Talk:War of 1812/Archive 11

How is it that many here are stating that the Amerindians were defeated?
I would like to know how it is considered that the Amerindians were defeated in the war of 1812? That is just completely untrue. The Native Americans had been fighting the U.S theft of their land right after the Revolution up till Wounded Knee. The fact is they had totally defeated 2 U.S. expeditions against them one under St Clair and another under Harmer before "Mad" Anthony Wayne defeated them. They however regrouped under Tecumseh and simply joined the British when the U.S included them in their attack. After the British signed a peace treaty most of the Natives did not! Black Hawk continued the fighting in the North, While Kinache, McQueen and others continued the war in the south which is then blended into the so called Seminole wars. So in my view the AmerIndians fought before the war of 1812 and continued to fight after. Therefore although the outcome of the war really hurt their cause they were not at all defeated. If that were the case then why the Black Hawk and Seminole wars then? The Seminoles were never completely defeated! And of course the western tribes continued to battle till the massacre of Wounded Knee. Also Jackson could NOT have beaten the RedSticks without the help of the other southren native tribes which he so cruelly betrayed at the treaty of Fort Jackson. My sources are: In Bitterness and Tears, OBrien; Union 1812 A.J. Langguth, The Invasion of Canada and Flames Across the Border, P. Berton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.40.91 (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe what is stated is that the confedercy under Tecumseh was defeated with both the Tecumseh and his brother dead and the various tribe's warriors returning to their respective bands. I for one acknowledge that the US/Native American wars went on for years but that isn't what this article is about and it begins and ends with the causes and the end of the 1812 war. Tirronan (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference to War of 1812 in (Canadian) Popular Culture
This is the video in question: http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=o7jlFZhprU4&feature=related

I recently added a link under External References to a YouTube video of a popular culture reference to the War of 1812. [User:Narson] removed it as he does not consider it relevant. I have replaced this good faith link addition and respectfully request that if [User:Narson] or any other editor on this page wishes to remove the link that they explain their rationale here on Talk first. Digiterata (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes this link special and deserving of inclusion? What does it add to the understanding of the war itself? For now I'm snipping it out. It appears to me to be just some random band with a song that references the war. Narson (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't see a rationale for its inclusion either, it certainly doesn't add to understanding. We don't just add random pop culture tracks to article, WP:MOS actually discourages too many popular culuture reference. My 2c, leave it out.  Justin talk 18:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum reading the uploader comments

This song is COMEDY. I will no longer bother reading idiotic comments about the historical accuracy, or the rivalry involved. If you can't watch the video with a sense of humor intact, don't waste time watching it at all. Of COURSE it's not historically accurate in it's entirity .. it's not MEANT to be. It's in fun. Lighten up. **
 * READ THIS.
 * Historically inaccurate, well that kills it, there is no way this should be added. Justin talk 18:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please identify which specific historical inaccuracies you are referring to? I would like to put it back and I am within my rights to do so. I request that only an administrator remove this link and if said admin does remove the link s/he explains the rationale here on this discussion page.
 * Like all great comedy, and in the vein of Jon Stewart, it's funny because it is true. The only historical inaccuracy I have identified so far is the exclusion of the current Iraq war as a defeat, but the jury's still out on that one --Digiterata (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The comment about inaccuracy was made by the uploader (which I quoted verbatim above), if its his original artwork then we won't use that - we work on verifiability. If its a pirated version of original artwork, we shouldn't link to copyright violation.  And no you don't have the right to link to a copyright violation and you shouldn't link to original work where the originator admits its inaccurate. Justin talk 23:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The comment made by the original uploader, quoted verbatim, "This song is COMEDY. I will no longer bother reading idiotic comments about the historical accuracy, or the rivalry involved," Please read carefully: the uploader does not give any weight to these comments. He simply says that he will no longer bother reading them. In no way does he acknowledge their validity. Read through the comments if you would like. If you can find a specific inaccuracy of fact in either the video or the comments, please feel free to argue your point here.
 * To the user who just reverted my good faith edit, are you an administrator on this page? If not, please do not remove my good faith edits. This is a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. --Digiterata (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins for pages? Admins cover entire wikis, not just pages. The 'spirit of wikipedia', as you put it, is that anyone can be WP:BOLD and put in an edit without discussion. But once that is reverted, discussion should commense to create a WP:CONSENSUS. Admin tools are not for content disputes in general, hence the existance of non-admin groups like MedCab that rely on mediaton and talking to sort out such issues. This is a round about way of saying that asking that onlyan admin reverts yu is a bit like asking for a million dollars. You are welcome to ask but it just ain't happening. Narson (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope that isn't what the uploader said, the uploader specifically says its inaccurate and I quoted him verbatim. I suggest you learn a little more about Wikipedia, specifially WP:3RR, because if you persist in adding inappropriate material against consensus I will issue an edit war alert.  For info I'm done for the day, I'm not going to edit war over trivia.  WP:MOS specifically warns againat adding too many pop culture references, they're not encouraged. Justin talk 23:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And WP:EL disparages youtube links to a degree and specifically mentions they should be dealt with case by case rather than by policy. It also mentions copyright issues. Narson (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted the orginal uploader requesting clarification and asked that he do so on this page. (Let's get it from the source) Also, if you are arguing that the song is in fact inaccurate, please - someone, anyone - identify the specific inaccuracies. I don't favor an edit war either and I don't wish to subject us to one, but I do believe I am in the right on this and likely won't give in easily.

Please remember that Wikipedia is NOT a democracy and Consensus alone does not determine right and wrong here. So long as I believe my good faith contributions and rationale are in the spirit of Wikipedia policy and the Five Pillars, I can be in the right even if I am in the minority. It works very much like the Constitution of the United States and it's a very important distinction. It is often the difference between tyranny and liberty.

User:Narson Please identify your argument? Are you declaring this to be a copyright violation? Are you claiming that it is to be discouraged specifically because the source is YouTube? Are you claiming that popular culture references are non notable? If so, please quote specific Wikipedia policy on such objections otherwise I do not recognize their validity. --Digiterata (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus is the bed rock of wikipedia, as to the rest, well there are plenty of essays on wikipedia that will tell you that wikipedia is not a soapbox for example. It doesn't provide you with a forum for ranting.  You are edit warring and if you continue you will end up with a block.  As I've already warned you twice I will be putting a L3 warning on your talk page.  Justin talk 00:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reported this to 3RR noticeboard. Ignoring the soapboxing, my issue is that the link is not relevant, it is not suitable, EL and other guidelines suggest it does not belong as an EL on this article. That it may be a copyvio is merely icing on some preverbial cake. There are various things wrong with it Digiterata, that three editors have stepped in now to revert it and none to support it should tell you this. Narson (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Edited: 00:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As an editor who has just come to this page, there is no way a Youtube video of a song is relevant to this page as per WP:EL. Dayewalker (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That the War of 1812 was an important historical event is clearly evidenced by the existence of this article. The fact of the matter is there are very few references in popular culture to this important historical event, and none currently in the External Links of this article. The fact that this song exists and has enjoyed widespread popularity (at least in Canada) is in an of itself, sufficient grounds for its inclusion for it's [WP:N Notability]. I'm done for today.--Digiterata (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no it's not. A song being "popular" in no way entitles it to be linked on wikipedia on a page for a historical event. It isn't particularly notable, and doesn't add anything to the subject of the article. The fact that it may be a copyvio is irrelevant. Dayewalker (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a few days off and sheesh, There isn't a single reason why some utube video of questional value should be inserted here except that fellow wants it inserted. I will also remove it when I see it reinserted. Tirronan (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that the fellow got himself blocked for a 3RR violation and checking his personal page looks like a train wreck of contention. Lets all make sure we are following both the letter and spirit of the rules here. Digiterata you need to lay off there isn't a bit of support for your video link and your actions have alienated me and apparently others. I fail to see how this serves the honor of any of the 3 nations that are all fast allies now and less than vigorious opponents even then. Tirronan (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears I might be too late, but I would like to add in that the music video(which I have seen prior to this argument) is just a comedy and cannont be taken seriously. Some song written by three Canadians from Alberta is not needed, at all. If I made a song about the Mexican-American War and put it on youtube, should it be listed on wikipedia? I don't think so. I should also say the name of the band was not even correct. For some reason, the Arragont Worms have recieved credit for the song, though Three dead trolls in a bagie actually wrote it.

