Talk:War of 1812/Archive 14

Date of the end of the war, in the Infobox
Shouldn't the date the war ended, in the infobox, be the date the treaty was signed? ie December 24, 1814? Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * a treaty is not in effect until both sides officially ratify it--that happened in late Feb. 1815Rjensen (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No argument from me there. However, in terms of Wikipedia articles for conflicts, the date that the peace treaty is signed by the parties involved in the conflict is used, not the date that the US Senate(or any other Country's Senate) ratifies a treaty. This needs to be changed to the date the Peace Treaty was signed (December 24, 1814) Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * where is that policy?? Rjensen (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it is policy. But every single article written on a war that I have read on here follows that rule, so it appears to be the convention. Unless you believe you should go around and change all the other war articles to the various dates of ratifications of the various governments involved in the conflicts? Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don Hickey in Don't Give Up the Ship on page 295 states why the Treaty of Ghent is treated differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.153.246.66 (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * teh war of 1812 ended in Feb 1815. As for other wars, they each have their own situation. Indeed, Wikipedia articles get garbled (the World War I article stated the Armistice was a treaty and does not mention the 1921 resolution that ended the US-Germany war). Rjensen (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WW1 article gives details for when the armistice is signed, and when the peace treaty is signed. It does not use the date the war was ratified by the US government as the end date. In fact, no one does. Can someone explain why this article should be any different? Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is what Don Hickey states on page 295 of Don't Give Up the Ship: "Contrary to popular belief, the signing of the Treaty of Ghent on December 24, 1814, did not end the War of 1812. Why not? Because the British refused to agree to the usual provision in European peace treaties." For more detail you need to read it for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.153.246.66 (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, you have some explaining to do. Why did you remove my comment and replace it with your own? Dwalrus (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC) I had an edit conflict at about 00.30hrs Australian time last night, was that you? Because I can assure you, I have never removed anyones comment and replaced it with my own in the 4 years I have been an editor on Wikipedia. But thanks for the vote of confidence :-( Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Far be it from me to contradict Don Hickey, but whether the British agreed to some clause or not, the Treaty stopped hostilities, which seems to be the conventional method of marking an end date for a (modern) war in Wikipedia articles, rather than using the date of Treaty ratification by a Government, which puts the Battle of New Orleans in the war for instance.This is an important point, as it either puts The Battle of New Orleans in the war, or outside it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * in 1918 all the fighting actually stopped on 11-11-1918--but the article also gives the date the peace treaty went into effect. In the war of 1812, the fighting actually stopped in Feb. 1815 --with the biggest battle of the entire war in January at New Orleans--and the peace treaty went into effect in Feb. 1815. What happened in Dec was the negotiators agreed on terms to be submitted to and approved (or rejected) by their governments in London and DC. (Treatied do get rejected, as happened to the Monroe Treaty of 1806 between the US and Britain.) Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rjensen, the British were concerned about what had happened with three previous treaties with the US in 1794, 1803, and 1806. The US had unilaterally changed already negotiated treaties and, as you stated, rejected the 1806 Monroe-Pinkney treaty. If they had followed the usual procedure and hostilities ended upon the signing at Ghent and the US either changed the treaty or simply rejected it the British would have been in a difficult position. That is why they insisted that hostilities would not end until ratification by both countries. The treaty states this fact explicitly in article 2: "Immediately after the ratifications of this Treaty by both parties as hereinafter mentioned, orders shall be sent to the Armies, Squadrons, Officers, Subjects, and Citizens of the two Powers to cease from all hostilities...." Dwalrus (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Dwalrus is quite right, and it's also symmetrical. The British had refused for 12 years to honor a key provision of the 1783 treaty by keeping forts in the Midwest to support their Indian allies in US territory. In Dec 1814 when Ghent was signed the British knew they had a major invasion army poised to capture New Orleans and take control of the Mississippi.  They expected these battle-hardened veterans to win big, and historians have never been able to figure out what wouls have happened then--perhaps Britain would repudiate the Ghent treaty and try to keep New Orleans. If so there would be a much longer war....or maybe when Napaoleon returned...or maybe..... Rjensen (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, does seem to be the case that it does not take affect till the date of ratification. Though you guys are ignoring the fact that the fighting did stop as soon as it was heard the treaty had been signed, which would support the fact that it was the signing of the treaty that stopped hostilities...not ratification.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the fact that if the treaty had not been ratified by both sides hostilities would have been renewed. It was the ratification of the treaty, as explicitly required by the treaty, that ultimately resulted in an end to hostilities. Dwalrus (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

In terms of ulitmately ending the hostilities, and in the legal sense I agree with you, it was the ratification that ended the hostilities. But in the practical sense, as in the actual immediate cessation of combat, it was the signing of the treaty. Just depends on which viewpoint you want to look at.Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wars will seldom end neatly and this one is no exception, however, be that as it may the wishes of the parties to the treaty were explicit in when they considered the hostilities over and in this we must comply all other considerations must be put aside. --Tirronan (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation of the Win/Loss section
The section called "Evaluation of the Win/Loss" needs to be wikified. Specifically, the footnotes in that section aren't put in properly. Also, it seems to be OR, albeit backed up by references. I'm not certain it really belongs in this article, but I don't want to unilaterally delete it. Thoughts? --MicahBrwn (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it because it's a copy of the text as it appears on the screen, rather than the underlying code, which is why the footnotes don't work properly. See a huge amount of discussion above ("Who won the war?", "Mediation over, huzzah!", etc.) for the history of this section which underwent months of discussion, editing and tweaking. After taking a second look very shortly after copy-editing the "13th Quarto" into the "First Folio" last December, I think it's internally inconsistent and needs a little more work (for reasons stated above in earlier sections of this discussion page). Others who engaged in a long and stressful mediation last autumn are opposed to re-opening the issue before pasting what they see as the final result into the article. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it is just unfortunate so I guess we just leave it be.--Tirronan (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediation on "Who Won?" section approaching a resolution
After a lengthy, thoughtful, strenuous and laborious good-faith process, there now seems to be something approaching a consensus at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-11/War of 1812 on the wording and structure of a section about different scholarly opinions on "who won the War of 1812?" {To read the long and vigorous debates that preceded this consensus, see the Mediation page, the top of this page, and this page's archives.) The one significant disagreement remaining seems to be about the significance of a historian's nationality to his or her conclusions about who won. If you'd like to see, ask questions about or comment on the proposed text before it's perfected and incorporated into the War of 1812 article itself, please visit the first link above. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the progress you have made, it looks like a well done addition. I'm particularly happy to see that you have avoided the biased interpretation that historians are divided in their opinions solely on the basis of nationality. The view that the US won is most often included in the view that both sides won. This is held by Briton Jeremy Black in the most recent book,The War if 1812 in the Age of Napoleon, as well as Canadian Wesley B. Turner in The War of 1812: The War That Both Sides Won and Canadian Duncan Andrew Campbell's book Unlikely Allies. I hope you are able to finish this soon.Dwalrus (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the proposed text could use some clariification; four views are discussed:
 * The war was a stalemate
 * Both (English-speaking) sides won, in the long run
 * That it was a British (or Canadian) victory only.
 * That it was an American victory only.
 * The first two overlap. It is the last two which, perhaps predictably, seem to be minority views, each limited to one nationality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, we in fact looked at using these four views, which would have been pretty logical, but there aren't any scholars that support the fourth view American victory only, so we had to take that out. In the mediation cabal at the moment, the main viewpoints that we could find that are advocated by Historians are:


 * 1) Stalemate
 * 2) UK won US lost
 * 3) US and UK both lost (CP Lucas, P 256 The Canadian War of 1812 - only one I could find, any others?)
 * 4) UK and US both won (references Duncan Andrew Campbell in his book Unlikely Allies and Wesley B. Turner The War of 1812: The War That Both Sides Won)

Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If a viewpoint has not been supported by any historian in any country in over 100 years, it doesn't fit in our listing of what historians currently think. So let's drop "#US and UK both lost" Rjensen (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I am pretty close to that one and would prefer to keep it, it comes pretty close to the truth. Read the letters from both parties and how badly any offensive went for either side in 1814 and you get an idea of "this is the war everyone gave up on and went home".Tirronan (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a great deal of sympathy for the view that both sides lost this war. People died and were wounded in a war that could have been avoided if both sides had simply tried harder. I believe this is particularly true of the British. The late British writer Jon Latimer in an article on the History News Network titled A Truly Pointless War suggested that it was a "war that nobody won" after having said that the British won it. His schizophrenic attitude on this point is revealing of the ambiguity this war. Dwalrus (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we all get that way after really looking into the war, you could make an argument for several views, its hard for me to get over the US asking for terms and not being labeled the loser but reading the view of the British papers and the PM as well just gives you a case of utter despair. Any British professional force setting foot on the US shores would suffer desertion rates running from 5% to 20%, at Plattsburg, the better part of an entire regiment just up and surrendered to get out of the service and in disgust at the way that campaign had been run.  So I understand the draw but yes it feels like both sides just gave up and quit in disgust. Tirronan (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at that article, it does look a touch ambiguous, but it is only an Internet article after all.It also depends on whether you are talking strictly in military onjective terms, diplomatic terms or economic terms...and I think the difference in results in terms of these contexts may be what Latimer is catering for. Read his book and you will see that he is clearer on the fact he believes it was a Brit victory. As for the viewpoint that both sides lost, unfortunately, apart from Lucas, there doesn't seem to be any other historians that advocate it, adn Rjensen was blocking it being put in with only one historian. The new section has been agreed upon, but of course if people found enough evidence to support the adding of a new viewpoint, there is no reason why it couldn't be put in in the future. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I wouldn't quote Latimer, he seems to be trying to have his cake and eat it too as if you want confirmation of about any opinion he seems to have a paragraph to support it. As a military guy, (OR as hell btw), this war is a cluster "bleep" of amateur planning and execution.  I am not sure that any General in this war short of Brock, Scott, Jackson, and Packingham, could have spelled Logistics if you spotted them 8 letters. The Brit Navy executed well though individual ship performance was off to a shocking degree.  It was telling that in anything like equal terms the smart money should have been on the American ship.  So claiming much in a military victory is a bit off, however it may be said that the Royal Navy's blockade and commerce destruction did force the US to the treaty table. In political terms everyone but the Indians and Spain won and won pretty big.  Even the nascent Canada can claim victory her as the US understood they weren't interested in becoming part of the US so her southern border was secure. You never see a Brit ship in US waters acting like she had "rights" to be there again so the UK understood there was a real nation here after all. Tirronan (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I largely agree, though to a degree, it can come down to a philosophical question - what is a military success?. Both parties performed pretty poorly, with the highlights being early Brit/Canadian defense against larger numbers, and US Naval success. But my argument is that while the US army formed particularly poorly, the Brit army performed less poorly than the US, with general domination of the land warfare. The British army won the majority of the battles, and were only ever beaten when they were outnumbered, or when they were attacking well entrenched position. In a number of cases, the Brits beat forces much larger than their own. Overall, in the end, the British ended the day holding the field, which is the usual way of declaring who won a conflict. The Brits were able to land and attack in the US where they wished, the US could only garrison and try to defend their large towns and forts, but were unable/unwilling to meet the British in the field. The US army could not remove the Brits from their own territory. Thus IMHO the war finished with British Military superiority. Though (and suprise I do give credit to the US where it is due) the US Navy are normally backed only on their individual ship performance, but the actually did win flotilla actions against the Brits, which often are overlooked in commentary on the war. More importantly, they were often at pivotal times.However, ultimately of course, they were overwhelmed by vastly superior numbers.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Last chance to comment on agreed version
An apparently final version of "Who won?" is now at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-11/War of 1812. This (7 January 2010) will be your last chance to comment before the Mediation is formally closed. [Please add your comments at that page while it is still open, rather than here. Thanks.] —— Shakescene (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it doesn't seem so final. Blame me, because on my later re-reading, the essay as a whole (as opposed to individual paragraphs) seemed a bit incoherent, impelling me to offer some major rearranging and a little rewriting at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-11/War of 1812. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Shakescene, the specific pages for the reference to Campbell's book are pages 35 and 36. However, Campbell's reasons for saying that both sides won is different from what is stated here. Dwalrus (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with the section coming across, but I agree, I have mentioned a couple of times that the "both sides won" section seems to refer to the writings of historians that are referenced in the section...that don't actually advocate a both sides won argument. The arguments included in that section should be drawn from Cambell and Turner, who wrote the two books arguing both sides winning - they are the historians advocating the position. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation over! Huzzah!
Version 13 (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-11/War of 1812#First Folio.) is the one agreed on, and has been the version approved to go into the article. It is just waiting for someone to put it in. The Cabal mediation has now been closed by the Mediator (Wordsmith). Any more discussion will have to take place here on this talk page, as per standard practice for this article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't like it because it's now inconsistent. While hashing out individual paragraphs, people lost sight of the coherence of the whole section, and no one who wasn't part of the mediation process will be able to make out the very fine nuances that seem to satisfy the experts.


 * In particular, I had first added a sentence to the middle of the majority (or "stalemate") view that some historians see the U.S., Britain and Canada as all being the "real winners" of the War of 1812. The new last paragraph, supposedly presenting a distinct minority view, says that both the U.S. and the British were winners of the War. There are distinctions that can be made in argument, but they will be very, very far from apparent to a non-expert reader.


 * Because of the length of the various versions, it's probably best to start a new sub-page of this Talk Page (e.g. Talk:War of 1812/Winner's section), rather than to stretch this Talk Page beyond even its normal unmanageable length. In the meantime, the "final" version (and my objections) can be seen at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-11/War of 1812 and a very tentative alternative version at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-11/War of 1812 —— Shakescene (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * [Let me hasten to add that my use of the word "experts" was just shorthand for those who've read more and know more than I ever will about the war itself. It wasn't intended in any sarcastic, mocking, envious or disparaging way, just to distinguish those already knowledgeable about the War from readers who aren't. As has often been said, the Internet is a poor conveyor of emotions or the lack thereof.] —— Shakescene (talk) 11:18, 14

January 2010 (UTC)


 * Again just keep it to the facts and that we are talking very small minorities and I am good to support it. I don't think that you can find more that 5% of historians that are going to climb on anyone's win wagon on this one if that. Tirronan (talk) 07:10,

nuary 2010 (UTC)


 * All I want is coherence. I added a sentence to the middle of the majority-view paragraph saying that many historians of the majority view think that "all sides won". Now the last paragraph contrasting the views of one minority of historians says that "both sides won". If the current logical or rhetorical structure of the section is one that contrasts several distinct views, then this is just confusing: what makes the last view a [very small] minority view that's distinct from the majority one? Perhaps we should take out my sentence, perhaps we should recast the style slightly to show a variety or continuous range of modern views (as opposed to sharp contrasts), or perhaps this can be best resolved in a number of other ways. The couple of summaries of the war's end-results that I've read in general histories [An Ocean Apart, S.E. Morison's Oxford History of the American People and Thomas A. Bailey's The American Pageant] seem to reflect what someone said in the mediation: many historians' appraisals are a little too nuanced and subtle to fit neatly into an "X won" or "Y lost" box. But as currently composed and constructed, it's unclear what the 13th Quarto/First Folio version as a whole is trying to say. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * NO! Wording that was unanimously approved after long and complex negotiations following official Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures should be considered locked. Shakescene has played his role—we all have—and let’s please not insist on starting over again. Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RJensen. We spent about 6 weeks mediating that, and it has been agreed upon. The mediation is over and it should go in in the form it was agreed to. The mediation on this section has been closed. Of course, if anyone wants to discuss the section after it goes in, that is of course their right.Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Insertion of new section
OK, so we've done it...where does it go?Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Guys, I'm preparing the section that the mediation decided on to go in. If people want to talk about where it goes, please feel free. Obviously it should go near the conclusion of the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've put that new section that the mediation Cabal worked on in now. Thanks once again to everyone who contributed, I think we have made the article a bit more well rounded with this section in now. I've called it "Who won the war?' as it seemed to be the phrase that really summed up the essence of the section and the whole mediation. Not sure about placement, feel free to move it people so wish. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Negotiations and peace
The Negotiations and peace section is completely undecipherable. It starts with the peace treaty being signed and ratified. Then it says "The British were planning three invasions." Why were they planning invasions after the peace treaty was signed? Then it says "one force burned Washington but failed to capture Baltimore". Some peace treaty! This section has no coherent verb tenses whatsoever. It makes it sound like the British signed a peace treaty and then burned down Washington (even though they were still planning the attack). Someone needs to clean up this mess. Kaldari (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Indians hindering progress to valuable farmland
This whole section about indians is pretty offensive. It makes them out to be savages hindering the United States noble goal of obtaining "valuable farmland". Many were murdered as the United States expanded and many were interned into camps. =76.20.60.196 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC).

