Talk:War of 1812/Archive 15

The US Repulsed an Invasion?
I have a problem with this sentence, in the first section. "The end of the war led to a renewed sense of nationalism in the United States and Canada, who had both repulsed invasions of their adversaries". Canada/Britain, I think, did repulse their invasion by the United States, as the US forces were forced back and were no longer actively trying to gain Objectives in Canada. The US did not repulse the British activity in the US...the Brits were still actively campaigning on US territory and only cesed military activity because the Peace treaty had been signed. The US certainly stopped won some battles, but so did the Brits. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Americans repulsed the major British invasion at New Orleans in Jan 1815. Rjensen (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From the British perspective their invasion of upstate New York at Plattsburgh was their most important military action in the second half of 1814. The subsequent defeat and repulse of that British invasion led to the British commander, Sir George Prevost, being recalled to Britain to explain his actions. Dwalrus (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Had not thought of this. The invasion around New Orleans wasn't repulsed, the attack on New Orleans was defeated and the invasion forces withdrew east to siege another fort. An attack, not the invasion, was repulsed. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dwalrus - the relevant invasion is the Plattsburgh one, which was repulsed. john k (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So John K, was the New Orleans invasion, therefore an irrelevant one? :-). The article doesn't say the "Northern Invasion" was repulsed, or the "relevant Invasion" was repulsed... it says that the British invasions were repulsed. They were not.Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They retreated so fast that they left their wounded to be collected by America militia and about a 1/3 of another regiment deserted in disgust. Almost as embarrassing as Hull's surrender.Tirronan (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Tirronan, they left the New Orleans area after the battle, but not the US.
 * I was talking about the Battle of Plattsburg, and I did the major rewrite on the Battle of New Orleans thanks.Tirronan (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok. However the British invasion was still active near New Orleans, which is what I am addressing.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Narson is correct, The attack at New Orleans was repulsed, but the overall invasion was not repulsed, as it was still underway when the war finished. After the battle of New Orleans, the British force was not only still on US soil(I think under the command of General Sir John Lambert), but then won the (second)Battle_of_Fort_Bowyer.They were preparing to attack Mobile, when they heard news of the peace treaty and *then* left. The defeat at New Orleans did definitely not turn back the invasion and in fact they recieved reinforcements after New Orleans to further carry on their campaign, including a siege train (I think?) Deathlibrarian (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes they certainly were on US soil long enough to board their ships and find an easier target in what would be a different state, which the held for 24 hours before being informed that the war was over and to go home..., and no one was going to make an attempt to fight major battles when the war was over.Tirronan (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

New Orleans finished on Jan 8. The Brits took Fort Bowyer on Feb 12, then heard that the peace treaty had been signed on Feb 14, and so stopped their plans to attack Mobile. So they were still campaigning in the states for more than a month after New Orleans. You can't claim that you have repulsed an invader if they still have an army campaigning in your country! This section needs to be changed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify deathlibrarian, I was saying that the southern New Orleans invasion was not repulsed by the end of the war. I would no more count New Orleans and Plattsburgh as part of the same invasion as I would Operation Overlord and Operation Avalanche. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 12:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You have no argument from me Narson, I agree with you.Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to replace the word "invasions" with "major assaults", to make this sentence accurate, as Canada repulsed invasions, whereas the US repulsed attacks on their cities, but did not repulse the invasion forces. So replace "The end of the war led to a renewed sense of nationalism in the United States and Canada, who had both repulsed *invasions* of their adversaries." with "The end of the war led to a renewed sense of nationalism in the United States and Canada, who had both repulsed *major assaults* of their adversaries." This was the simplest way of doing this without causing too much disruption. This section is not written in a neutral way, the way it is written "spins" the US defence into an all out repulsion of all British forces back across the border, which is certainly historically innacurate. Any objections to me making these changes? Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your allegation that, "This section is not written in a neutral way, the way it is written 'spins' the US defence into an all out repulsion of all British forces back across the border...." This is more an exercise in silliness than substance. The British invasions of Louisiana and upstate New York (Plattsburgh) were both repulsed and that fact is not changed because the British held some US territory at other locations. If an American claimed that the British had not repulsed US invasions because the US still held British territory at the end of the war, which it did at Fort Amherstburg and the surrounding area, the pro-British people like you, Deathlibrarian, would be screaming bias.