Inaccuaracies
 * The American ran and cried-I doubt it, some might have left the city but I don't think everyone was crying
 * The loser was America, the winner was ourselves-Nope, it was a draw
 * You said Iraq already
 * And burned down all his stuff-Much was evacuated from the white house prior to the burning
 * He thought that he was tough-How do we know Madison thought he was tough?
 * He thought he'd tell the British where they ought to go-Did he really?
 * He thought that he'd invade Canada-Was it his idea? Or was it the War Hawks?
 * The map shows that they burned Washington by corssing the midwest.
 * The president ran and cried-doubt it
 * The Alamo was before Texas was part of the USA
 * Did the Americans really run from Canada to Louisiana?
 * I know Americans who admit that the White house burned

I'm done now.

-Red4tribe (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * it doesn't deserve to be included, it would be as if we all decided to make a music video and alone decided it belonged here. It isn't important enough to be included and the fact its a comedy makes it even less so. The fellow got himselfed blocked and this apparently isn't the 1st time for that either. This page attracts a lot of folks with single aims and not much else to offer. Tirronan (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

references that correspond to note 14
Egan, Clifford L. (1974). The Origins of the War of 1812: Three Decades of Historical Writing. Military Affairs, Vol. 38, No. 2 (April), pp. 72-75.

Goodman, Warren H. (1941). The Origins of the War of 1812: A Survey of Changing Interpretations. The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 28, No. 2, (September), pp. 171-186.

Hacker, Louis Morton. (1924). Western Land Hunger and the War of 1812: A Conjecture. The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 10, No. 4 (March), pp. 365-395.

Pratt, Julius W. (1925). Western Aims in the War of 1812. The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, (June), pp. 36-50.

"Almost all accounts of the 1811-1812 period have stressed the influence of a youthful band, denominated War Hawks, on Madison's policy. According to the standard picture, these men were a rather wild and exuberant group enraged by Britain's maritime practices, certain that the British were encouraging the Indians and convinced that Canada would be an easy conquest and a choice addition to the national domain.  Like all stereotypes, there is some truth in this tableau; however, inaccuracies predominate.  First, Perkins has shown that those favoring war were older than those opposed.  Second, the lure of the Canadas has been played down by most recent investigators, a trend with which Pratt concurs" (Egan, 1974:74).

"In short, the west desired Canada and therefore sought war with England" (Hacker, 1924:366). [note Hacker's title, where he calls this a "conjecture"].

It isn't conjecture the 'Northwestern War Hawks' - the Northwest was of course different than today - supported the war:

"The seat of anti-British fever was in the Northwest and the lower Ohio Valley, where the land-hungry frontiersmen had no doubt that their troubles with the Indians were the result of British intrigue. Stories were circulated after every Indian raid of British Army muskets and equipment being found on the field. By 1812, the westerners were convinced that their problems could best be solved by forcing the British out of Canada." 67.85.31.248 (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Stacyted (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to put them in, or are you goinf to do it?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 05:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you put them in? I'm a new user and don't seem to be able to edit the page b/c it's semi-protected. Thanks.

Stacyted (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Niagara Peninsula link
I logged in because I was reading the article and wanted more info about the Niagara Peninsula. When I did a search, I noticed that Wikipedia had a page for it, but it wasn't linked from the War of 1812 article. I logged in to make a link, but noted that the article was locked.

Can someone link the words "Niagara Peninsula" to the page on Wikipedia that addresses that specific geographic area? The address is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Peninsula

Thanks Reborn100 (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good catch, it's done. --Noren (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

which quote is his quote?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the quote by Thomas Jefferson actually "a mere matter of marching" as opposed to "a matter of marching" which was published in the war of 1812 article? SuperDudeGuy (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct.-Red4tribe (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

not UK
There is a consensus among historians, scholars, editors, publishers, dictionaries and reference works to NOT use "UK" or United Kingdom forms when dealing with 19th century history. Proof: look at the titles in the extended bibliography. (The formal UK name is sometimes used when quoting formal documents like treaties.) People at the time likewise rarely used UK and used Great Britain/ Britain/ British Empire. Rjensen (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And your source is? The full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the official title since the 1st January 1801 see United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Justin talk 23:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * the source is the Library of Congress bibliography online here -- not one book or article uses the "United Kingdon" or "UK" versions and many entries use "Great Britain".   Ditt for the Canadian official guide at located here--no UK.   ditto the journal "Ontario History'' index online here--no UK  In other words, use of UK in this article is original research not sanctioned by expert sources.  Rjensen (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No it isn't original research at all, its the official name of the country involved, Great Britain is an island (as someone correctly points out below) that is part of the UK. The fact that others are sloppy and do not use the proper title is insufficient justification for changing it.  The Treaty of Ghent  actually refers to His Britannic Majesty - i.e. the King.  Now I asked for a source for your specific claim that "There is a consensus among historians, scholars, editors, publishers, dictionaries and reference works to NOT use "UK" or United Kingdom forms when dealing with 19th century history."  You have not provided a source for THAT statement, you have pointed to an American source and claimed that proves it, that is the antithesis of WP:OR.  Justin talk 08:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at the titles, I do not see British either (except for British generals), nor Great Britain. From what I can tell of current careful usage, Great Britain is the island. Terminology of the British Isles tries to sort out the geographic vs political nomenclature --JimWae (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

¶ I've lived in the U.S. since 1960, but I was born in London and still have U.K. citizenship (formerly called being a British subject). I've always been acutely sensitive to the distinctions, but I think you have to use what fits best (in terms of accuracy, readability and ease of comprehension) in a particular sentence, rather than relying too heavily on any particular formal rule or applying one too rigidly. § While recasting the most recent version of the opening paragraph, I hesitated between using "particularly Great Britain and ..." and "particularly the United Kingdom and ...". Had the sentence been otherwise shorter (without all the North American possessions), I would have written out "particularly the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" to make it clear to non-experts and non-British, but it just would have stretched this sentence out too far while duplicating "and" in a way that would required a second look. § The disambiguation tag at the top, should in my opinion say something other than "about the US-UK war" (especially considering the Canadian rôle), but I'm not quite sure what — it's not formal accuracy or completeness you want, but just a simple identification for purposes of distinction. And it's not so long ago that most Americans had no idea what the United Kingdom or UK meant (to some UK means University of Kentucky); so one shouldn't assume that every reader knows even their general meaning, let alone their precise one between 1801 and 1922. § There are other places, however, where "United Kingdom" would fit better (even if contemporary usage, e.g. in the Declaration of Independence, differed). What's important in several places is how important a part Ireland, as opposed to Great Britain alone, is playing. John Paul Jones raided British harbours; did he or the US Navy or US privateers attack Irish ports as well? Were there Irish units fighting on either side of this particular sub-war, or were they too involved in Europe and in Irish home affairs after the United Irishmen's Rising of 1798? § I think it's more useful to think this out together, case by case, and would be glad to see others' thoughts. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am working thought the treaties of 1815 at the moment and the usage by contemporaries is somewhat erratic as to the name of the British state. For example there was a whole raft of conventions attached to the peace treaty of 1815, including one called the "Protocol for the pecuniary indemnity to be furnished by France". In both the original French and the Official English translation the state is called England eg "ART. VI. The 500 millions which remain after the deduction of the sums stipulated in the preceding Articles shall be apportioned in such manner as that Prussia, Austria, Russia and England shall each have a fifth part." So contemporaries were loose with the terms used -- Just as in World War II the Soviets were often called the Russians by British staff officers in internal communications. It seems though that Rjensen has a point. If one does a search Google Book search on the "Battle of Waterloo"
 * 630 on "Battle of Waterloo" "United Kingdom" -"united kingdom of Great Britain".
 * 2210 on "Battle of Waterloo" "Great Britain" -"united kingdom of Great Britain".
 * For the top note I would suggest "Anglo-American War of 1812". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of making the same suggestion myself. "Anglo-American" is the common, familiar usage that would serve best for ready distinction the top ("Hatnote") even though one might want to use more precise names in the text itself (e.g., to give proper due to Scots and Canadians). One talks more of Anglo-American relations or the Anglo-American expeditions into North Africa, Normandy and Iraq than of "US-UK" ones, even though the precise meaning involves the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain [and (Northern) Ireland)] —— Shakescene (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest not since Anglo-American would downplay the significant contribution made by the Canadians. Justin talk 19:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * War between the USA and British Empire? US and Anglo-Canadian forces? I can't say I share the same concerns really Justin. This was the period of Empire and before the age of the Dominions. Heck, canada was quite a few colonies at the time. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 20:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that I am in a agreement with Narson on this one, as far as America was concerned we went to war with the British Empire, not Canada, not Bermuda, or... Tirronan (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