The farmland was valuable to the Native Americans as well. Before the The War of 1812, a Native American nation state was a real possibility. The major outcome of the War of 1812 was that all European support of the Native Americans ceased and the reality of Indigenous country diappeared. The expansionists wanted the land because farming had already been developed in those areas of desired conquest. The raids and terror were much more abundunt from the invading expansionists rather than from the Indigenous populations. This section is not only offensive but it's very historicaly untrue and should be ommitted. The section is from a modern political source and not a credible primary source. I am not trying to make anyone a villain or to saintify anyone; this site should be based on history and not politics and idealization of one side or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.184 (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It probably needs to be restated from a more neutral point of view, both sides wanted the land, the statement is correct that from the US view it was valuable farm land going to waste supporting a few Indians, and Madison states it that way almost verbatim. One of the things that we need to realize is that our ancestors didn't consider that to be politically incorrect at the time.  Well some of my ancestors anyway, the others were busy killing Creek Tribe Warriors for crossing Cherokee land to raid whites without permission and joining Andrew Jackson in his campaign against the Red Sticks.  It is stated that the real losers in this war were the Tribes and I know, all we got out of that deal was the trail of tears... Tirronan (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Source material apparently in contradiction
Sources #89 and #93 contradict one another on the issue of British impressment of suspected deserters. I haven't read the sources, and thus cannot make a proper edit here, but the facts are presented in contradiction in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.57.96 (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

what was good about fighting in the battle of queenston? What was bad about fighting in the battle of queenston? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.188.196.30 (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Militia Myth?
Having read how the term "militia myth" is used in the article gives one the impression that Canadians thought it was their forces that won against the US forces when it was actually the British. It implies to me that it was a conflict between the Americans and British and that it was just a myth that the Canadians took part let alone were essential for vict... whatever the outcome was.

When really the British side of the conflict was composed mostly of provincial militia with well trained British troops to lead them. I found an article on the Canadian Military website about the militia myth and think its surprisingly evenhanded given the origin. Origins of the Militia Myth Shetfield (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you go through the archives you will see that there are still Canadians that subscribe to the "Canada Won" myth. It is an urban legend on steroids but it still exists to this day.  Then again you can still find American's that think we won also... not any better on that account.  Every nation has founding myths, America and Canada have them as well. 21:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The summary of this war was that it all started over a penguin webkins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.69.83.227 (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It was British troops, that's the historical consensus. It is sort of like the idea that Texas was a powerful nation before it was a state. It was a nation, but it was by no means powerful. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Militia
How could nearly half a million American militia have been involved when only 4,000 Canadian militia were involved. In several articles about this conflict it states that from 1812 to Napoleon's first defeat Canadian militia commanded by British officers were the sole fighting men in defense of Canada. I do not doubt the number of Canadian militia but half a million American militia seems to be a bit of an exaggeration to me. I am not going to change anything I would just like someone to briefly describe to me why there was a huge difference in force. Thank you.--Az81964444 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Tuscarora and Oneida native support for the Americans has not been included.
Whoever is in charge of editing the page, would you be kind enough to include the Tuscarora and Oneida natives as siding with the Americans. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.189.4 (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything sourced on that, if anyone else does it would make a nice contribution.Tirronan (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I find that there is much lacking about Lower Canada in this article as they were involved geopolitically. I also find it a little misleading that the word Canada or Canadian is used at all as the article only mentions the British, there was around 50,000 people of French descent in the Canada at the time.Just looking to inform myself, thank you. Tinman1234 (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Tinman1234

Martin Windrow observations?
Some opinion comments were recently added to the United States expansionism section. I regret that I deleted them last night because I thought someone was venting. Somehow I missed the reference to a Martin Windrow book. The comments have since been replaced. I still question their appropriacy though. The partial quotations appear to be gratuitous, quoting no one in particular. Were those Windrow's words? The statements outside of the quotes are no clearer. Did a historian actually say that the only difference between the American and British governments was that the slaves were independent? Whatever is an independent slave? Geometricks (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that your reverting the edits by Wenonah was appropriate. Wenonah's edit uses a book by Martin Windrow, Not One Step Back, that is not about the War of 1812. It is about some military sieges throughout history. He does not include any sieges from the War of 1812. The one page that is cited by Wenonah is 106 and that is in the section on the battle at Yorktown during the War of Independence that took place more than 30 years before the War of 1812. In addition, the book is poorly documented and probably does not meet the standards that Wikipedia would like. Far too much questionable opinion in this edit by Wenonah. Dwalrus (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a closer look at the history, and it turns out that I did not delete a referenced entry at all. The reference was added later by the same person who scolded me, which makes it all even less clear. I just deleted it again with a clear conscience. Geometricks (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Another questionable Wenonah contribution was added today. There are three pairs of quote marks in a single sentence. Two of them may or may not be nested, and none of them are clearly attributed. The same Windrow book is cited again, this time a chapter on the Alamo. The gist of the opinion (if I understand it) is very similar to the last one, so I cannot delete it without entering an edit war. Geometricks (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the latest comment from Wenonah. I have the book that he is using as a reference and it does not state what he claims. As stated the page he refers to, 140, is in the section on the Alamo and contains nothing to support what he states. Dwalrus (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Bias
I feel as if this article is biased towards Canada (pro-American) as there are much more facts pertaining to the American side of things, and very little is discussed as what happened on the Canadian side. In Grade 8 history many students learn about the War of 1812 and have several pages dedicated to the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.145.234 (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

While the emphasis may be on "the American side of things" the bias is clearly not pro-American. Considering how the "origins of the war" section was full of comments declaring how Britain wanted to avoid war and only engaged because petty little USA simply "didn't like" British activity, it's safe to say that yes, there clearly is bias in the article, and no, the bias is obviously not pro-American. The entire introduction to the section is devoted to defending, rather than explaining (yes, there is a significant difference, not just a matter of semantics) the British entry into the war. Minaker (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to Tirronan's reversion "Reverted good faith edit, please do not remove cited and supported sections without discussion and consensus of the other editors": I have several issues with this. First, there's a difference between assuming good faith and assuming that the content is constructive. Your reversion seems motivated by confusing these two concepts. Second, your request that I "not remove cited and supported sections without discussion" is without merit since I did initiate discussion. Third, your request that I not remove material without consensus of the other editors really does seem like a misinterpretation of Wikipedia rules. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the implication seems to be that consensus is required for any edit of "cited and supported" material? I don't believe that is the policy, it would grind Wikipedia editing to a near halt. There simply has to be a question of whether the cited material is constructive or destructive to the article, and here that question definitely applies. If there was a debate on the edit, that would be one thing, but there is no such debate in this instance; even you, Tirronan, questioned the validity of the content I deleted. And finally, before deleting the content, I did look up the policy on "Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete" in the NPOV facts, and I feel I acted accordingly. The policy states that "If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly." The text did not contain valid information, as explained in my original edit; no unbaised information was deleted that does not already appear elsewhere in the article. As I already pointed out, the bias of the remaining deleted material has been unchallenged, even by you. Minaker (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As I told you, I don't particularly like the use of Latimer as a source period, as he seems to have a bad case of supporting every possible view. I asked that you discuss the proposed changes and see if we can come up with something better.  If this is all it takes to get you this upset you might consider not editing.  Try running over to the Battle of Jutland and making changes at will... I actually support a change but make it with other editors input, makes for a smoother article, none of us has all the answers and I for one am not God's gift to editing.  Tossing around charges of bias and NPOV doesn't exactly impress me for one or win you support.  Lets try working with us instead of making changes and trying to wiki lawyer us.Tirronan (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I was not upset, I was explaining my reasoning. Now I'm a bit upset, because you've officially taken this to a new level, and let's compare our comments to illustrate this: I contributed to this discussion by providing reasons for my edit. You contributed with accusations. You keep asking for discussion, I keep providing it, and then you accuse me of "wiki lawyering." And you think I'm not being constructive? Based on the unnecessarily antagonistic tone of your latest comments, I'm going to conclude that you jumped to the "wiki lawyering" accusation so insanely quickly because you prefer editors seek your personal approval rather than follow Wikipedia guidelines.