 * I do not object to the exact wording that you have stated: "The end of the war led to a renewed sense of nationalism in the United States and Canada, who had both repulsed major assaults of their adversaries." If you keep it like that I have no problem with it and we can put an end to this particular point that in my opinion has little substance to it. Dwalrus (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Librarian as "pro-British", rather as someone who pointed out a simple fact (if I understand him correctly). The US launched a clear war of aggression and invaded Canada. The British did not 1) start the war or 2) invade the US or 3) act as an aggressor or 4) even want a war (they were busy w/ Napoleon). Now the British did invade AFTER, as in when they went to Washington in 1814, though they did not occupy it. And the Brits didn't treat the US nicely, and the US had real grievances on seas, but it's clear who attacked whom & who invaded whom. And so some people present the war as the British trying to regain the colonies & that it was a 2nd war for independence; or that the US was responding to a British invasion. Such commonplace fairytales are mythology. If this is what Librarian was saying, then he/she is correct in that this articles is not neutral, and it does not point out what I just did. As to the rewrite, the entire article should be redone, starting here. "Invasion" of the US really makes little sense unless the other invasions of Canada are dealt with, as it's the US who was the one going around doing the invading. Why is their so much opposition to making certain changes on here? Ebanony (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian is correct in stating Canada repulsed invasions, whereas the US repulsed some attacks on their cities... theres a great big picture of Washington being burnt to a crisp following the US defeat at Bladensburg that verifies that last point...the British freely returned to their ships following the occupation (this was a retaliation and they had no intention of staying). So i agree with all that certain sentences need to be rewritten. As Ebanony alludes to above, this was not a war that Britain was particulary interested in with a certain Frenchman who was trying to take over the world at the foremost of their thoughts. Not sure if the article needs rewritten, but certainly a cleanup would be in order. KiwiJeff (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * KiwiJeff, you seem a little confused on what the issue is here that was raised by Deathlibrarian. If you read what he has posted he is claiming that because the British were still occupying US territory it is not correct to say the US repulsed their invasion of Louisiana. I say that is nonsense. The British completely retreated from Louisiana after their defeat and did not return. If that does not qualify as a repulse of an invasion then nothing does. I also point out that the US still held British territory. I can assure you that if anyone claimed that the US invasions were not repulsed merely because the US held some territory I would also call that nonsense. If you noticed I did agree to the specific changes he wants as I don't believe they change the original intend of the sentence. As for your reference to the British attack/raid on Washington I don't disagree with you but it was not what was being discussed. The British intentions in Louisiana were very different from their raid on Washington. As for Ebanony, I am getting a little suspicious of his account. I remember what happened on another forum - Armchair General.Dwalrus (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Dwalrus, I don't see the relevance to other forums, though if you refer to an error I made on a date, fine. We discussed it and the correction was made. The issue was really unfounded bias against Hull; the date was secondary. You pointed out a good reference which corrected my error; the article was improved & I appreciate your help. But KiwiJeff, Librarian & I have (& others) have in several areas on this forum pointed out some problems, and we get fought tooth and nail by certain people. I wasn't referring to you, but it's clear this is some people's "pet", and they're so devoted to their own historical intrepretations that they won't even permit a few sentences to change. At least Librarian offers a suggestion to improve it & discusses it. Some editors are downright hostile even to that.Ebanony (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just forget my comment about the other forum since I probably should not have mentioned it. It was not about what you stated. Anyone can make changes to the article and anyone else can change those same edits since that is the way Wikipedia works. There is always going to be disagreement and this particular article has been subject to considerable dispute over time. All you have to do is look back at the history of the article to see the many disputes. I took the time to look at the history and actually found one person who wrote his own web page on the war and then put a link to it in this article in the external links section. Needless to say the web page he wrote reflected his own very strong point of view and it was a clear violation of Wikipedia policy to do what he did but it did not stop him. It was later removed. The point is that this article has to be watched because so many people want to make changes that reflect their own biases. You should not take it personally. As for your claim that Deathlibrarian has suggested changes to improve the article I have to disagree with you. His changing that one sentence is actually fairly minor but his reasoning is historically flawed. We will just have to agree to disagree. Dwalrus (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Dwalrus, already forgotten. Besides I respect the work you do on here & elsewhere; so I have never had any dispute w/ you, and I freely admit you helped correct my earlier errors. As to Librarian's proposed change on here, I don't have an opinion on it, just glad someone wants to make it better. So my understanding is (as you say), the proposed change is not going to do that; if so, then fine with me. He asked for input, Dwalrus says no, snd I'm neutral. So have others made up their minds yet? He deserves an answer from the other editors, as he was respectful enough to ask.Ebanony (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Dwalrus, Kiwijeff is exactly saying what I said, as Narson did before. YOu said to him "The British completely retreated from Louisiana after their defeat and did not return. If that does not qualify as a repulse of an invasion then nothing does". It qualifies as the the repulse of the attack on New Orleans...it does not qualify as the repulse of an invasion on the UNited States, as the INvasion force was reinforced and still actively campaigning in the US.

In terms of this article, this section does not talk about the British Empire's war with New Orleans, or Lousiana. It talks about the war between countries. Britain declared war on the US, not Arizona, Hawaii or Louisiana, and this is the sense that "invasion" is used in this section. The US did not repulse an invasion of the US, it repulsed an attack on New Orleans, the British forces left but were reinforced and continued their campaign in the US, seizing Fort Bowyer and preparing to attack Mobile.

From what I have read, the US in fact did not have the means to repulse the British, the militia in New Orleans was refused permission to follow up the attack on the British by Jackson, as he was unsure how they would fare against the British regulars outside the fortifications, and the US Navy was outnumbered and bottled up in divers harbours.