¶ I bit the bullet or Was Bold by putting in a wordy version in the disambiguation link ("is about the conflict in the Atlantic and North America between the U.S. and the British Empire") because people outside the U.S. and Canada just don't know about this war (my parents didn't when we came to America from England in 1960) and always think of Napoleon, Russia, the retreat from Moscow, bitter-cold winters and Tchaikovsky when they read or hear "War of 1812". (Many Britons, fully aware of the Special Relationship, are astonished that the English-speaking U.S. and Britain actually fought a second war a generation after the Revolution.) But my mind is of course still open to other opinions and suggestions. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Anglo does not mean English in this context, it means British and by extension British Empire. It is a common expression for conflicts that the British fight. For example it was not just English soldiers who fought in the Anglo-Afghan Wars or in the Anglo-Boer Wars. A search on Google Books returns  "618 on "Anglo-American War of 1812"." and scholar "about 91 for "Anglo-American War of 1812" I see no point in using a descriptive term when there is a common unambiguous name for the war. --PBS (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This sub-section ("not UK") is actually about usage in the whole article and not just the Hatnote at the top. In regard to the latter, I don't want to sound argumentative or quarrelsome, but—just for the sake of discussion—my own revised reasoning was this: The War of 1812 is unambiguous in North America and it's unambiguous outside North America. It just unambiguously means completely different sub-conflicts. Outside North America, the average Wikipedia reader has no idea that there was a blood-shedding trans-Atlantic conflict between the US and the British Empire after 1783, and searches for "War of 1812" to learn about Napoleon, Moscow and la Grande Armée. "The Anglo-American conflict" (which I myself suggested in stylistic preference to "the US-UK war") doesn't lessen much of his or her initial confusion, although of course one could start reading the lede (introductory paragraph). —— Shakescene (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"UK" is an acceptable term to use. When England, Wales, and Scotland joined together in 1707, they formed the United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Scotland. Since England was indeed a kingdom, it united with two other nations, and formed a united kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSmashBros.Brawl777 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A couple of contemporary Anglo- wars: Anglo–Turkish War (1807–1809) and Anglo–Russian War (1807–1812). --PBS (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

wild lede
The lede had a few wild statements that I dropped. The purpose of the lede is to summarize the article, but these statements were contradicted by the evidence presented in the main text. No scholar calls the war a "victory" for Britain. Rjensen (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fake casualty source
Re casualty totals: There are several footnotes to a bad source, Greely "Battle Studies". Greely merely translated an old French book by Picq that never mentions the war of 1812 at all. (The Picq-Greely book is online at Gutenberg) Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

American Revisionist.
The tone of this article reflects the American's revisionist tendancys toward their involvment in wars.

The basic facts of the War of 1812 are:

Madison was upset because of British interference with American trade, as well as its interference with its citizens. Madison launched a military campaign, so secure land in furtherance of its plan that involved purchasing Alaska. As well as to remiddie the above problems. With back an forth battles that resulted in British buildings, The White house, and much of Washington being burned. The Americans were unsuccessful in their campaign to aquire land.

So, to call it a draw is revisionist to say the least since the Americans battle plans were largely foiled, and do to the extreme damages sustained by the United States.

There may have been losses on the British/Canadian side, but the losses on the American side were far larger.


 * 1. "Remedy," not "remiddie."
 * 2. Sustaining the most casualities does not equate to loss. And "draw" is the most accurate way to describe the outcome, as at the very least things were status quot antebellum (if you do not know what that means, I'm sure there's an article for it). You seem to be implying that:
 * a. Because the Americans suffered more casualities, that means they "lost" and
 * b. Because the Americans did not utterly vanquish the British, they somehow failed to achieve anything.
 * c. You also seem to be implying that if it's American, it must be warped and twisted simply because it's American. How narrowminded. But then I guess I can't blame you for succumbing to one of today's most popular fads.

I apologize if at any point I went over your head. I keep forgetting I'm dealing with someone who thinks "remiddie" is a word. Jersey John (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

America 'lost' because it's goals were not achieved, where the British/Canadian goals were. American goal (Presumably, since they invaded): Take land. British goal: Keep land. Americans didn't get land, Brits kept theirs. What's so difficult to understand? 142.33.122.30 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's important to distinguish between one's personal view on the outcome (which may be influenced by popular culture, personal analysis or what your Grade 5 Teacher at Public School might have said in a moment of unguarded Canadian nationalist sentiment) from the consensus of historians. The Americans didn't 'lose' the war of 1812, no matter what their initial hopes had been going into it.   Corlyon (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

American Bias
What the "The war was a military draw, as both sides tried and failed in large-scale invasions. The peace treaty left the boundaries between the USA and the British Empire unchanged." This is bias!!! The US invaded Canada, the British repelled the US forces chasing them across US territory. The way this is written tries to make it sound like that both countries invaded simultanously, and that both countries were at fault, whereas the US invaded first and was repelled as an act of defence. Also the aim of the British going into the US was to repel the US forces and teach them a lesson, not to conquer the US, and in this it was successful. How is burning the Whitehouse not a successful way of making a point? I have changed this to neutralise some of the bias.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us to draw conclusions like this. Find a reputable historian who will give an overview comment about the war, and we can quote him. Preferably, find somebody who wrote since 1960 since opinions do change. EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not about history, it is about *Spin*. This is written to portray the US in a more positive light. It needs to be written in a more balanced way. The order should be included in this section (the fact that the US invaded first and were then repelled) but has been conveniently left out, making it look like both parties are aggressors. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Deathlibrarian leaves us in doubt as to what was the date of the first invasion, and where.Rjensen (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have re-written it so that it is clear that Canada was invaded first. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It also reads as though you are trying to argue for a British win in that sentence...I'd suggest you self revert Deathlibrarian, you are most definatly in breach of 3RR. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 12:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to try to negate any British bias in the sentence. Please, any suggestions are welcome. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is now A US invasion of Canada was repelled, the British consequently invaded the US it was The war was a military draw, as both sides tried and failed in large-scale invasions. As you can see, we have a definate quality gap between the two sentences. I'd acctually suggest we go back to the original wording with a modification if we want to go down this route. The war was a military draw, in which both sides tried and failed in large-scale invasions, beginning with the American invasion of Lower and Upper Canada.
 * the goal in the lede sentence is to summarize the whole war, which saw multiple failed invasions in both directions. The "beginning with" is unnecessarfy and wrong (the US invaded upper Canada, followed immediately by a British invasion of Michigan, including the capture of Detroit.) and it ended with a much larger, failed, British invasion at New Orleans that is too important to ignore because of its long-term impact on the US (Jackson and all that). The cause of the war was not these invasions--they came AFTER the declaration of war. (and to be precise, a small British invasion was first of all).Rjensen (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, that was if such a sentence/meaning was desired. Personally I was fine with the previous wording, I don't see the pro-American bias to it, just a lack of 'calling it'. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 13:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the cause of war was these invasions, merely saying that the fact that the US invaded Canada first is too important to leave out here.