Let me be clear on three points. First, you seem familiar with the term "wikilawyering," but you clearly need to read up on what it actually means. Hint: "Wikilawyering" does not automatically apply to someone just because they follow or cite guidelines. I advise you to pay extra attention to the subheading "Misuse of the term."

Second, your phrase "tossing around charges of bias" does nothing to address this issue in a constructive manner, it merely implies haphazard decision making, without any argument to back it up. If you disagree with the edit, by all means, let's discuss the content of the article, and the validity of the edit, rather than launcing right into groundless accusations. I'm all for discussing content, but let's be clear on the third point, I came to the article to read it, to the editing page to improve it, and the talk page to discuss it. I didn't come to any of these pages to "impress" you. Minaker (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * People, People. Lets calm down and go back to the objections to or for the source and on the account of bias. I am creating sections below where to weigh the arguments.Sadads (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sadads, for trying to calm Tirronan and me down, but the sections you propose don't even address the edits under question. Another editor claimed bias in favor of Americans, but if you note the edits, I'm claiming that the article was biased in favor of Britain. I deleted quotes from Latimer and Horsman, but not because I'm pro- or anti- either one of them. A debate over the legitimacy of Latimer as an historian is far less important here than a discussion of the edits under question.

First, I deleted the introductory paragraph to the section. Most of the information in this paragraph is already contained in other parts of the article, and is therefore redundant. As for the Latimer quote, it provides no new objective information, but rather subjective analysis of one historian rather than objective fact, and thus is an example of "undue weight." This is not "wikilawyering," to me it's common sense. Latimer's conclusion that British activity merely "angered" Americans, to me, implies that Americans' actions were motivated by pettiness. Now, maybe I'm reading too much into that, but then we're getting into readers' interpretation of Latimer's interpretation. The whole point is that this wouldn't even be an issue if we weren't giving undue weight to that one historian's interpretation. It's improper for an objective article.

Second, I deleted Horsman's comment "If possible, England wished to avoid war with America, but not to the extent of allowing her to hinder the British war effort against France." As I stated before, the issue of bias is less muddy here. As far as Horsman's comment is concerned, England was minding its own business when nasty little America came along and made things difficult for them. Are we really comfortable with endorsing Horsman's interpretation that America bullied England into a war, as objective fact? The latter half of Horsman's comment addresses England's motivation without the bias, and provides new, non-interpretive information. I kept that part intact, as it is encyclopedically legitimate.

Now let's look at both edits and try to find non-interpretive, objective fact that is outright missing from the article because of the deletions. I don't think anything of import is left out, but I'm willing to discuss it if somebody disagrees.

Sorry if my deletion of your sections seems improper, but I didn't want this thing developing into a debate that dodges the issue. If you still think the original sections you created would legitimately help solve the problem, I won't object to your putting them back, but I really think they miss the points of contention. In either case, thank you for steering this discussion back on track. Minaker (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems as though accusations of bias are constantly being made about the writing on this war. Canadians and Brits see a US bias while Americans see a British bias. I would like to see some sources cited for the positions that are stated. If you believe that the comments by Latimer and Horsman are biased then you should cite those historians and their comments that support your belief. If you cannot cite any historians to support your view then you are only expressing your point of view. I don't believe that the personal point of view of an editor without authoritative support is sufficient. In the case of Reginald Horsman he is one of the most repected historians on this war and the partial deletion of his comment is wrong. Dwalrus (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Dwalrus, I can't help but feel that you have ignored the vast majority of my statements above, particularly my comments about "undue weight."

You want me to cite sources as to the bias of Latimer and Horsman? That's ridiculous. First of all, I'm not making any claims about Latimer or Horsman as historians in general. For all I know, they could be the two smartest, most fair-minded and respected guys who ever lived. But those particular comments, or at least how those comments were used here, were biased. My claim has nothing to do with the reputations of Latimer or Horsman. It has nothing to do with whether or not other people have made claims of bias. It has nothing to do with whether or not I'm an American. What does it have to do with? Please read my comments to find out, because I've already explained it, and despite all the rigamarole, no one has yet actually addressed my stated reasons for deleting the comments!

Second of all, I'm not expressing my point of view in the article. Please, point out the passage in the article that expresses my point of view. I challenge you to show me, because I am re-reading the section I edited, and I can't find my personal point of view anywhere.

Once again, I must point out that we are not here to get into a debate on the general reputations of Latimer and Horsman, we are here to discuss whether the deleted content was valuable to the article. If your only argument to keep the content is an argument from authority of Latimer and Horsman, then that is a seriously flawed argument.

I'm starting to think Sadads had the right idea. We can discuss the arguments point by point. So far, I've been the only one willing to do that. Let's get some other opinions:


 * Latimer and Horsman quotes are biased.


 * Latimer and Horsman quotes are objective or otherwise valuable enough to deserve inclusion.

Minaker (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is bias in some of these sections, but I've focused on those of "Expansion" and "Background". There are serious issies of avoiding the conquest of Canada as a direct motive for the war, and an almost uncanny attempt to assert that it wasn't anything more than "a bargaining chip". Not only is this not true, but the sources are mostly pre-1965 and do not include well respected scholars form the 1980's (and some earlier) who clearly document otherwise. This needs serious clean-up using scholarly work that is not focused on either US or Canadian propaganda. It's one thing to cite something is controversial, it's another to just choose selective authors.Ebanony (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The bargaining chip model was developed by Stagg and is endorsed by most scholars of American diplomacy. John C. A. Stagg, Mr. Madison's War: Politics, Diplomacy, and Warfare in the Early American republic, 1783-1830. (1983); Stagg, J. C. A.  "James Madison and the 'Malcontents': The Political Origins of the War of 1812,"  William and Mary Quarterly (Oct., 1976); J.C.A. Stagg, "James Madison and the Coercion of Great Britain: Canada, the West Indies, and the War of 1812," in The William and Mary Quarterly(Jan., 1981); Hickey, Don't give up the ship!: myths of the War of 1812 (2006); James P. P. Horn, Jan Lewis, Peter S. Onuf,  The revolution of 1800: democracy, race, and the new republic (2002) p 404; Robert Rutland, ed., James Madison and the American nation, 1751-1836: an encyclopedia (1994)''. Rjensen (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Stagg, and it's not wrong to use him. The issue that there is not as much consensus as the article makes it appear. Not all historians agree w/ Stagg or the others you quoted in that the US invaded Canada for bargaining chip. That should be noted, and the other historians POV's should be included. The current article goes extra lengths to exclude other POV's and claim it wasn't about Canada. Other historians say say that the US had no intention of ever trading Canada as a "bargaining chip" & planned on annexing it permanently. The article doesn't address this.

2nd, I do object to using just American writers because scholarly work is needed, not "American writers" or "Canadian writers". This is part of the problem because US historians do not speak for all historians, nor do they say the same things Canadian & others say on this topic (to some extent). Ebanony (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Some things will never disappear no matter who or what disproves it. Are you attempting to make a case that invasion of Canada was the primal cause of the War of 1812? I guess I am going to have to ask for what sources do you have for such a claim.  There does exist a large body of the discussions that took place how where and why xy and z courses of action were taken by both countries.  Madison's own cabinet wondered how exactly he proposed to give back Canada (the assumption being that "if the Canadian colonies really wanted to join us" sort of thing) against both populations wishes.  However attempting to make the take over of Canada the prime cause is just not going to fly.  The weight of evidence and the weight of historical assessment is not at all with such an argument.  I simply could not support it. Tirronan (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Tirronan, if you'd be so kind as include a link or say where it is I can read these Cabinet discussions you're referring to, I'd be more than happy to consider your point. In fact, I'm curious to know, as it might also be helpful to the article, and we're here in collaborative effort to improve it. On the other hand, there are some who disagree with those historians' interpretaions of events: the British in 1812-1815 for example. They had some very interesting things to say, and their official communication was full of it, particularly at Ghent. As to historians, see Zinn, Benn, Streich. They make the claims. That's not my opinion & I haven't discussed my own ideas here. I can give more details if you're interested though.