As to your accusations that Ebanony is actually my sockpuppet, I think it best that you investigate things a bit more carefully before you falsely accuse people on here. As for me being Pro British, I assume everyone on here has some sort of bias one way or another, this is not so much an issue, as long as people work together to make a balanced article. I certainly don't want a pro British article, I want an article that is balanced and if there are multiple viewpoints, then they should all be discussed as per UNDUE WEIGHT. I think this article is way better than it used to be, but still needs a bit of work in terms of bias, including this section.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also Dwalrus, you seem to be trying to qualify your argument by saying that the US possessed certain Canadian Territory at the end of the war. This is true, but the defensive possession of a couple of forts, or some territory across the border is quite different to what we are talking about here. We are talking about an invasion force of some thousands, actively on campaign, backed up by a British fleet, still seeking to engage an enemy and atacking cities.

Britain too held territory across the border, in fact they held 1/3rd of Maine, however I did not mention this as I don't see it as an active invasion force, certainly not an army on campaign.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lets get the facts correct for once! They held 2 towns in Maine of which Wellington commented " you may as well try to claim the ground beneath your sentries feet" 2nd the Plattsburg battle was the start of an invasion and it sure didn't come back when it was repulsed. 3rd, after the New Orleans debacle the army went back on board the fleet till it found a rather weak fortification to attack and stayed for oh a day or 2.  None the less it was an attempt to grab and maintain ground that once again failed.  There are not 2 standards here.Tirronan (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

In terms of Maine Tirronan, I have no idea how many towns there were in Maine at the time, I said they occupied 1/3 of it. The Wikipedia article on Maine says they occupied "Eastern Maine".

As for Plattsburg, I agree with you, it was the start of an invasion, and the battle pretty much well repulsed it. However, I disagree with you on your summation of the British forces on campaign after New Orleans. There seems to be this myth that the British Army was all but defeated after New Orleans. They took about 2300 casualties (300 or so killed the rest wonded or missing) out of an expedition force of 11,000. Most of the army was still intact, their navy was unchallenged, and as mentioned before, after the battle they then recieved reinforcments. They were still on campaign and preparing to attack Mobile, which Jackson was sending troops to defend. You say they took the fort and stayed for a day..yes because the day after the took the Fort they received news from England of Peace, they were to cease military activies and go home, which they did.

You say that they attempted to grab and maintain ground that failed - in preparation for attacking Mobile, the fleet secured Mobile Bay, and the British secured Fort Bowyer...how is that failing?

However you personally regard these efforts, they remain the efforts of a sizeable British force, campaigning on US soil, in preparation of taking a US town.... as stated before. The invasion force was still active, sizeable, and not repulsed after New Orleans as you and DWalrus seem to be claiming. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if it mattered what I personally thought then we'd have a British Empire win on the outcome box... but it doesn't. Lets put the Maine thing to bed permanently, a British force went up a river in Maine captured 2 towns and left a ship in each just in case a US force actually showed up to contest it.  No one on either side really took it very seriously after Wellington's comment and it was one of the 1st demands dropped at Ghent. As for the other you make it sound like they were in continuous campaign which isn't the case at all.  As for the for the force itself, I have it closer to 2100 kia/wia with the top 3 commanders dead.  The were not destroyed and I don't think anyone was saying that they were.  In fact they discussed renewing battle at New Orleans but moral was shot to shit and they piled back into the ships to recover.  To my knowledge they took exactly one more offensive action worth the name in the taking of the fortress so it isn't exactly impressive and it may be said that the defeat at New Orleans fairly gutted the aggressiveness of the force.  It wasn't a mistake that they chose a small and under-defended fort as a target. Death, the only part of the forces on either side that were very successful were the respective Navies and the British had the bigger one.  In retrospect and perfect 20/20 hindsight the US would have been better served by trebling the size of her Navy and waging a sea war but she didn't know that then it would have seemed idiotic to go up against the Royal Navy and attempt to win but given 6 men of war and 24 Frigates she would have given the RN fits.


 * I guess part of what drives me nuts is the attempts to make one side or the other look better/worse, what happened just happened and is beyond reach, however the results that is the important part of this war. This is an odd quirky war with low losses that had outcomes FAR out of proportion to results.  What changes took place to the RN afterward?  How did the relationship between the US and Britain change?  How the this effect US/Canadian relations?  All this is far more important than this war.  It is my opinion that this is the area that really needs work, something I'd like to work on and something that the editors can really collaborate on. Trying to change a historiography at this point (and that is all this article really is doing) is just tilting at windmills.Tirronan (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, this is starting to get tiresome. You sound like a politician the way you try to spin this to read that the US repulse of the British invasion was not really a repulse of an invasion. You stated that you wanted to change the sentence in question. Your suggestion is to change it from "The end of the war led to a renewed sense of nationalism in the United States and Canada, who had both repulsed invasions of their adversaries." to "The end of the war led to a renewed sense of nationalism in the United States and Canada, who had both repulsed major assaults of their adversaries." As I have stated before I would be willing to go along with this as it is does not change the substance of the sentence. The important part of the sentence is "The end of the war led to a renewed sense of nationalism in the United States and Canada...."

The repulse of an attack/invasion of Louisiana with the objective being New Orleans is a repulse of an attack/invasion of the US since Louisiana was/is a part of the US. That does not mean that the British could not invade the US elsewhere it only means exactly what it states that the invasion of Louisiana was repulsed. By the way, the British, and certainly the Spanish, viewed Fort Bowyer and Mobile as being on Spanish territory not US territory. The US had occupied the area in 1813.