Hows this? "The war was a military draw, beginning with the American invasion of Lower and Upper Canada and then a consequent invasion of the US by British forces" (I personally believe that militarily, the British won of course as they repelled the Invasion and then invaded the US, only leaveing when the peace was signer, but I'm prepared to leave it as a military draw as a compromise and to avoid an edit war.) I think if, as you say, the lede is to summarise the whole war it definitely needs to include the fact the war started with US invading Canada.
 * Failed invasion, they got pushed out, they tried to take over new england, and the war started when a US Naval vessel refused to be boarded by the Royal Navy, and took a broadside as the result,all this happening in US territorial waters, source, my history book.--Conor Fallon (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't see my point about US NPOV here, compare to the lede for the Korean war Wikipedia entry, which clearly states the initiator of the action. "After disputes arose regarding elections concerning the entirety of Korea[18], as well as escalating border conflicts at the 38th Parallel; the North Korean Army assaulted the South on June 25, 1950. The conflict was then expanded by the United States and the Soviet Union's involvement as part of a proxy war in the greater Cold War."Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A term like 'a military draw' sounds like WP:Synthesis. We summarize what others have said, we don't do our own independent assessment of who won and who lost. Find a book that describes the outcome of the war that way, and if you do you can cite them. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't agree it was a military draw... I was doing that as a compromise. The war ended with Britain still feilding an army on American soil, preparing to attack Mobile, and still in possession of Maine, whereas the US armies had all been repulsed from Canadian soil. Britain still held the field. I don't need a text to tell me that is *not* a draw. However this is not what we are talking about here, we are talking about US bias. Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Britain still feilding an army on American soil, preparing to attack Mobile" - to be fair, Mobile is NOT YET an American city. It was a Spanish outpost prior to the war, taken by the US during the war. 67.85.31.248 (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * the experts all call it a draw; for example Hickey The War of 1812 (1990) says it "ended in a draw" page 3Rjensen (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can work out, *all* US academics think that the war was a draw. Just the same as Canadians say they won the war. Quoting Hickey is not much use in a situation where we are trying to sort out US bias. Deathlibrarian (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we in annother 'who won the war?' debate? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No I was just stating my personal opinion, in response to EdJohnston querying the use of the term "Military draw". Fact is, most US sources state this, so its not WP:Synthesis IMHO. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What British Hansard says about the War of 1812
Some historical British Hansard is now available online, and the British Parliament certainly appears to of have thought they won the war. Viscount Bury wrote in 1862 "At the beginning of the struggle we had only about 900 regular troops in the province. Sir Isaac Brock, then in command, issued a proclamation calling to arms the loyal subjects of the British Crown, and in a short time he had under his command an overwhelming force. In the campaigns of 1812 and the two following years about fifty fights took place, and at the end of that period not a single foot of British soil remained in the hands of the Americans. General Scott and many of the invaders were taken prisoners; the battle of Queen's Town Heights had been gained, along with many others; the Canadian militia, assisted by the small force of regulars, drove the enemy across the frontier, and retaliated upon American ground. Canada was saved mainly by the ancestors of those who were now taunted with want of loyalty; and the Duke of York issued an order in which he expressed his high sense of the conduct of the Canadian militia, which, he said, mainly contributed to the success of the British arms, and the future security of the British empire in North America."

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1862/jul/25/question-1#S3V0168P0-02039


 * Right, so we are seeing there a primary source from 50 years later. Not very useful at all. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 15:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem how's 1815?. Sir James Mackintosh, speaking of British Success in the War (though admitting the British Navy came into a few troubles). 11 April 1815

"The disgrace of the naval war, of balanced success between the British navy and the new-born marine of America, was to be redeemed by protracted warfare, and by pouring our victorious armies upon the American continent. That opportunity, fatally for us, arose. If the Congress had opened in June, it was impossible that we should have sent out orders for the attack on Washington. We should have been saved from that success, which he considered as a thousand times more disgraceful and disastrous than the worst defeat. This success he charged on the delay of the negociation. It was a success which made our naval power hateful and alarming to alt Europe. It was a success which gave the hearts of the American people to every enemy who might rise against Eng- 527 land. It was an enterprise which most exasperated a people, and least weakened a government of any recorded in the annals of war." http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1815/apr/11/address-on-the-treaty-of-peace-with#S1V0030P0-01324

Mr Hart Davis - 11 April 1815 "America had avowed as her objects in going to war, the conquest of Canada, the enforcement of the principle, that free ships make free goods, and the right of naturalizing our seamen,—principles which could not be surrendered, and on the maintenance of which depended our existence as a great nation. Accordingly they had not been surrendered; Canada had been gloriously defended even by a small body of troops, and peace had been made in the spirit of peace." http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1815/apr/11/address-on-the-treaty-of-peace-with#S1V0030P0-01324


 * It remains a primary source. All hansard is a source for is what MP X said in the house. The only real bit of evaluating we can do here on wiki as editors is to evaluate the sources. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * the Hansard quote is a passing comment (with no further discussion) from an MP named Mr. Hart Davis delivered in 1815. he did not have access to American documents and merely assumed what were the American motivations. Historians use Hansard and the US Cogressional debates and hundreds of other sources to form judgments, and Wiki policy is to report the scholarly judgments. Rjensen (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ¶ To my eyes, these extracts (out of context) seem to show that some British observers considered the ultimate result to be essentially a draw (Hart-Davis) or a Pyrrhic victory (Mackintosh). Hart-Davis seems mainly to be vindicating the achievements of Canadian forces in thwarting American invasion. As for Mackintosh's speech, you have to understand the conventions of old-fashioned indirect reported speech (see e.g. Eric Partridge's Usage & Abusage) to understand that "he" in "that success, which he considered as a thousand times more disgraceful and disastrous than the worst defeat." is the speaker himself, i.e. Sir James Mackintosh regretted nominal British military/naval success because of its effects, and wished that Britain had been prevented from having such a success. ["that success, which he considered as a thousand times more disgraceful..." means the actual words coming from Sir James' mouth were something like "I consider that success to be a thousand times more disgraceful..."]
 * ¶ Now, I'm heretical enough to think that sometimes primary or quasi-primary sources are just as useful in the proper place as secondary evaluations (especially when the latter are not easily found), for example, the text, rather than a paraphrase, of a law, the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence. But what these extracts do for me is support the thesis of a draw, stalemate or British setback, perhaps with ultimately happy effects, perhaps not. If others' conclusions differ, then we shouldn't probably waste too much space debating them here before consulting either some good secondary sources that put this in context, or (in their default) a much, much broader expanse of the primary material. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The first quote, Viscount Bury, is clearly a claim of victory. The second quote, Mackintosh, is regretting attacking Washington instead of being allowed to negotiate, but he states that land armies were "Victorious" and the British navy had "balanced success". No less a military success, but regrettable that the war had to be engaged rather than arbitrated. Hart Davis seems clear that the defense of Canada was a success.

I will note that in putting the 1862 quote here, Narson was told it was too recent, and that I should get primary source material. Then when I found primary source material, Rjensen advocated that it is not good because it is primary source! Guys, you are makeing it hard for me when I am put in a technical lose/lose situation like this.