 * BTW, just to be clear, I'm not asking you to agree with w/ any argument on the causes, or that the war was fought for reason a, b or c or whatever. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. It's just to say that when there is dispute, different historians' pov's could be included w/ a note saying they disagree & why; whether we agree with those interpretations or not as editors is a separate issue altogether. Having those voices expressed, even in a few sentences, is what helps ensure an article is not "biased" or one-sided.Ebanony (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the U.S. National Archives would be an excellent place to start, be aware that you are in OR territory but it is interesting none the less, if you are looking for cit-able sources I've included some from Ian W. Toll's Six Frigates that goes into some depth as to what was going on in the Parliament and I've included citation already in the article. Sorry if I jumped the gun on you it is just that we get non stop bombarded over the years about "how could we not understand that taking Canada was the prime reason for the war of 1812", and it just won't wash, there is just way too much of a given in rational, the US sure wasn't going to mount a Naval campaign that amounted to all that much (or so they thought) and they had no way to invade Britain which left invading Canada as about the only viable option that they thought they had. There are probably only 100 or so books on the subject so I don't feel like I am crawling out on much of a limb here. We have a section on how the various populations look at the war and that there is a minority that sees who won. I don't really want to go into a service in the name of popular myth either. Also realize that the US went into the war expecting to get beaten badly, you don't go to war over land that you don't think you are going to be able to keep regardless. Tirronan (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That you are "bombarded" by people on the Canada issue is no suprise. It's been going on since 1811. That also means a reference that addresses the problems historians raise w/ the "bargaining chip" theory would help you. Now who is saying the US goal of "Cession of Canada" is popular myth? I've seen no historian say that, though some outright deny it was a cause of war w/ elaborate explainations. As to not being preppared for war, that speaks to the administration's lack of planning & coordination, not US war aims. And some really did expect a quick victory. As to how the Canadians/Americans/British feel over who won, that's a separate issue, and I agree with you there, plenty of nonsense on that, but even that has to be addressed because so many people keep arguing over it (I feel ur pain on that).


 * Consider what others have said. As you may know, even Donald Hickey, who mostly talks about maritime causes for the war, says “advocates of war also hoped to put an end to British influence over American Indians by conquering Canada…” How were the Americans going to put an end to British influence over the "Indians" if they simply gave back Canada? They kept saying that British were inciting the Indians to attack the settlers. If the claim is true, they'd have to be mad to allow the British back in to incite the "Indians" & massacare more innocent women and children (their words) after kicking them out. So unless it was an excuse, or there were no "Indians" left to attack, why go agaist the stated interest? Are the British & Indians really a problem or not? Which is it? And "bargaining chips"? I'd really, really like to know how many times imperial powers like the US conquerer and then give it back land they just took, after all the "blood and treasure" involved, just to get something else totally unrelated that they won't get anyway ie change in British maritime practices. And that raises other problems w/ this idea.


 * Hickey Ch 3 quotes Congressman John Randolph saying, “Agrarian cupidity not maritime right, urges war. Ever since the report of the Committee of Foreign Relations came into the House, we have heard but one word…Canada! Canada! Canada!” This was 1811, before the war, and that's just 1 example of Americans, mostly maritime communities, opposing the war before it began. Who had an interest in "agrarian" or farming? Not sailors; sailors don't farm.


 * Now I don't really want to push the issue too much, but I am saying consider other legitimate pov's, like Hickey etc. If he can discuss these facts, why can't we? Remember, Hickey agrees with you on maritime causes, but he says not all agreed the war was over maritime causes, including US Congressmen in 1811. This article is so extreme it won't even permit Hickey's pov. That's bias because it refuses any discussion of other possibilities, and argues over and over that Canada wasn't a consideration without any references to historians who might disagree. Maybe you don't see the problem, that's why I've written the above to show there is a rational argument against it by historians, not to say "this is what you must believe". I'm telling you the article is written to argue that Canada wasn't a motive for war when it should be a discussion of the causes, particularly when historians disagree, minority as they are. Why is this not corrected?


 * So I was only talking about a few sentences stating there were 1) a minority of historians who disagree, 2) why they disagree & 3) a reference to their work. That's not the same as saying the war was fought for Canada. And some historians, like Zinn, say that it was fought to expand not only to Canada, but also to Florida, and westwards, and not entirely without reason (he is a respected historian); I'm not even asking to include that. OR is great, and I thank you for those references (you say Ian Toll discusses Cabinet meetings?), but I haven't discussed OR. You can find the quotes I mentioned in this book: Ebanony (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

here is the section of the article on it in the origins of the war of 1812, and no I am not going to be your research department. This goes into why historians don't believe it, having read the minutes of congress I won't go there period. The US Nation Archive is open to you as well as me. You can if you wish review it. but this section already writen and having been in the hived off article for YEARS, does cover it. I hope that this answers your questions but this is it ok? Tirronan (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did you post the entire article here? It isn't needed. Anyway, that section goes into why some historians, namely Horseman, Hickey, Brown and Burt support taking Canada as 1) a way to get at GB and 2) a bargaining Chip (which is Stagg & a separate argument), and Rjensen agrees it's an argument by some, but not all. He says "The bargaining chip model was developed by Stagg and is endorsed by most scholars of American diplomacy." He doesn't say all, but rather "most", and I'm ok with that. This article is bias because it excludes historians who DO disagree, presents them as "public opinon in Ontario", and actually argues for the positions that Horseman, Hickey, Brown, Burt & Stagg take and claim there is a consensus when in reality there is real disagreement from the historians Zinn, Benn, Streich etc. There is no consensus, and the article says there is. Why?


 * I'll explain: "The American desire for Canadian land ...was much discussed among historians before 1940, but is rarely cited by experts any more. Hacker (1924); Pratt (1925)." True it's not cited by many today, but SOME do, and they have reasons for doing it. And who were/are those historians? What evidence did/do they have? Nothing there. Just "public opinion in Ontario". Public opinion and historians are not the same. Not even close. They must have said something that caused Stagg and others to develop their ideas. Instead there is just quote after quote for those who say it was not about annexing Canada, and why those other unnamed historians (represented as public opinion!) must defiantely be wrong about annexation. That's not objective, and it doesn't explain the causes for the war. Rather it's a clear argument for saying the "US had no interest in annexing Canada". Even if that were true, that's not what "Zinn, Benn, Streich" say, and they are modern historians who flatly reject what the article says. That's bias on several levels. Articles should present the facts, not argue for one thesis over the other like this one does.


 * Your reason for excluding them: "but this section already writen and having been in the hived off article for YEARS, does cover it". Where does it cover it? No mention of any of these people or older historiansm. Why not? And articles can't be edited? WPedia policy says no such thing.


 * Consider the historian Zinn (note he is not "public opinion in Ontario"): "the war of 1812, which was not (as usually depicted in American textbooks) just a war against England for survival, but a war for the expansion of the new nation, into Florida, into Canada, into Indian territory" . His whole chapter is about that, though he focuses on the Genocidal wars against the Indians, especially w/ Jackson, Harrison & Tecumseh, which was directly related. Please explain why this modern historian does not count. Then explain why Benn and Streich, among others, don't count either. So far you dismissed it.


 * I've not asked you to do research for me, I've asked editors (plural) to deal with the bias problems, and I asked you for a source about Cabinet discussions on the annexation of Canada that you spoke about. Cabinet meetings and Congressional meetings aren't even remotely related, and Congress' records are in the Library of Congress, but only some Executive records are. Telling me to find your obscure conversation that you yourself can't is not helpfu. You made the claim, you cite the evidence or it's of no use. This is an encylcopedia.