You seem to place a great deal of emphasis on the fact that the British received reinforcements. The fact is that the British started to receive reinforcements before they left Louisiana but Lambert decided to not use those reinforcements to renew the campaign against New Orleans. The much respected British writer Robin Reilly in his book The British at the Gates: The New Orleans Campaign in The War of 1812 wrote: "On the eleventh news came that the 40th regiment had arrived at the fleet anchorage, and the following day the regiment landed at the mouth of Bayou Bienvenue. Lambert went orders that the 850 men should be reembarked again immediately and returned to the fleet. Even less agreeable to Dickson was the intelligence that ordnance ships arrived at the fleet carrying 26 pieces of field artillery, including two invaluable heavy howitzers and two large mortars, an armament which would have produced a different result had it been available to him on January 1." p. 314

Lambert decided to continue his retreat from Louisiana despite the arrival of reinforcements. As for the decision to leave the area (Fort Boyer was 100+ miles away) and attack Fort Bowyer, Robin Reilly, using British sources, makes the following statement:

"Knowing nothing of the success of the negotiations at Ghent, Lambert was obliged to consider his next move. It was inconceivable that his army should return to England without attempting anything to efface the disaster at New Orleans. His men were despondent: ' a sullen carelessness, a sort of indifference as to what might happen ' followed defeat and exhaustion. A successful operation was essential to restore their spirit. On January 28 at a conference on board the Tonnant he revealed his intention to land the army on Dauphine Island, at the entrance to Mobile Bay, and take possession of Fort Bowyer. ' Then he would consider how far it would be of advantage to attack the Town of Mobile. ' Contrary to the expansive accounts of later historians, this does not indicate any firm intention to renew the campaign against New Orleans. Nevertheless, the reinforcements of troops and artillery received before he quitted Lake Borgne might have tempted Lambert to make an attempt by the land route if the war had continued." p. 318

Reading Reilly's words it is apparent to me that the British (Lambert) attacked Fort Bowyer to "efface the disaster at New Orleans" and not to renew the campaign. When the news of the treaty arrived the British had not even made any "firm intention to renew the campaign." This is again based on British writer Robin Reilly having looked at the British archives. The most that can be said or more accurately guessed at is that Lambert might have decided on a second invasion of Louisiana. If he had done that it would have been a second invasion. In any case, this article is based on what happened and not on any guesses about a possible second invasion.

As for your claim that I said Ebanony was your sockpuppet you should reread what I actually said. Here it is: "As for Ebanony, I am getting a little suspicious of his account. I remember what happened on another forum - Armchair General." I merely pointed out that I was suspicious based on what happened on Armchair General. After witnessing first hand what happened there and seeing that web page you wrote and put a link to in external links section I am very distrustful of you. You would be wise to let the issue rest and not bring it up again. Dwalrus (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tirronan, I'm not saying that the British Invasion force did anything great. All I'm saying is that it *was* an invasion force, it was still planning action against the states, and it was still in US Territory. It successfully attacked a Fort, however small, and was sitting in Mobile Bay. This makes it different to Plattsburgh, where the Prevost withdrew the Northern British Army after his defeat back into Canada. Ergo...if an invasion force is still in your country, then you didn't repel the invasion. This is all I'm saying. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The RS are unanimous: the British strategy was to invade and seize New Orleans and control of the Mississippi River and they were badly defeated. No RS makes a big deal about their capture of what they considered a fort in Spanish territory. (Spain was a loser of territory in the war--and the article should mention this). Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

RJensen, well I'm sure it may not have been a "big deal" compared to Waterloo, however if you lived in Mobile at the time, saw an enemy force take the local fort, and then their fleet sailed into your harbour to attack your town, you may have been concerned. Jackson was hurriedly sending troops to Mobile to defend it. I'm not sure it matters, whether it was a "big deal" or not, the point is it was an invasion force, and was still active and had not been repulsed as some claim.

DWalrus, I wrote a web page trying to explain viewpoints on the War of 1812 at the time that had been explicitly suppressed in this article. They have since been addressed, after a number of us worked quite hard on arbitration for the new section added to this article. I thought that was a valid thing to do, and would still do it now if need be. I see no problem with people writing web pages and adding them to the external links, the question is as to whether the page is worthy of being added and relevant. Mine was not written that well, and people saw it showing one side(which was the point of it) and took it off. I don't really have a problem with that. In fact, I should go and re write it, as I have had access to material now that I didn't have before (like 19th c Hansard).

As for the Sockpuppet issue, when you say "I am getting a little suspicious of his account" the implication is to me that someone expects that it is a sockpuppet account. The other option is that you thought that the account was in fact, a cunning but highly intelligent bot, that could mimic human interest in 19th century history to the point that it appeared to be, actually a human being. If this is what you actually meant by this, I do say, I must apologise. Bots can be tricky.

In any event, I'm here to look at the article, so please feel free to drag in all sorts of side issues and accusations if thats what makes you happy but I don't really have time or the interest to argue with you.