Rjensen, Wikipedia policy, while preferring secondary sources, policy does allow Primary sources. In this case, there are no secondary sources that comment on these primary sources (as far as I have been able to research). Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A small point, but the "balanced success" in Hart-Davis's speech is between the U.S. and Royal Navies, meaning a disgraceful stalemated naval war that had "to be redeemed" by protracted warfare and pouring victorious armies onto the continent (with ultimately disastrous effects). But that's what's so treacherous about these partial sources talking about something different, Canada's loyalty. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * the quote was not a primary source in the first place. A primary source about American intentions requires the author to be privy to the debates and secret discussions, which Hart Davis was not.  I read his speech and there is barely a single sentence about American intentions, which he could only guess at. That fails the Wiki criteria for useful primary source.  (It is a primary source regarding elite British opinion of the treaty, which is not the point at issue here.)  It goes to show we need to rely on scholars who have actually read the published and the secret documents and spent years interpretuing their meaning. Rjensen (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Minor point, I didn't tell you to get a primary source. I said that you had provided a primary source (hansard is only a source for what MPs say) from 50 years after the war and that I doubted its usefulness. I'm not sure what part of that you thought was a shining endorsement of primary sources on wikipedia... -- Narson ~  Talk  • 07:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Narson, of course you are correct, you didn't ask for a primary source. My point is that I have now provided an *earlier* source, closer to the time of the war, that shows how British Parliament felt at the time. RJensen, they *are* primary sources about British Parliaments on the War of 1812, which is what I was discussing here. As to whether the comments in these primary sources are informed or reasonable, well that is a matter for debate, and the same criteria could be applied to American Primary sources, that are quoted throughout this article, as they would not be privy to certain British Intentions. The fact is, they are all primary sources indicating what both sides felt at the time. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * agreed. I suggest it is very difficult to use the primary sources except as illustrative quotes. It's much better to rely on the historians who have spent thousands of hours pouring over all the materials. Rjensen (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, illustrative quotes would indicate what the British Parliament thought at the time about various aspects of the War of 1812, giving this article a British perspective that balances out the US one. Unfortunately no Historians have considered this material. I'll endeavour to get some British commentary, though not sure if it will consider British Hansard. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just re-read the article and discovered that nearly all of the quotes are either American slogans ("Don't Give Up the Ship") or are quotes from Brits, such as Wellington. Rjensen (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

True, there are actually no large quotes from Americans from the period, I am mistaken. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Primary Source documents
This is continuing a discussion on Primary source documents being used in this article. While Wikipedia prefers secondary documents, primary source documents are allowed. In this case, to my knowledge, there are no secondary source commentary published on these. Rjensen, this is from the WP:No original research page

"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
 * * only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
 * * make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
 * [snip]

"Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * there are thousands of pages of speeches from the 1815 period that qualify as "primary" sources. 99% are of very little value because the speaker did not know much about the issue. In this case the speaker tossed off a single sentence that made no pretense of examining the causes (he was much motre interested in the effects of the treaty). So it's a poor quality primary source regarding British ideas at the time about causes (it's only one sentence) and it is NOT a primary source regarding what the Americans intended (he was not in Washington where the decisions were made and did not see the secret letters that were published years later).   Historians are in the business of reading these thousands of pages and evaluating their reliability.  That is why we rely on them for sound information. Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

How you have come to the conclusion that Parliamentarians recorded in Hansard is a poor quality source I am not sure. Surely Hansard, being the minutes of the British Parliament, communicates how the British Parliament thought at the time?. Certainly it does not reflect any information about American "secret letters", but I'm not claiming that it does. Its only reflecting what the British Parliament thought at the time, and thats all that it would be used for, any more than that and it would be conjecture and against the WP:No original research policy. There are certainly thousands of pages of primary sources, but I am talking about British source material, which is rarer than US material, as there was less focus on it due to the Napoleonic threat (which the War of 1812 is connected to). As noted, Historians are good for reading and providing commentary on primary source material, but none have done it for British Hansard that I am aware of, so there is only the Primary source material claiming the war of 1812 as a successful military operation for the British. Also, I'm not sure why you say it is only one sentence. All three speakers are recorded in Hansard as saying that the defense of Canada was a success? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a new work of history, Latimer (2007), that is currently in the article's references: It tells the story from the British viewpoint. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes there's only a couple written by Brits on the war. I was just looking at it on Amazon this morning. Looks interesting, I'll be buying it. Not sure if it refers to hansard or not. Another one is "the Canadian War of 1812" by Sir Charles Prestwood Lucas, and "How Canada was Held for the Empire. The Story of the War of 1812" by James Hannay (both were written early last Century) Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just started on the Latimer book. Chapter 1 is very thoroughly researched and quite well written, so it looks good. His interest is entirely military, not diplomacy or politics or social history. Rjensen (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have the book in hand, you might check what names he assigns to the combatants. Was it the 'United Kingdom' or the 'British Empire'? And what terminology is used to refer to Canada? EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good question. Latimer uses "Britain" the most then "Great Britain." I have found zero uses of "United Kingdom" or "UK". He uses "Canada" a lot, as well as "Upper Canada" and "Lower Canada". I spotted one reference to "Great Britain's empire" (p.4; lower-case e in empire) but none to "British Empire". Rjensen (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Literates
Was this article written by a teenage boy? The opening paragraph states that the 'land warfare was a draw'. Is the author under the impression that warfare is a football match? Maybe it was written by the same person in that can't spell 'definitely'.
 * nost of the article was in fact written by people with access to a dictionary, which defines "draw" as "a contest that ends without a clear-cut victory for either side" and give the example, "the battle was a draw." It's the term professional scholars like Hickey uses. Rjensen (talk) 07:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What does this sentence mean?"Maybe it was written by the same person in that can't spell 'definitely'." —— Shakescene (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that you use your time for more useful purposes such as actually editing and correction of said problems rather than venting your spleen on the other contributing editors? I am not in the least entertained by either your complete and utter lack of social skills and even less so by your displayed lack of civility.  If this is your idea of contributing then I might recommend that you restrict your bile to blog pages and this simply isn't one of those. Tirronan (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This "war" was not considered a war by the British.
It was a "Police Action".

"Minute Men" were basically insurgents of the day, much like insurgents in Iraq today.

It seems our american editors tend to disagree?
 * perhaps Anon will cite a source?? meanwhile it should look at Latimer, 1812 (2007), for a British perspective. His subtitle calls ir "War with America" Rjensen (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The UK had recognised US sovereignty since the Treaty of Paris, 1783, and US forces and militia were recognised forces of the lawful government of the United States. Conflicts between sovereign governments are usually called wars, e.g. the police action that everyone calls the Korean War, 1950-54. [I'm still a UK citizen but have lived in the US since 1960. So I'm not overly swayed by patriotism either way; it's just regrettable that the special relationship had to start this way, since real people died, real ships were sunk and real farms were burned.] —— Shakescene (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This anonymous idiot is refering to the American Revolution.Jersey John (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we remember WP:NPA please? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No one to attack. Maybe he should create an account. Jersey John (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Expansionism: A valid cause?
The article states that the expansionism theory as to why congress declared war was popular in the early 20th century but lost support later on. I did a case study in my history class on partisan unity being the main cause for war and my professor said that the quest for expansion is still widely accepted by historians. Any thoughts?
 * it's a popular idea in Canada, but has not been held by scholars in decades. Of course the BRITISH wanted control of the American Midwest and demanded an Indian state there at the peace talks--and sent an Army to New Orleans to control the Mississippi. So it's british expansion to think about. Rjensen (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't the cause of the war period, that isn't to say that the War Hawk faction didn't want Canada its in the congressional minutes btw. However a close study showed that restriction of trade and maritime issues were the top reasons and the weight of the discussions lend this a truth. Please note that the US had just doubled in size and had no one in the territories for the most part. Tirronan (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The article says "Another major cause of American anger was alleged British military support for American Indians who were waging war against the United States". As written, this is somewhat POV since it implies that the Indians were the "bad guys". The Indians were resisting American expansion into their territories. While annexation of Upper and Lower Canada may not have been an explicit reason for the declaration of war, American expansionism was likely one of several root causes. R. Taylor in "The War of 1812: An Introduction"  suggests that firearms used by the Indians in these conflicts were acquired through trade, and not part of a British plan to resist American expansion. Silverchemist (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Indians could only war against the American settlers by using British guns and powder. Were those supplies provided to shoot deer or to shoot Americans? Whatever, the Americans wanted the trade stopped (Jefferson was keen on this point.) The British denied any intentions to hurt the US in the west, HOWEVER the British by early 1812, just before the war, were planning a big Indian State (in what is now Illinois-Indiana-Michigan-Wisconsin), that would be under British sponsorship and block American expansion westward (so says Lorimer 2007). London had dreamed of that since the proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act, and it was a main British demand at the Ghent peace conference. So the issue of BRITISH expansion into territories that were American (according to treaties of 1783 and 1795) was a big issue for Yankees. Rjensen (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Indian State" you refer to is called a buffer state by A.J. Hall in The American Empire and the Fourth World ISBN 0773530061 p 399, intended to prevent American expansion into British territority. Hickey in The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict p 289 talks about the desire of the British to protect the Indians from American expansion. What references can you provide for British expansion as a contributor to the War of 1812?