 * Please address the these issues: You also imply that the "cession of Canada" was a myth, and I'm aksing 2x now how you can make that claim. You dismissed it. I've also asked you directly about Donald Hickey "“advocates of war also hoped to put an end to British influence over American Indians by conquering Canada…” and John Randolph saying, “Agrarian cupidity not maritime right, urges war..." in 1811 as part of a valid argument by other historians.You dismissed it. Why? I've explained what the problems are: There is clearly not a consensus among modern historians; they do not agree; some say that the annexation of Canada was not a goal, and some say it was a goal. This article makes it seem like they all agree, and argues that position. The attempt to dismiss these historians I've mentioned and their POV and to misrepresent them as meerly "public opinion in Ontario" is worse than bias. What is the justification for this? Ebanony (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the wonderful things about this war is it's thousand shades of gray, you can find a few to support but not many. Have you read the Maritime issues? Do they go away because Canada has to be 1st in your mind?  Let me give you another view... your a Bostonian, you watch British warships sail up with a mile or two of the dock stop a merchant man decide however many of the crew it needs are in fact British citizens then threaten the town with razing if anything is said about it... it went on for years... Yes the opinions of the US Congress that voted to go to war might have something to do with it.  Yes the President at the time also had something to do with it further the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of historians think exactly that.  I don't want to look like a bleeding idiot to the world because you want to believe OK is that simple enough for you?  I don't care who won or lost, I don't care what started the war, what I do care about and care deeply about is the truth.  I am not for one moment going to write something that 4 years of study tells me didn't happen.  I find it exceedingly strange that you start an article with the charge of bias, accuse me an the other editors of it over and over again and call any historian the same and ask us to justify a historian then bring up someone that titles the book "A Canadian Perspective" and that is supposed to be the gold plated truth?  I will not write such an thing if another of the editors feels that he or she must so be it but for myself and to be truthful to both myself and the public my answer remains no.Tirronan (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Question to this long debate ...as i am currently working on bring the History of Canada article to GA level...We are curently saying what is said here with what is bellow...However like the talk here is asking ..is there any modern references to this claims of Canada as just a pawn with no greater aspirations on the part of the Americans....I ask because i have been following this talk and waiting for an outcome (that i see no end to) before i fix the Canada article. This is one section i am having problems like you guys finding refs for. All the books i read are way old. Moxy (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC) The War of 1812 was fought between the United States and the British with the British North American colonies being heavily involved. Greatly outgunned by the British Royal Navy, the American war plans focused on an invasion of Canada (especially what is today eastern and western Ontario), hoping to use it as a negotiating pawn. The American frontier states voted for war in order to suppress the First Nations raids that frustrated settlement of the frontier.


 * There isn't a simple answer, you'd have found a faction in Congress (which do have a bearing on this) that were wholehearted for annexation of Canada. In that case the War-hawks. However most of the East and all of New England would have been dead set against it.  The US didn't go to war over annexing Canada.  It darn sure did go after Canada as it's only perceived avenue to attack the Empire.Tirronan (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Tirronnan, I did not call you biased; I said that the article is biased in this section for the reasons I explained above. Yes I have read the "maritime issues". You don't get it. I never once here argued that Canada was the reason for invasion. I said some historians have said it was, and they make a case for it, and their POV is not fairly represented; it is for this reason I wrote what they say. That's the 1st problem. The other problem is that you feel they don't need to be fairly represented. I've argued that they do. I don't agree that articles should take one POV and argue that way or the other but rather they should present BOTH SIDES particularly when one is a minority pov because there is no consensus (which you admite w/ "overwheling majority" so that means not all); that's all this article does, arguing that Canada - over and over again - was not the reason for invasion, & lists nobody who disagrees or even why, as if they were just total wackos w/ no right to speak; some do disagree even today & because their POV is is not there it is not neutral.


 * Even if it's one or 2 sentences like "Whilst the majority of historians accept this interpetaion, there are a few who reject it, namely Zinn, Benn, Streich, who maintain that the war was fought to expand into Canada and westwards."


 * This is all I have asked for. Wpedia articles are not yours, nor do they belong to a select group of "guardians". All editors have the right to contribute, whether the article was written years ago or today. You've said the opposite. It's not Wpedia's policy, it's yours. You have yet to explain why you reject Zinn, Benn, Streich. By rejecting them, you are saying they don't count. I've never said Stagg, Horseman etc don't count. I said ALL count. Hmmm. Why are you so against using these historians I mentioned? Further, don't even start with "truthful". These are historical interpretations, not the laws of gravity, and guess what? Historians do NOT agree on this very topic (they're historians, not "public opinion"), and for very good reasons. That by definition requires an adequate reference to those who don't agree with the interpretations of Stagg and the like in order for it to be a neutral article. That's why there is a NPOV dispute. What do other editors feel about the sentence above as a possible addition to the article?

Ebanony (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As I have stated, my answer is no and will remain no. I refuse to debate where every historian's credentials are questionable and their bias more so unless they take a minuscule minority view. There are folks that believe in UFO's too, regardless of evidence I do understand but I don't have to support it.  As I have stated there are other editors and if they wish to support that is their decision and not mine.  I have heard your arguments but writing endlessly about it isn't going to change my mind.  You are quite right no one own's an article, but we do have a duty to both Wikipedia and the public to be responsible for what we do write.  I won't participate in national ax grind. Tirronan (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Tirronan 1) I'm not debating with you. I've explained in several ways the reason for the NPOV dispute, and 2) I've asked OTHER editors for their input. You "refuse" or "reject" everything, but you don't refute the issues I've raised. Howard Zinn is well respected historian who taught at Spellman & Boston College, sold books in the millions, and is a well respected scholar. That's not to mention his honourary degrees etc. How you can compare him and the others I've mentioned to "ufo's" says more about you than Mr Zinn. Responsible in what we write? I've asked you why these historical interpretations by Zinn etc are not valid enough to even get 1 sentence. You provide no valid reasons. You talk of UFO's. Responsible means comparing Zinn to conspiracy theorist? The article says the majority of historians for about 100 yrs believed a historical intrepretation at odds w/ Stagee, Horseman etc. They do a 180 degree turn over a hundred yrs later, and no explaination is is required? You then now say those historians are in UFO level. BOTH pov's should be represented, not one. That is bias. Your refusal to admit other historians is, I feel at this point, bias too, and I've assumed good faith in writing as much as I did to argue reasons why other POV's need to be incuded. You've rejected that and refused to refute it, meerly call it "UFO". Based on what? How can you make those allegations? The 19th century historians are also "UFO" too? It's easy to see why mimkaer had problems with you - you're not being "responsible", yu're telling other people what t believe.Ebanony (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make one last attempt to get through to you, its hopeless but I will try, 1st off it isn't personal so stop trying to make it so. Second to as to why my answer is no... There is a mountain of evidence as to what, why, and when, the US declared war and none of it is that disputable. Why historian's did a 180? That is why, the more you look at the commissions that went to France and Britain, the arguments in Congress, the Debates in Congress, the Presidential Letters, and all the rest support the Maritime causes. The whole of the histography as been leaning that way for the last 100 years. You can't and won't hear anything, now I am going to say it... trying to force a change against the force of all that evidence is getting way out in left field. Zinn or not, all that evidence would have to be ignored, how about the 98% of the historians you like to ignore???? The other editors can answer as they like. I called it in left field because that is where you choose to stand its not personal.Tirronan (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, under UNDUE WEIGHT, the minority viewpoints of historians like Zinn, Benn, Streich (and no doubt others) that the US wanted Canada for the land, rather than as a bargaining chip, should be addressed in this artilce Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On Zuehlke--he's a very good historian and reviews say that. Ebanony dies not cite his sources that say otherwise.. As for bias, Wikipedia does NOT reject books because of a POV of the author--almost all authors have  one.  On this annexation idea--it falls of its own thin weight--Did Americans want to permanently annex Canada? which Americans? Which part of Canada? None get mentioned, which is a serious flaw in those old pre-1940 studies that Zinn (a political scientist, not a historian) relied on. Did these mysterious folks want all of Nova Scotia, New B, Newfoundland, PEI and Quebec too? The problem with the old theory is that it's based on speeches by Congressman John Randolph, who opposed any war, and not on statements by people who wanted the war. Randolph had no evidence for his allegations. Most historians now believe that What the Americans wanted was 1) control of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, which was challenged by Tecumseh and his British friends and 2) a bargaining chip to use for peace negotiations. (Similarly the British wanted New Orleans as a bargaining chip)  The current explanation was developed by many scholars, especially Stagg (who is from New Zealand, by the way), and is based on White House papers that historians before 1940 did have access to.  Rjensen (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

1) I've moved your comment here, since this is where this topisc is being discussed.

Think whatever you want on Zuehlke, and quote him if you desire, but do so with specific refrences, not 2 or 3 paragraphs and say "ch 2", and the stuff referenced to him on Native Americans was racist (which was the editor, not Zuehlke).

2) You say: "...Zinn (a political scientist, not a historian) relied on."