Tirronan, I agree, I don't think Maine is a big issue, or really even relevant to this discussion, I only brought it up as DWalrus had mentioned the US taking possession of two forts on the border, and I was trying to show that both sides were holding various bits of land across their borders (also Upper Mississipi, Upper Canada near Detroit, etc). My point was that there is a difference in the Brits holding parts of Maine, just across the border with minimal Garrisons, and what I would see as an invasion/expeditionary force on campaign in your territory like the British combined Naval/Army ones that attacked Plattsburgh and New Orleans. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

On West Florida, this was seen as US territory by the US who occupied it before the war(1810), and then annexed more land during(1813). As Dwalrus says, the Spanish and the Brits saw it as Spanish Territory.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the British did not attempt to seize Mobile, so let's not evaluate events that never happened. The "BIG DEAL" is how RS historians evaluate the history, not Wikipedians--so please provide some RS citations for claims. Rjensen (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you need evidence of? That the British were in the Harbour, that they had siezed Fort Bowyer, or that they were planning to attack Mobile? Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They did not attack Mobile and did not invade the mainland. Didn't happen. Rjensen (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I said *planning* to attack Mobile. They took the Fort, secured the Harbour, and were *planning* to attack Mobile. The planned attack on Mobile:

"After their repulse at New Orleans in early 1815, the British turned again on Mobile where they captured Fort Bowyer at Mobile Point, and they were preparing to attack the city when news of the war's end arrived. In deciding to attack Mobile, Cochrane had intended to revert to the original plan: to capture the town and attack New Orleans from the rear by way of Baton Rouge. He expected to use his Indians to screen the back coun- try.Ref - 41 41. Cochrane to Lambert, February 3, 1815, PRO: WO 1/143."

British and Indian Activities in Spanish West Florida during the War of 1812 Author(s): Frank L. Owsley Jr. Source: The Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Oct., 1967), page 121

Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * plans to do this, plans to do that--generals indeed always have plans. Fact is he did not invade. We really have enough events that DID happen without including those that did NOT happen. Rjensen (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand, what do you mean they didn't invade? Hadn't the British force just taken a US fort on the Mainland, and moved their fleet into Mobile Bay? And troops landed on Isle Dauphin? How are these not the acts of an invading force? The Invasion force, after New Orleans, was not repulsed, as I have stated a number of times, it did not leave the US, it continued to campaign in Enemy territory Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Deathlibrarian, your reference to the letter from Cochrane to Lambert about his idea of attacking New Orleans over land from Mobile is misleading. As I stated before Reilly looked at this and found that Lambert had made no plans to renew the campaign at the time they received news of the treaty. Lambert as the army commander is the one who would make this decision and not Cochrane . Cochrane could recommend a place to attack but it was Lambert who had the final authority on this. The same thing happened with the British attack on Washington. Ross was the final authority on whether or not they would attack Washington. You need to find an historian who is a RS to support your personal opinion that the British invasion of Louisiana was not repulsed simply because they attacked Fort Bowyer and probably would have attacked Mobile. As for that web page you put up, I just looked at it again and it full of POV and several factual errors. Yes, I saved a copy of it. Dwalrus (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have one RS that states that the defeat of the British at New Orleans could be described as the repulsion of an invasion force? It is not my personal opinion that the British Force continued their attacks on the US after New Orleans, it is historical fact. What do you call the British Navy in your harbour, attacking your fort.... aggressive tourism? There are plenty of RS that back the fact that this happenned.

As for the web page, after being chased through the streets by angry 19th century enthusiasts, who wanted to lynch me because of the high level of POV and the "several factual errors" on my page, I was lucky to escape with my life! Phew! Making it home, I quickly deleted the web page, not only through fear of my own life, but because...of...the shame!!!!!!! The shame!!!!!!!But, alas, I could not have realised that someone would be so cunning to have saved a copy. Now you can republish it, and I will have to flee my home under cover of darkness. Those who constantly check the internet for bad history articles, saving them in case their writers choose to try to destroy them to hide their own evil doing, will always triumph! Foiled!Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! You need to relax. Just because your personal opinions are not accepted by others is not a reason to act like a child. Dwalrus (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It was my first published review, so I got a bit excited. Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

DWalrus, I came on here in good faith, to discuss what I think is innaccuracy and potential bias in this section. You, however, have proceeded to discuss activities that happenned on an unrelated forum, accused me of having a sockpuppet, and now are getting stuck into a website I did. If you would like to stick to the article at hand instead of maintaining these personal attacks, I would appreciate it. But certainly, if you continue to act like a child, I shall.

In terms of the British Army's intention to take Mobile, I have seen many RS that discuss this, and it would seem to be the standard reason given for why the Army landed on the mainland, took control of the Fort, and the Harbour, so they could then take Mobile. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any other reason why they would attack it. According to the Owsley article, this also relates to a previous plan whereby the British army, rather than attack New Orleans head on as they disastrously did, would instead take Mobile, gain control of the back country, then attack New Orleans from another direction. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been questioned if there was a planned attack on Mobile in 1815 – here are some references from British Troops in the campaign. The attack on Fort Bowyer was to enable entry to Mobile Bay, so then an attack on Mobile itself could take place. There is however, no mention of an attack on New Orleans after that in these references, but in any case this is evidence of an active British Army on campaign.