 * BTW I think the sentence in the lead about effects of the war where Canada was no longer being used a a base for major Indian attacks on Americans should be removed. Your thoughts? 01:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed a giant Indian Buffer State (covering most of the Midwest), controlled by British allies like Tecumseh, would be a major British imeprial expansion into territory awarded to the US in 1783 (Paris Treaty) and reaffirmed in 1795 (Jay Treaty). The British New Orleans expedition --if it succeeded--would have given Britain control of the Mississippi Valley. That sounds to me like the expansion of British power into huge new territories. It did not happen only because they were defeated in a series of battles (Lake Erie, Thames, New Orleans).  One war cause was the British supply of arms via Canada to the Indians; that ended with the American victories at Thames and Lake Erie and thus the US achieved one of its major war goals and we need to include that as a major result of the war.Rjensen (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How did the War of 1812 end the supposed use of Canada as a "base for major Indian attacks on Americans"? Canada was still there, the British military was still there, the border was just as permeable to the Indians as it ever was and American expansion onto Indian lands was ongoing. What changed? Silverchemist (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * several things changed. 1) the Indian coalition disintegrated with the death of Tecumseh; 2) the US army was MUCH stronger after 1815 than before in the border areas; 3) the Brits no longer saw Indians as military allies and no longer provided informal advice, support, money, & arms. To my knowledge historians mention not a single major Indian raid based in Canada after 1815 (there were MANY based in Mexico as late as 1900). (there were raids across the border by Fenians, Confederates etc, but these were not Indians. Also in 1870s Metis fled south to escape Canadian forces and Sioux escaped north to escape from US forces, using the border to cross to safety.) Rjensen (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for re-opening a debate after a two-month hiatus, but I just came across an interesting website maintained by the US State Department, Bureau of Public Affairs: Office of the Historian. By its own description, "The Office of the Historian is responsible, under law, for the preparation and publication of the official historical documentary record of U.S. foreign policy in the Foreign Relations of the United States series. It researches and writes historical studies on aspects of U.S. diplomacy for use by policymakers in the Department and in other agencies, as well as for public information." On its page about the War of 1812, this Office states, not once, but TWICE, that expansionism was a major factor in the US declaring war in 1812. Unless the State Department has been infiltrated by Canadian nationalist bent on propagating Canadian urban myths or is using text books from the early part of the last century, I suggest that the idea that US expansionism as a contributing factor to the start of the War of 1812 is more current and mainstream than some, like Rjensen, would have us believe. The article should be changed accordingly. Silverchemist (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * the American expansion was into modern-day Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and that was obstructed or threatened by Indians like Tecumseh supplied and encouraged by Britain. Rjensen (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I read this article several months ago and was shocked by some of the mistakes it contains. It states: "Madison made the issue of impressment from ships under the American flag a matter of national sovereignty--even after the British agreed to end the practice..." The British had decided to withdraw the applicable Orders-in-Council for a year, but refused to stop impressment.


 * It also states: "Under the mediation of the Czar of Russia, Great Britain and the United States came together in the summer of 1814 to negotiate the terms of peace." The British refused Russian mediation and the negotiations were direct between the U.S. and Britain.


 * This is not an impressive article despite the fact it is on the Department of State website.Dwalrus (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead section formulation
From the lead section:
 * This final victory produced a sense of euphoria regarding a "second war of independence." However, the confederations of Indian tribes allied to the British had been broken.

Why "however"? AxelBoldt (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * good point; i will change it to "furthermore". Rjensen (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Casualties
Currently, the casualty count reads:

US: 2,260 KIA, 4,505 wounded, 17,000 died from disease. 23,765 total. British: 1,600 KIA, 3,679 wounded, 3,321 died from disease. 8,600 total.

The totals are obviously derived by adding up the previous three figures. However, as the categories are not mutually exclusive - wounded men may later have been killed in action or succumbed to disease - there must be some double-counting going on. The final figures are thus nonsense and should be removed. Catiline63 (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily, in that it is possible it comes from a source that states them and has removed the double counting itself. I don't have a copy of Hickey's book from 1890 in order to check. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 13:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick look at the online version of Hickey's (1990) book (click on the link in the article) shows that his original quote for US casualties is simply "2,260 killed and 4,505 wounded", although he goes on to estimate about 17,000 deaths from disease and notes the execution of 205 soldiers and a "few men" in the navy. Nowhere is a total given. As I suspected, it appears to be original research based on only adding up the killed, the wounded, and the estimated numbers dead through disease. A priori, the British 'total' should also be rejected as OR. Catiline63 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not that ridiculous. announcing the sum of three numbers is not the sort of forbidden "original research" that presents new theories or findings or ideas that might be controversial.Rjensen (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is OR if it is assumed that none of the dead or those who had died of disease were wounded. Nor can a precise total of 23,765 (counted to the man) be presented as if it is actually accurate. The original estimate of dead by disease is about 17,000. This total is not scientifically derived, coming as it does from an estimate that two and a half as meany men died from disease as were killed and wounded in battle. Regardless, as Hickey does not give the total of 23,765 in his work the citation should be placed after the figures he originally gives, not after the entire section. Indeed, Hickey himself (p.303) estimates total American losses at 20,000.


 * From the OR page (indeed, you own edit): "The "Original research" rule does not forbid routine calculations (like adding numbers or calculating percentages or a person's age) that add no new information not already present". 23,765 fails for two reasons. First, derived as it is from 2,260, 4,505, and about 17,000 it is not a "routine" calculation - the final component has been assumed. Second, as Hickey estimates his own total casualty figure (about 20,000) 23,765 actually contradicts the cited source! Catiline63 (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * first drop the red herring of "original research." None of us are pouring through old manuscripts and reports like Hickey did. The issue is how to conveniently summarize the main pattern. All the original numbers were estimates--well into the late 20th century that is the case with military casualties in nearly all wars. That means that rounded or incomplete numbers get reported. (in this case, 2260 deaths is the sum of assumed and estimated values, not an "exact" count. Ditto the 4505). Rjensen (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * None of which addresses the point. The current edit gives the incorrect appearance that 23,765 Americans were in fact casualties of the war. If you can demonstrate that 23,765 were, then the figure stands. If you cannot 23,765, the figure cannot. And you yourself note that even the smaller numbers are estimates. Either way, until you can justify how a figure known only to the nearest thousand can produce a total known to the nearest 5 men, the total cannot stand as it is. Neither have you explained how Hickey gives 20,000 US casualties. The reason why? Because he is familiar with how unresilient the figures are.Catiline63 (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the solution is to round all the numbers we give in the box to the nearest 100. Rjensen (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think having just the figures for dead and wounded, and the estimated deaths from disease is the best way to summarise the war's impact. It's the simplest and the least inaccurate presentation and irons out ambiguitites (such as double-counting). A priori, the British figures should also be simplified.Catiline63 (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Controversial" edits of 23/12
Change by change, I would be most interested how these edits qualify as "controversial" and in need of prior discussion.

