn't come off. We don't, for instance, recognise the Australian Eureka Stockade as an independent republic, or Riel's rebellions in Canada. The way this works, it only counts from when it succeeds. PML. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.5.75 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2003 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.. I seem to remember celebrating the bicentennial in 1976, not 1981. Rmhermen 00:40 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * No doubt you did. That was not the two hundredth anniversary of independence, though, just of the declaration - despite all the wishful thinking. And while the war was lost in 1781, the treaties settling the matter (i.e. preventing another attempt) didn't happen until 1783. As for "there, we're done with this" - well, I suspect something may still turn up. PML. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.5.75 (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2003 (UTC)


 * Even if England had never recognized the United States, and persisted to this day in claiming that the United States did not exist, the United States would *still* have existed since 1776. Other nations had recognized the United States prior to 1783, so who cares when England came around to seeing it that way?  Still, since England didn't recognize the US until 1783, I believe it is correct from an English point of view to say that the US didn't exist prior to that.  A similar parallel might exist today between those who claim Palestine exists as a nation, and those who claim it does not.  As it stands, I think the article is fine. -º¡º — Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 15 April 2003 (UTC)


 * 1781 is when the Articles of Confederation were ratified. Not ust when Britian lost the war. Rmhermen 19:49 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * If a brand new Constitution were passed next year, which completely replaced the one existing today, and that Constitution set forth the government of the United States, would you say that the United States had come into existence in 1776, 1781, or 2004? -º¡º — Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 15 April 2003‎ (UTC)


 * I would say 1776 - it was PML who had the problem with it. Rmhermen 20:38 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * Indeed. But since all seem loving and happy with the current article, this conversation can blow away like dust in the wind. -º¡º — Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 15 April 2003‎ (UTC)
 * PML clearly has a problem with idea that the United States existed at the moment of their Declaration of Independence. His problem seems to stem from his Anglo-centric choice of the Treaty of Paris as the moment of creation, even though (as someone else pointed out), France recognized the United States in 1781, Holland recognized the US in 1782, etc.).  This argument continues on my user talk page. Chadloder 21:12 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

I have made some year layout proposals which would affect a significant proportion of the year pages: an example of proposed style is 1850. It is detailed on my talk page.

If no-one flags where I have put the discussion on my talk page that they object in a month I will start making everything consistent. It may take some time... --BozMo 10:42, 7 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)

Does Wikipedia have an article about the classical melody 1812 by Pyotr Tsaikovsky (spelling?). I couldn't find it in any page referred to here, not even "1812 in music". I would have searched for Tsaikovsky himself but I am not sure of the proper transscription of the Russian name. 10:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.132.66 (talk)
 * Yes, under 1812 Overture. We should add a disambiguation link at the top of the article. -- Woseph 23:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have now added one. -- Woseph 10:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The Battle of Lake Erie took place in 1813 - the incident on October 8-9 of 1812 was a different event. This is a bit confusing as the 1812 incident took place at Fort Erie (while the Battle of Lake Erie took place off Put-in-Bay on Lake Erie) and both involved the capture of an HMS Detroit (but these were two different ships, the first Detroit being destroyed in the 1812 incident). I think I've gotten the two entries straightened out if someone will just stop reverting one or the other back to before the changes. jmdeur 13:46, 6 Nov 2007 {UTC} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.148.60.151 (talk)