“As the attack of Mobile was professedly our object, it was clear that nothing could be done previous to the reduction of the fort. The ships accordingly dropped anchor at the month of the bay, and immediately preparations were made for the siege”

G. R. Gleig, A Narrative of the Campaigns of the Birtish Army  1821 p351  (Captain 85th foot)

“Scarcely had Fort Bowyer fallen, ere we received the joyful intelligence of the restoration of peace between the two countries. This information was received with unfeigned joy by the whole army, all further dispositions to reduce and occupy Mobile were at once abandoned.”

George Laval Chesteron, “Peace, War and Adventure, an Autobiographical Memoir of George Laval Chesteron”. Formerly of the Field train dept of the Royal Artillery.P224

“It was now determined to make an attempt on Mobile, a town lying about thirty or forty leagues to the eastward of New Orleans”…...”Until this fort was taken, no vessel of any size could enter the bay, consequently it became necessary to attack it in form”

Surtees, William. “25 Years in the Rifle Brigade” p 391 Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me be very clear about this, there were posts from a certain "Bully Defender" and 1 or 2 others that I remain very very suspicious about being sock puppetry on your behalf. You have an admin charging and proving that you have indeed done so before.  I am going to hope and pray that you are not doing so again on this page.  If for any reason it comes to my attention you have done so again, you may count on the fact that I will take this to the admins for their consideration.  I think that editors have spoken for this, that the our considered opinion is that the proposed changes would not be good for the balance of the article (if any of you have other opinions please state it as so) and that we are rejecting the proposed change.  Now enough of the endless debating on this subject please.Tirronan (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tirronian, your insults and behaviour are unprofessional and highly ideological, Neither Librarian nor I is a "sock puppet" or a "bully defender". We have transgressed on your little fifedom; you're not defending the truth, you're promoting incorrect ideas. You know the 2500 men number in fort Detroit was disputed because Col Cass and his men weren't there, and that's not just based on Hull's writings, which you so adamately abhore. None of you made any attempt to discuss it, but I asked 3 times for you to do so on the talk page, and I discussed here earlier and above. Instead I get a warning. There is no balance on this article, just your version of events that says the US never launched wars of conquest or Genocide & your tirades against Zinn & other hisotrians. Your "responsibility" and "balance" is not what you claim it to be. Ebanony (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Who cares about the details of New Orleans? The US repulsed an invasion in the north at Plattsburgh, so the sentence is accurate regardless of what happened in the south. Or are we talking about something else? john k (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Errrh...I certainly used a sock puppet, but there seems to be an assumption here that that is bad. It was a legitimate sock puppet used under Wikipedia sock puppet policy WP:SOCK#LEGIT. The admins saw that I was using a sock puppet, and locked my account, I pointed out that it was a legit use, they agreed and unlocked the account. As you know, everything is recorded on wikipedia, if you want to read it you should be able to find it. So please, if you have some evidence that Ebanony and I are the same person(!!!) please present it to the admins, but otherwise stop your false accusations. People tossing around false accusations, and name calling on here is impolite, and hardly going to help that editing of this article. I think its unfair Ebanony is labelled a "bully defender". He makes his cases and some of his points are interesting and I would like to support them, when I get the time to do a bit more research. Though it certainly has improved from a couple of years ago, this article needs balance, and viewpoints from both sides are needed to get it to that point. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

john k, the sentence says the US repulsed *Invasions* not *an invasion* Plattsburgh was certainly repulsed as the Brits scampered back to Canada with their tails between their legs, but what other invasions were? Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it says both Canada and the US repulsed invasions. Grammatically, that does not imply that both countries repulsed multiple invasions. john k (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm no grammar expert, but this sentence says they both repulsed invasions of their adversaries. I'm just going to run it past an expert and see if I'm missing something?:

"The end of the war led to a renewed sense of nationalism in the United States and Canada, who had both repulsed invasions of their adversaries." - *both repulsed invasions of their adversaries* Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they both repulsed invasions, in that they each repulsed an invasion. That is two invasions repulsed between the two of them, so they both repulsed invasions.  Considering that when this argument commenced two weeks ago you were denying that the US repulsed even a single invasion (you titled this section, "the US repulsed an invasion?") this seems like a disingenuous argument.  Would you withdraw your objection if the language was changed to "each had repulsed an invasion by its adversary"? john k (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bully defender was a hack name used back in the archives, not a reference to Ebanony, as I said, I hope that is indeed the case.Tirronan (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't following this debate as closely as I should have. You accused me of being a fake account? Shame on you and your false allegations. And you're going ahead and having Wikipediaa threaten to block my account from making any further edits is shameful. I know we don't agree on certian points, but this level of personal attack is uncalled for. TTirronan, you stooped down real low, and addressed zero of the points raised. I'm a bot? Wow. And they censor me? My advice to Librarian is to be careful here because these blokes will attempt to ban anyone who even attempts to make a change on this page. Read my talk page. They warned me in no uncertain terms. So much for collobration to improve an article. And to think I spent a week or more arguing why this article is unfair and that a sentence or 2 could improve it. What's the point?Ebanony (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ebanony, this page can be pretty damn scarey (though I've been told there is worse out there). I've gone into the wikipedia arbitration measures to get things changed, which is pretty arduous, but worth it in the end as the article reflected more viewpoints than were previously on here. As for Wikipedia threatening your account, I haven't been on this page lately, but I'm very interested in why that was done, I'm going to read up on it and see what the story it. There is an element of suppression of certain viewpoints on here, and as you can see, I've come on here to support a viewpoint, and been accused of sock puppetry, discussions about my activies on an unrelated forum, and had one of the editors trashing a web site I did all of which I thought was pretty uncalled for. Stick to your guns mate, is my advice. You definitely have some valid concerns, some of which I have brought up before. If you thinkg the Indian issue is bad now, it was way worse a couple of years ago. Are you an Aussie or are you English? Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just warned you that I saw the 3RR warning go up, I didn't complain to the admins but was trying to keep you from being blocked. Now that being said this in my last warning, anymore personal attacks and we are going to the admins.Tirronan (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to the Admins about Dwalrus personal attack on me? Thanks Tirronan, but probably not necessary at this point.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

