Talk:Engagements on Lake Huron

Untitled
I'm thinking about removing the stubs. This is great for an article on creation, more so for a single battle. Good stuff. TKE 05:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I took out the stubs. Salient details, good sources, not much else to expand it that wouldn't be an exercise in prose. Good stuff. TKE 07:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Great article Andreas 11:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

pov
this page is pov against the americans as it only talk about the british victories. i demand an AMERICAN edit this page
 * Hey, I'm an American. The article is presented from the POV of the British, I agree. However, the description of the battle itself and the outcome are factually correct and NPOV. The overall tone of the article, not the writing, is NPOV insofar as it does not endorse the British and that at the time of the war the British were crushing the Americans in the Northern Campaigns. The reading of the article is most likely to come off of a link and flows nicely with following the links to narrate the War of 1812. If you can tweak it without interrupting the rhythm, by all means do. It's a tough challenge, because it's a good write up and those are hard to copy edit. TKE 03:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This article states: "The series of Engagements on Lake Huron left the British in control of the lake and their Native American allies in control of the Old Northwest for the latter stages of the War of 1812." First point is rather moot as the Americans still controlled Erie so not sure how controlling Huron was all that useful in terms of prosecuting the war in the Northwest as a whole, nor if control of Huron could have even been maintained had the war continued. Secondly, the demise of Tecumseh and the confederacy of tribes that he championed at the Battle of the Thames basically ended the only real threat to the Americans in the Northwest so doubt the Native American tribes could claim to be "in control" of the terriory as a whole at this point. However, the success of the British in this series of skirmishes did provide them with some bargaining chips that they cashed in during the treaty negotiations at which both sides agreed to return to the "status quo ante bellum." Overall, have to say that while this is an interesting article, it really does have some problems POV-wise. In this regard, it is not unique as the variety of viewpoints in British, Canadian, and American accounts sometimes makes one wonder if they are all talking about the same conflict - in the end, about the only definitive statement about the war that can be made is that the Native Americans were the big losers at war's end, while neither Americans, British, nor Canadians seemed to be adversely affected in the long run by the proceedings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:4280:A710:D93D:E6D2:E292:DE63 (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Background - recent edits
The recent additions to the "Background" section have almost doubled the text weight of the article. They have one work of reference only and practically every page up to page 30 is cited. (I do hope the remaining 185 pages are not cited to the same extent.) I do not have the source to hand but its heavy use must also raise concerns regarding close paraphrasing. Most of the recently added material describes the overall situation of both Lower and Upper Canada in 1812, and is only tangentially relevant to the situation on Lake Huron in 1814. This is grotesquely undue imbalance.

In my opinion, one or two added short paragraphs would suffice to cover the historical and strategic background. Readers of the article who wish to have more information have the main article on the War of 1812 and the other articles listed in the various campaign available. I have tagged the section, but will leave off heavy pruning for a few days. HLGallon (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, HLGallon, I kept my feelings and opinions out of what I wrote, so I do not understand why you added that tag. For the moment, I will leave that tag, but will you please explain why you feel it is warranted. Yes, there is only book, but this article didn't cite any references, and anyhow it is a book about the campaign of 1814, so I think it is relevant. I was planning on doing more work to this article, but I thought I would make a start last night by describing why Lake Huron was considered important. Just let me do some work on this article, and if you don't like what I am doing, we discuss it here. Does that sound fair? Thank you for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I have been at the article. I have left the "personal essay" tag, as I accept that the article may now reflect my personal views or opinions on editing. Feel free to reinstate anything, but please at least consider my original point: that the background should be brief and not cluttered with extraneous or tangential minor details. I agree that the Gough work is important, and I have ordered it but given the season, I don't expect it immediately. However, it should not be relied on for every facet of the subject, or over-quoted. HLGallon (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)