Original text: "the land warfare was a draw". My text: "land campaigns saw neither side ultimately victorious". More encyclopaedic terminology. It was not a "draw", which suggests some kind of scoring system.

Orig: "The U.S. initially tried repeatedly to invade Upper Canada with no success; the British launched multiple invasions that were beaten back".

Mine: "The U.S. initially tried repeatedly to invade Upper Canada with no success; the British launched multiple invasions that were also unsuccessful". ''Correction of POV terminology. Why were American forces merely not successful, while the British were "beaten back?"''

Orig: "The immediate stated causes for the U.S. declaration of war were a series of trade restrictions introduced by Britain to impede neutral trade with France (sic, no comma) with which Britain was also at war, that the U.S. contested as illegal under international law and the impressment (forced recruitment) of U.S. citizens into the Royal Navy. An American rallying cry early in the war was "Free Trade and Sailors' Rights". Another major cause of American anger was alleged British military support for Native Americans who were waging war against the United States".

Mine: "The immediate stated causes for the American declaration of war were several. First, a series of trade restrictions introduced by Britain to impede trade between the U.S. and France, a country with which Britain was at war (Grammar corrected). The U.S. contested these restrictions as illegal under international law. Second, the impressment (forced recruitment) of U.S. citizens into the Royal Navy. A third major cause of American anger was the alleged British military support for Native Americans, who were waging war against the U.S." ''The slogan has been edited as it interrupts the flow of the paragraph and because it's a relatively minor point. It is also included in the article proper. The sense of the paragraph remains intact, as only some infelicities of style have been altered.''

Orig: "After two years of warfare, during which the major causes disappeared and neither side saw a reason to go on, peace was signalled when the Treaty of Ghent, (spurious comma) was signed on 24 December 1814. However news of the treaty arrived only after a U.S. victory at the Battle of New Orleans.

Mine: "After two years of warfare, during which the major causes disappeared, and with neither side willing to continue with the war, peace was signalled when on 24 December 1814 the Treaty of Ghent was signed. (Grammar corrected.) However, the war did not officially end end until 23 March 1815. The interim saw a U.S. victory at the Battle of New Orleans, and a British victory at the Battle of Fort Bowyer". ''Why only an American victory detailed in the interim? British victory also included.''

Orig: "This final victory (only this victory?) produced a sense of euphoria (for who?) regarding a "second war of independence." Furthermore, the confederations of Indian tribes allied to the British had been broken and never again was Canada a base for major Indian attacks on Americans. Britain, which had regarded the war as a sideshow to Napoleonic Wars (sic, need definite article) raging in Europe, was less affected by the result, and welcomed an era of peaceful relations along the border."

Mine: "In the U.S., the end of the war produced a sense of euphoria regarding a "second war of independence." (clarifying that it was the Americans who were euphoric) Britain, which had regarded the war as a sideshow to the Napoleonic Wars (grammar corrected) raging in Europe, was less affected by the result and welcomed an era of peaceful relations along the border. Furthermore, the confederations of Indian tribes allied to the British had been broken and never again was Canada a base for major Indian attacks on Americans". The sense of this section remains, having really just changed the perscpectives from US/Indian/British to US/British/Indian. Catiline63 (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Coming off a little confrontational there Catiline, it isn't anything worth getting stressed over. Though, personally, I have no problem with the edits and don't see a problem with them being included. Someone obviously feels they would like to see an agreement they are ok or such. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not confrontational, just exasperated! 8o) Considering your assent, and lack of any further dissent, I shall reintengrate the edits within the current lead. Catiline63 (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes good Catiline. A number of US biased POV changed here. They will probably be changed back though. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Odd Sentence
I realize that it's a small issue compared to most other things on this discussion page, but this sentence towards the end of the Overview section doesn't quite seem to work: "Americans celebrate victory personified in Andrew Jackson." I was just drive-by reading so I'm going to leave the edit for a more astute reader. NeWDaC (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that any of us will object to edits to correct bad English and this would seem to be the case. Tirronan (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Nappy Wars?
I don't think this should be included in the Napoleanic Wars. This article is the only place I have seen it labeled as such. As well, a confrontation between the fledgeling US and the UK was likely to happen at this time even if Napolean, and thus every influence of his, existed or not. Jersey John (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, most if not all the trade issues were directly in response to the ongoing war and the US declared war in response to this. The war was a direct result of the Napoleonic wars. Tirronan (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * America was not on the best of terms with France at this time, mind you. There was the little matter of the Quasi War only just over a decade prior. There was still a sizeable British presence on the North American continent and that all by itself was impetus for another confrontation. While I will concede that events in Europe served as a catalyst, the truth remains that it was going to happen no matter what, what with the yearn to expand westward, and a failed attempt at expanding into Canada. Napolean could never have been born, and still you would have the War of 1812. At risk of sounding like one of those loonies over at Conservapedia, I dare say that trying to clump this in with the Napoleanic Wars smacks of trying to take away the uniqueness of something American (and British too). But to put it in very simple terms, catagorizing it under Napoleanic Wars is too much a stretch IMHO. Again I say nowhere have I heard a serious argument to make the link in all my years of primary school, secondary school, university (I'm American but using British phraseology for ease of understatement) and research done of my own volition, and there has been quite a bit of it Jersey John (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, one of the main catalysts was US support of the French continental system (As the British saw it) and the British imposition of its own continental blockade against France. I will have to pull out some of the Punch cartoons to show the British view of this, but they do seem to suggest the US being in cahoots with boney. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The US in fact was on the verge of going to war with France over French infringements of American rights. At one point it was considered going to war with both at once (militarily that would have been a huge blunder). Rjensen (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct you are, Rjensen. And now you have jogged my memory; I read a fascinating book titaled Jack Tars and Commodores, about the early US Navy, but it also went into good detail on the political atmosphere and foreign relations of the early US, and indeed it talked about how we were a hairdsbreath away from war with France AND Britain. as far as I see it, this onl serves to support the notion that the war was more of an American thing of its own self rather than just a incidental of the Napoleanic Wars. Jersey John (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree since both systems were to restrict the trade of the other with the America caught in between. The Congress was in open session as to who to declare war on, or both at once. I've always wondered why they didn't go ahead and declare war on the French and take over any base they had Western Hemisphere. Tirronan (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Britain was impressing our sailors, while France was restricting our trade (so was Britain). I see no good reason to view the US as an ally of France (an argument going on at the Napoleanic Wars talkpage) nor do I see a reason to say 1812 was a direct result of the Napoleanic Wars. I again reiterate that never once have I heard anyone say this until I looked at this page. And I do read extensively... t as going to happen regardless, admittedly due to the Warhawks in the American congress, who would have used any reason.Jersey John (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The British treated the war as part of the Napoleonic wars--for example, moving large units and generals back and forth. It's commonly included as part of the Nap Wars in reference works like the DuPuy ed "Encyclopedia of Military History." Rjensen (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