Howard Zinn "received his bachelor’s degree from NYU, followed by master’s and doctoral degrees in history from Columbia University." He was a full professor of History who worked at Spellman & Boston College - highly respected institutions. He was also co-editor of the Pentagon Papers. http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/howard_zinn_his.html

3) Those studies before 1940 you claim 1) "had a serious flaw" and 2) that "Zinn...relied on". Well how do you know? Specifically show 1) what these studies are and how they only rely on quotes in Congress & 2) that Zinn relied on them as opposed to something else. What "white house papers"? Be specific, mate.

In reality, there is work done on the people who started the war, not just speeches in Congress. "these mysterious folks" were none other than Madison & his crew. The whole lot of them, and this predated the war by years. The fact I have to point this out indicates you need to study the topic more.

4) If you read the people I cited (not difficult to do), you'll see they offer far better arguments than you CLAIM they use, and they do not rely on a Congress speech - but you do to tarnish their reputations.

5) These aren't "theories" - they're historical intrepretations. Check the defintion of theory & intrepretation.

6) I'm not supporting either historical intrepretation here, and won't explain the annexation of Canada more than I already have; I've said that historians POV's should be included when they disagree, and should be fairly represented - you're not doing that & argue agisnt doing that -WOW! What is sad is that some editors are focued on own historical intrepretations (presented in Stagg & Horseman etc) and refuse to even consider others. That's not neutral. The issue isn't what "most historians believe". It's what the historical data & other historians say. They disagree. Stagg & Horseman do NOT SPEAK for all historians, and OTHER historians like Zinn & those I've mentioned have done good work, and have a strongly supported thesis. Believe whichever one you want, but stop pretending that other historians don't have valid POV's. This article is biased, and excludes good work.

7) Tecumseh? Now you want to discuss the Genocide of the Native Americans? Systematically murdered fot their land by the Americans. The US has a history of taking land, not "bargaining it" for something else. You don't even realise you contradict yourself, and demonstrate you haven't even read Zinn, yet you dismiss him. "Among his students were novelist Alice Walker, who called him 'the best teacher I ever had', and Marian Wright Edelman, future head of the Children's Defense Fund." Ebanony (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd run over to Milhist and complain about us, if they think we are being that much out of line then they can certainly call us on it. As for including it in an this article, no there is just way too much proof against your line of argument.  Other than that this is nothing more than nationalistic pov warring.  I don't support overly rapturous American views either but I am not going to drink the Kool-aid on this one.Tirronan (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"Background" Section
1) I've added a section to seperate the introduction from the causes of the war 2) I've removed the following citation "Zuehlke, Mark. For Honour's Sake: The War of 1812 and the Brokering of an Uneasy Peace (2007) ISBN 0-676-97705-7; Canadian perspective"

Why? It's baised and a clear example of apolegitics. Also, the references in the to it in the Background section, which are as folows: Ft no 4 Zuehlke (2006) ch 1 Ft no 5 Zuehlke (2006) ch 2 Ft no 6 Zuehlke (2006) pp 72, 123, 157, 249-50

They're from the same source, they're not specific (no 4-6) and this Zuehlke is not a credible source, and the book is clearly one of opinion hence "A Canadian Perspective", which has numerous facts incorect. The section must be revised using credible sources. The issues w/ Native American attacks are wholly without substance.

As a scholarly article, repeating propaganda from either the Canadian or American sources should be avoided, and if it's necessary to allude to assertions, a not should be added saying as much. This book is clear bias. NPOV or neutrality dispute has been added here.

This section should be short, as their is another article on the causes of the war. Ebanony (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the exclusion of sources that are clearly propaganda, but unless I have seen the book itself, I usually leave it alone. One recent addition appears to be from a Canada Day commemorative coloring book, and has so far escaped with nothing but a punctuation correction.


 * For this same reason of credibility, I question many of the changes you just completed. Your references rely heavily on the memoirs of William Hull. The man's reputation was in ruins after the surrender of Detroit, and he spent the remainder of his days defending his actions. It is inconceivable that he could write about the events without bias. This is still a valuable resource, but identify it as Hull's defense rather than simply leaving a footnote that leads back to him. Geometricks (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's true that Hull went to court martial, it should be incuded. Not only is Hull's writing valuable, so is his court martial itself, & what historians say. You'll find some say he was unfairly tried (that's true). He alsohas been maligned by some writers like Wesley Turner in British Generals in the War of 1812; they exagerate his forces to make it seem like he led a large, disciplined army and had no reason to surrender his forces; that's not true, and it's not difficult to show. If you read Turner & check his sources, he simply has no citations when he says things like that or when he criticises him for not taking Malden. The Canadians make Hull look powerful & inept because they elevate Brock as hero; the US do it to claim incompetence & not show Madison & Dearborn's failure. A total miscarriage of justice, not just according to Hull. It's a complicated story and the whole section needs to be redone using a variety of sources. I welcome your collaboration in improving it. Also, I've noticed some of your other edits on other pages I've worked, and you're one fo the better editors out there. Your input is appreciated.Ebanony (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note, just clarified point.61.7.120.83 (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It bears to mention that one of the real challenges to the War of 1812 is the sheer amount of crap that was written by various National boosters (for lack of a better term) that at best shades fact if not outright distorting the truth. Hull was a complete incompetent that couldn't spell logistics if you spotted him half the letters, let alone train his troops to a level of proficiency. The US was deathly afraid of professional armies and more afraid of the leaders of such an army. There wasn't a US infantry school nor one for infantry officers and this is what you see in the 1st 2 years of the war. Hull's writings are a direct source and therefore using that lands one firmly in the OR category, if not it would be darned close to it. Where the direct sources are valuable is in understanding where the thoughts of the US Government and the British Powers that be were in how they regarded one another and why they took some of the decisions that they did. Tirronan (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Citing a direct source in itself is not original research, and this is done all the time. Now you apparantly have your own opinions about Hull, but they are your opinions, and to claim he was incompetent and that therefore his works should be excluded because it's "OR" is outreageous. Maybe he was incompetent, maybe he wasn't. Not all historians agree w/ you on that, and some say he was a scapegoat, such as Willard Carl Klunder in Lewis Cass and the Politics of Moderation where he says

"The Madison administration had its scapegoat, and William Hull's court-martial convened..." . He's not the only one. Now just what invalidates Hull's writings? Just your opinion. Many historians use these writings, and I gave you an example. It's good enough for them. Why not Hull? Why not here? What's the problem?Ebanony (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Zuehlke is a leading military historian with 8 well-received books on Canadian military history. As one reviewer said of this book, "“Zuehlke . . . presents a clear, thorough account of both the conflict and the peace negotiations ... and does so without bias. You couldn’t ask for a clearer account of events.” –[in the Vancouver Sun]. Zuehlke's book is what a RS looks like and allegations otherwise are nonsense. Rjensen (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

First I don't agree, and the the Vancouver Sun's claim of "without bias" is just that. Would this be the same "leading military historian" whose "product description" says in referenece to the War of 1812, "...in which Canadian troops burned down the White House." Now I'm no expert on military battles, but wasn't it Adm George Cockburn & General Robert Ross' British troops who did that after the Battle of Blandensburg? Now they're Canadian troops? I ask you, what is nonsense?

Further, even IF his writings were "without bias", the person who citied his book wrote tonnes of info and simply put "Ch 3" or "Ch 4". What kind of citation is that?Ebanony (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You made the allegation that Mark Zuehlke is biased in his book and you have never provided any evidence to support your allegation. That is not being very responsible. Product descriptions are written by the publishing company and not by the author. If you had taken the time to read the book you would know that Zuehlke points out that they were British. BTW, the references that you include with your posts do not work on the talk page. Dwalrus (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did say there is bias, but not just based on product description. He must know some claim Canadain troops went to Wasington, and there are many absurd arguments, videos etc on this. There might have been a few Canadians there, but there could not have been many; I also understand some British troops settled in Canada after war. Ok, fine. But he openly advertises this on his book's pg on Amazon. Why?