John K, the issue of this sentence is that it is ambiguous. I initially saw the word "invasions" in this sense referring to the collective invasions, by the US and British. So the British *Invasion*(note singular) of the US collectively referred to the attacks at Plattsburgh, New Orleans, and Washington(and possibly Maine). That is why I said that was wrong to say the US had repulsed the overall Invasion, as they had only done so at Plattsburgh. The US invasion of Canada was collecively referring to the multiple incursions across the border. So with both the US and British invasion, we have invasions.

However, the sense was changed in this discussion when people started referring to multiple British invasions in terms of their argument. So then we had British *Invasions* (note plural) and US invasions (plural). The sentence is incorrect in this sense, as the British only repulsed one invasion, at Plattsburgh.

All up, the sentence as it stands is incorrect in both sense, and also ambiguous in meaning. There is a problem with your suggestion - it relates the repulse of the British invasion to the "renewed sense of nationalism", from my knowledge of the war, that should properly be linked to the repulse of the *assault* on New Orleans, not the repulse of the invasion at Plattsburgh. But I think your suggestion is a good compromise, and happy to go with it if everyone else is (and thank you for suggesting it!). Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And we danced around the subject, the opinion of the editors is no (unless there is some glaring grammatical error) to the proposed change so shall we stop discussing it?Tirronan (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Tirronan, in turn, you seemed to have danced around my query before, who is "we"? There needs to be agreement by the editors, to accept or deny a change, rather than it being decided by one person. So far, John k has suggested this change as a result of my original query, and I have agreed with it, that is two for the change. Narson has stated that the sentence doesn't take into account New Orleans, and KiwiJeff agrees with me that it needs to be rewritten. Who else thinks this sentence is fine as it is, apart from you(and Rjensen)?Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

After all this arguing the only sentence in this paragraph that truly needs changing is:"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." I would like someone to point what parts of "modern day Louisiana" the British held when they received news of the peace treaty. KiwiJeff has never commented before on the War of 1812 and I don't know if he even knows anything about it. It is not clear what Narson's position is. Dwalrus (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

DWalrus, I don't necessarily have a problem with that new sentence being changed, but it may be a good idea to discuss it in another section, as the sentence we are already dealing with has taken quite a while to be dealt with. Narson initially stated "Had not thought of this. The invasion around New Orleans wasn't repulsed, the attack on New Orleans was defeated and the invasion forces withdrew east to siege another fort. An attack, not the invasion, was repulsed" - he then clarified his statement moreso. But best for him to represent himself here. As for KiwiJeff, I too am not aware of how much he knows about the War of 1812, but I'm not sure we are aware of anything that disqualies him from making his opinion heard as an editor under any Wikipedia guidelines. I assume RJensen will side with Tirronan, but he may want to clarify his position. Dwalrus, how do you feel about JOhn K's suggested change? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know exactly what part Louisiana they supposedly held myself, however there is no way this had to go on this long.Tirronan (talk)

I stated previously that the important part of the sentence in question is the first half: "The end of the war led to a renewed sense of nationalism in the United States and Canada...." The three choices presented seem to me to be inadequate. The reason is that none of these sufficiently explain why nationalism rose after the war in the US and Canada (actually Upper Canada). Nationalism on both sides of the border rose for more reasons than just repulsing some invasions/major assaults. It would take too much space too explain this in the lead section. I would simply reduce the sentence to "The end of the war led to a renewed sense of nationalism in the United States and Canada." Dwalrus (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the sentence's main purpose is about the renewed sense of nationalism, if we want to explain the actual way it happenned correctly, it would take too much space, as DWalrus says. I'm happy with Dwalrus's suggestion, good call.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm no Napoleonic/Madisonian/late-Georgian historian here—just an humble copy-editor most of the time—but is there a word (weaselly or not) somewhere between "led" and "contributed" [to a renewed sense of nationalism] that conveys what I think is a consensus: that on both sides of the St. Lawrence, the end of the war strengthened (maybe that's the word) such a sense of nationhood, but wasn't the only thing that reinforced it? —— Shakescene (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, arguably the situation is sort of different. While in the US it may have renewed a sense of Nationalism, in Canada, it wasn't so much a renewal, as arguably the *first act* that unified the nation as a whole (any Canadians on here want to comment?). So for Canada, there wasn't a renewal, as Canada had been somewhat disunified, and it was the invasion from the US that was the *initial act* that brought the different aspects of Canada together for the first time. That withstanding, I'm still happy to support Dwalrus's suggestion, this section has gone on for long enough.Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the pov tag, as we seemed to have dealt with the subject. In the future please remove your tags when we are done.Tirronan (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall Organization of this article
I am not an editor, but rather a voracious user of Wikipedia, and I humbly ask that the editors take a look at the over-all organization of this article and, perhaps, massively rewrite it. It lacks a chronological order that helps the non-studied understand what was happening when. It seems to me (in my most amateur opinion) that this war was less about theaters and more about the time line. I was really looking forward to getting a deeper understanding of the progress of this war, but the organization of the article left me feeling like a witness to a series of anecdotes, but none the wiser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmclou (talk • contribs) 03:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Bmclou (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above user: This article is poorly organized and overly focused on the rational behind events rather than historical fact. The focus instead should be on the chronological detailing of events, thus allowing the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.