sadly what this boils down to is only about 5 people really care enough about this to debate it. truth is grouping it into the napoleanic wars is a stretch at best and an error at worst, though it will be placed back in this article I am sure, and were I to continue to remove it I'm sure I'd receive some sort of disciplinary action. it's just silly.Jersey John (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have strong feelings about this, but I think the problem is with how one thinks of the Napoleonic Wars and defines them. In other words, no one is really wrong in either including or excluding the War of 1812 from them.
 * I'm no expert in geopolitics or military-diplomatic history, but in most of the multinational (as opposed to binational) conflicts that I can think of, the overall designation (e.g. the Crusades, Thirty Years' War, various Wars of Religion, War of the Spanish Succession, War of the Austrian Succession, Seven Years' War, Crimean War, World War I, World War II, Cold War) covers several different conflicts waged by different nations against different sets of adversaries over different sets of issues at different times (e.g. did World War II start with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1934, the second Italo-Abyssinian War of 1935-36, the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39, the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937, the Anschluss, Munich, the Italian occupation of Albania, the German occupation of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, the Russo-German invasion of Poland on 1 Sept. 1939, the Anglo-French declaration of war on 3 September, Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941, Pearl Harbor on 7 Dec. 1941, or one of the innumerable semi-subsidiary East European and East Asian conflicts, like Bulgaria vs Greece or Siam vs Burma?) Seen as a similar large collection of distinct but related conflicts, the Napoleonic Wars would seem to include the War of 1812. Seen as a continuation of the Wars of the French Revolution, in which Napoleon's First French Empire tried to expand with the help of some allies against the opposition of several adversaries, the War of 1812 seems only distantly relevant.
 * As long as the participants engage in positive discussion with the aim of getting closer to consensus rather than simply reverting and running, there should be no fears of disciplinary action, which would only (one hopes) come as a last resort in a fruitless edit war which usually takes at least two almost-equally-culpable parties to wage. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree with you Shakescene. Problem is, the best arguments against the Napoleanic tagging have already been presented, and since this subject is not of prime interest, it seems that it will, and probably already has, turned into simply trouncing on someone's pet project. Indeed that is not my intent, though history has proven on a project such as Wikipedia that others decide what your intent is rather than yourself. Be that as it may, I again have removed the tag, and I can only repeat what I have been saying:
 * 1. That there were uniquely American casus beli
 * 2. That America had no vested interest in continental European affairs (as opposed to trade interests, which I concede were affected by the Napoleanic Wars, however that would be unavoidable)
 * 3. That America had no alliance with either Napolean nor the various coalitions arrayed against him
 * 3. As well, congress even considered casus beli against BOTH Britain AND France
 * 4. That the "Warhawks" in the American congress were pushing for war regardless.
 * 5. Napolean's plans on Europe in the grand scheme of things would have little effect on America, again besides for trade, which is something that would just fix itself anyway. And vice versa, that American affairs so early on would be negligible to Napolean's interests, or the interests of those arrayed against, again trade issues aside.


 * So let it be known that I am not being spiteful nor vindictive when I remove this tag. I do so out of conviction and the firm belief that the facts support the removal. Naturally if anyone can solidly prove that the War of 1812 depended solely on the Napoleanic Wars, and would not have been otherwise, then of course I will concede the point graciously. But as it stands, I do not see it. Jersey John (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not spiteful or vindictive, but perhaps ill judged. You were bold, you removed the category. You were reverted. Now you have failed to gain a consensus in discussion so you engage us in edit warring. It is certainly bad form. There are plenty of sources to indicate many consider it part of the napoleonic wars or linked heavily to them. To give one example:


 * W. B. Turner: "It may be said that the War of 1812 was the North American phase of the Napoleonic Wars."
 * Others say that the Napoleonic Wars were a direct cause of the War of 1812. Either way, the two are intrinsically linked. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, I believe there is some more discussion along these lines going on at the Napoleanic Wars talk page.Jersey John (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no consesus one way or the other, that's the problem. Someone comes along and puts the Napoleanic Wars tag in, and about 3 people are debating it. Until a firm consensus is reached, I don't think it should have that tag in. It is its own thing, therefore it should not be catagorized with something else unless it can be shown CLEARLY that it ineed is "intrinsically linked," which has NOT been shown. That one quote and the weasely worded "others say..." don't prove anything... Again I am removing it. I do not see this as ill judgment nor do I see it as bad form as no one is even trying for a consensus anyway. We could sit here for months and it would stay status quo so I'm not going to waste my time. Also while I applaud your attempts to seem dispassionate, Narson, I don't apreciate the obvious tone. Jersey John (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus one way or the other so we stay with what was on the page before hand (Which was the link to the napoleonic) until that changes. To give a few other quotes:


 * J. P. Rodriguez: "The War of 1812...was a North American outgrowth of the Napoleonic Wars"
 * The United States Conference of Mayors Special Comittee on Historical Preservation: "The further American byproduct of that world war [The Napolenic Wars] was the War of 1812"
 * W. S. Cole: "The War of 1812 was the name given to American participation in those wars [Napoleonic Wars]"
 * This is only from a cursory glance down google books and without even digging out any of my books or going to the library. Several other books devout the entire 'background' sections of books about the War of 1812 to the Napoleonic Wars. This argument that they are not linked is pure folly. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 16:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Quote mining from Google? So you've found some authors who think it should be seen as an extension of the Napoleanic Wars. You can find authors who will say just about anything.Jersey John (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are the chap who wants the change. You need to build the consensus. I am not going to bother putting serious effort into finding sources when you are providing nothing but your assertions. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 18:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr. Narson, I was in the midst of replying to you when you posted that last bit, so to avoid edit conflict I was going to restart. However your insistence on crassness has sapped my motivation to carry on any serious discussion with you. Jersey John (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Category conflict
Before anyone starts into a real edit war, or invokes something like the Three-revert Rule, please take a breath, calm down, avoid personalities and overlook any past perceived offence. While I'm no big fan of all the rules about how to nest categories (which in my opinion diminish their practical usefulness), look at Category:Conflicts in 1812 (1813, 1814, 1815). You'll see two sub-categories: the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812. So in a purely formal sense, the current rules favour keeping the War of 1812 out of the Napoleonic Wars category. (But see also WP:Categorization.) As I said before, I have reached no personal conclusions about the overall appropriateness of inclusion or exclusion, so I'm not writing as a partisan of either policy. The conclusion I do reach is that regardless of the eventual consensus here (if ever one appears), we should think hard and collaboratively about what the best overall category structure should be. For example, should pages about individual battles and other War of 1812 subtopics be tagged with Category:War of 1812, Category:Conflicts in 1812 or something else? Does this make those pages easier or harder to find? Happy New Year to all. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Tad late for the first part, Shakescene, he was already repored by someone else and blocked for it. On to the category issue: There is no category at issue here. What is at issue, stupidly enough, is a small part of the infobox: partof=Napoleonic Wars
 * It just links in and adds a small 'Part of the Napoleonic Wars' to the top of the infobox. While I'm not married to it, I am waiting to hear an argument against its inclusion other than 'I don't like it or agree with it'. The god knows how many reverts to keep it out are hardly going to win anyone over. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that said user really didn't want to talk to anyone as much as force his opinion on the rest of us. I do consider that the root causes were based on the Napoleonic wars and policies, and there is no shortage of historians that state boldly, if there were not maritime issues there would not have been a war at all.  I therefor would say that at the very least there would be a heavy linkage and further direct ties to that conflict. Tirronan (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a little drive by commenting, but it seems that the conflict stretched Britain's resources during the war in Europe. Whether or not it was formally a part of the war with Napoleon, it did have an impact on the war in Europe, by diverting British material and manpower. Also, part of the establishment of the war, whether the US had declared on Great Britain or alternately on France, was based in the climate that the wars in Europe engendered. I thereby state that removing it from the "Napoleonic Wars" would be removing an incident that was directly influenced by and, in turn, influenced the wars in Europe (even if maintained (and probably correctly), that the influence was small at best). You cannot view each area of the world in a separate test case. In this case, the causes, and indeed the progress, as well as the results, seem to be too strongly intertwined for it not to be included in the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.149.113.139 (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)