"I was saying that to rely alone on a "Canadian", "American" or any other perspective is biased, though not everything a writer ma do good work, it's slanted in one pov. I also pointed to problems with the way the article quoted Zuehlke, and did so for a wide range of stuff w/ chapters and not specific pages; that's a problem. As to the dispute part on the article, it's not about Zuehlke at all, though I did not word it here correctly, and that is my fault; that's for the causes section, and for the reasons I wrote there.Ebanony (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Too many leaders?
Not for the first time, the "Commanders" section in the information box has grown to accommodate several brigade or even battalion commanders, while leaving out some of those responsible for the overall conduct or direction of the war. The Military History Style Guide states that For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. There is no definition of what constitutes "prominence" or even "notability" in this context, but at present, it might include: for the British, Lord Bathurst (Secretary of State for War and the Colonies), George Prévost (Governor General of Canada), John Borlase Warren and Alexander Cochrane, successively commanders in chief of the Royal Navy's American Station, and Tecumseh; for the Americans, William Eustis, John Armstrong, Jr. and James Monroe, successively United States Secretary of War, Henry Dearborn (effectively, or ineffectively, commander in chief of the United States Army until mid 1813), Paul Hamilton and William Jones (successively United States Secretary of the Navy). You could make a case for Isaac Brock who independently of Prevost prevented Upper Canada being overrun or abandoned in the early days of the war, and William Henry Harrison, whose acts as Governor of Indiana precipitated events in the Northwest rather than for his actions during the war. All other divisional, brigade, ship or regional commanders were carrying out the directions or policies of the above, and none of them have automatic claims to be included, no matter how distinguished their conduct in action may have been. HLGallon (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly concurTirronan (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I added Pakenham about a month ago, and am now thinking better of it. He was the British commander at the climactic Battle of New Orleans, but he did not figure so largely before that. At the time, I noticed that there were no American naval commanders in the list. In spite of their surprising successes, there were no admirals or anything near it, so we can leave that alone.


 * So who gets cut? Pakenham and Salaberry do surely. Brown, Scott, and Ross, I suppose. I believe Jackson has to stay. Geometricks (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd think the Secretaries of the Navy and Melville, as First Lord of the Admiralty, ought to have at least as much claim as the cabinet ministers responsible for the various armies, shouldn't they? I'm not at all convinced the U.S. cabinet secretaries should be included at all - we should be careful to include people responsible for grand strategy rather than those whose basic function was purely administrative.  Note, for example, that the leader box for American Civil War excludes the Secretaries of War (but not Navy) on both sides. john k (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet there were US commanders of fleets on the great lakes and they are not listed either. Jackson was the center of any action to the south so he should stay, but I would leave it to major commands with long service, I'd leave out Hull and Dearfield for instance.Tirronan (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Gallon, I believe this is a good idea and you should move ahead with it. Your suggestion for the British side looks right but I would add Brock to the list. As for the US side I would be reluctant to include Paul Hamilton and William Jones as I believe they were non-factors in this war. Jackson should be included. Dwalrus (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem with sentence in second section
Dwalrus has quite rightly pointed out the problem with this sentence "British forces were occupying parts of the American south-west in modern day Louisiana when news of the Treaty of Ghent, which had been under talks for months, arrived, facilitating the end of the war." in the second para. He is right, it's incorrect, the British Army was not in Loisiana at the end of the war, the entire army reembarked and left sometime after the 25th of January. At war's end they were in Eastern Maine, Georgia (Point Peter but I think its debated as to whether they had left St Mary's?) and Alabama (Isle Dauphin, fleet in Mobile Bay and troops around Fort Bowyer), possibly some more places, sorry I haven't all my stuff here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the Mobile Bay area was part of the Mississipi Territory at this time, as Alabama didn't exist until 1817? So Alabama should be "what is now Alabama". 128.250.5.247 (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got a few sources however the other question with that sentence was how exactly did British forces in North America facilitate the ending of the war?Tirronan (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the sentence is saying the news of the Treaty of Ghent facilitated the end of the war, not the British forces. However, if its ambiguous, it could be re worded to make it clearer. I'm not sure, but the Brits may also have held the upper Mississipi at the end of the War Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This sentence is obviously inaccurate as the British were not occupying any part of modern-day Louisiana when news arrived about the treaty. Fort Bowyer and Dauphine Island were part of the Mississippi Territory, and while the British did hold territory in the upper Mississippi River area that was far to the north of the state of Louisiana. What to do? I would rewrite to say: "British forces were occupying several parts of the US and American forces occupied part of Upper Canada when news of the Treaty of Ghent arrived." Dwalrus (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that makes sense.Tirronan (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in mentioning the places specifically(both US and British possessions). Its interesting where they were, and not mentioned in the article otherwise, so valid to mention it somewhere. Its also information that is otherwise not easy to find. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

New External link
The United States Army Center of Military History has a bibliography of suggested reading on the war at http://www.history.army.mil/reference/1812/FR1812.htm. It could be a really helpful tool to reasearchers. I would suggest adding it to the External links because it is more extensive than the other links. Sadads (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Ontario Time Machine has a digital book that is hand-written in French with an English translation provided. From the site's description: "In this book, two characters, ‘Town’ and ‘Country’, meet for a conversation about the potential of a war. Town feels that all citizens should bear arms and fight for King and nation. Country is uncertain about the issue and therefore undecided about getting involved. Town thinks that it is Country’s responsibility to participate and sets out to convince Country of this. And so goes the conversation in this book about the moral and patriotic duty to defend one’s country prior to the outbreak of the War of 1812 - a light-hearted way of presenting serious subject matter." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torlib (talk • contribs) 21:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Date of the end of the war in infobox
The infobox for the article states the war ended on March 23, 1815. There doesn't seem to be any mention of this date anywhere else in the article though (seems it was added here a couple years ago). Does anyone know where this date comes from? Winston365 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Treaty of Ghent was very specific about when the war was to end, that is the date. Tirronan (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any mention of this date on the Treaty of Ghent page, nor in the text of the treaty. Article 2 seems to be the relevant article. It starts out with Immediately after the ratifications of this Treaty by both parties as hereinafter mentioned, orders shall be sent to the Armies, Squadrons, Officers, Subjects, and Citizens of the two Powers to cease from all hostilities. From the Treaty of Ghent page is seems the treaty was ratified on the 17th of February, and was proclaimed the following day. Winston365 (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Depending were you are talking about the War technically ended with the Treaty of Ghent of 1814 for some, and the Rush–Bagot Treaty of 1817 for others.Moxy (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yah, I understand there is some ambiguity as to when the war actually ended. I'm just curious where the March 23, 1815 date actually comes from. It doesn't seem to be related to either treaty. Winston365 (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * O i see sorry - Though the United States had ratified the 24 December 1814 Treaty of Ghent on 18 February 1815, thus formally bringing the War of 1812 to an end -  ships at sea take a long time to travel resulting in General Prevost only being  officially notified of Peace on March 1, 1815.", this information took a even longer time to reach all the ships at sea after its initial delivery.  Thus, in the late morning of 23 March 1815, when the U.S. Sloop of War Hornet (Master Commandant James Biddle) sighted the British brig-sloop Penguin (of similar size and force) off Tristan d'Acunha island in the south Atlantic, neither vessel was aware that their two nations were now at peace.  This was the last engagement and i will add it as a ref to the info box. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER...Moxy (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the war between the United States and Britain ended on 18 February 1815, and that is what the info box to say.. The fact that two uninformed, naval officers were shooting at each other afterwards, was their mistake, and we should not repeat it here at Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right i have no problems with the change its obviously confusion if you dont know about the topic.Moxy (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh...interesting. I didn't know about that particular event, thanks for the info and the link Moxy. Yah, I would be happier with Feb 18th (or even December 24th 1914, when the treaty was signed) than with the March 23rd date. This has come up before, most recently here. Winston365 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Irreverent, irrelevant aside: "(or even December 24th 1914, when the treaty was signed)" ... now that puts a fascinating sidelight on the famous Christmas Truce on the Western Front. Once the German guns had stilled, and Austrians were playing football across No Man's Land with Australians after sharing a holiday meal, it was safe for Sir Edward Grey to welcome William Jennings Bryan to Whitehall to complete the formalities of trans-Atlantic peace and save Britain from the dangers of a two-front war. Of course, Isolationists would assert that this but the first stage of an insidious plot to drag America later into a Britain's European quarrel. More importantly, it removed the last lingering post-Napoleonic obstacle to renewing the Entente Cordiale with Britain's French allies, while slightly appeasing French-Canadian resentment at being automatically included in the British Empire's declaration of war on August 4th. ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. Winston365 (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)