Further, the argument of those claiming it is reasonable to exclude recognized scholarly opinions because they themselves interpret bias in said opinions, particularly in the case of those who themselves are relying on singular sources, is in and of itself biased. Other well written Wikipedia entries have no problem citing differing opinions while retaining article neutrality and I see no reason why this shouldn't be the case here. Unless proven to be false, all recognized sources should be considered valid.

Encyclopedic knowledge should be well organized and inclusive, never exclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinADCarter (talk • contribs) 07:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My suggestion folks is if you don't like the article take some time to do some real work and put it up for review. You will get much more accomplished I promise you.  As for writing an history article with every possible view, you don't get an article you get an opinion listing.  It would look like a joke, there are a few histories were it is all but unavoidable, given that even the official historians lied, ie Battle of Borodino, but it doesn't make for a very readable article.  There I ended up putting a historiography that basically says "big parts of this article might be iffy".  Some of this style of article is because the theaters were not well connected at all.  The southern theater really didn't have much to do with the war on the Canadian boarders nor did the maritime commerce war have close connections with the land actions.  Jerking the reader from General Hull's defeat at Detroit, to Captain's Hull's Victory off Brazil would be rather jarring and probably not that conducive to one's understanding of the stalemate that occurred in the Northern theater let alone of the war, further more there is a timeline hive off as well.


 * Finally for those of you that like to fling bias around, where do you get off accusing me or any of he editors with bias? When did that suddenly get so O.K.?  For the record, the article goes with the mainstream historiography and nothing more.  We have taken the time to show that public opinion will vary from place to place and nation to nation, but as wars go this one was pretty well recorded, and so you don't have to ask what was Jefferson's opinion of the war, you can find it in the US National archives.  The British Parliament's meetings are also recorded as are the Admiralties orders and a remarkable body of records is available.  So much in fact that you or I could sit down with the body of it and write our own histories should we so desire.  I don't have to guess what Gen. Hull was thinking his defense of his actions is freely available (and I still think he was an incompetent) and therefore all to easy to ascertain what and how the actors on this stage were performing and why. There will always be a Jiffy Pop historian with the right credentials writing to a popular theory to a cheering audience, it is as true today as it was in the 1900's when God awful histories were created and sold to school districts by the ton lot, all in the name of God and Country, or King and Country, but it doesn't make it a good history for all that.  I don't see any of us painting over outright embarrassing defeats for either side of this war.  Dearfield dithers and get's his army defeated, Hull still surrenders in a national disgrace, Wilkerson still proves to be uninterested, untalented, and a traitor, and I don't see anyone whitewashing it.  Nor will anyone do the same by way of Plattsburg, Baltimore, or New Orleans, debacles on the British Empire side.  Just because you are behind a keyboard doesn't excuse bad behavior, it is not O.K. to accuse me or the other editors of bias and you owe us an apology. Tirronan (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly the introduction to the article is in dire need of a rewrite, it is disjointed and in no discernible chronological order. I would attempt a rewrite myself but I am no expert on the subject, just someone who was looking for information here. The phrase "Britain, which had regarded the war as a sideshow to the Napoleonic Wars raging in Europe, welcomed an era of peaceful relations and trade with the U.S." is also repeated twice in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.126.194.81 (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In that you certainly have a point, I shall attend to it this evening.Tirronan (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think an account of this war based on a timeline will be allowed as it would read roughly as follows:

United States starts war by invading another country.

Invasion is repulsed and US capital destroyed in retaliation.

US signs Treaty of Ghent in Europe agreeing to respect pre-war borders.

The reason this article is constructed in its current form is to obfuscate these facts.

~Theemporersclothes~ 15th September 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.139.98 (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes given your interesting history so far on Wikipedia, and your lack of both civility and respect, would certainly make me wish to follow your advice.Tirronan (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You don’t expect me to respond to your unprovoked and aggressive  personal attack do you Tirronan? ~Theemporersclothes~ 17th September 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.139.98 (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your outline of the war timeline is so ridiculously partisan that it does not deserve respect. The British did, whether you want to admit it or not, play a part in provoking the US. Dwalrus (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Dwalrus, your opinion of this war is so ridiculously partisan that is does not deserve respect. Do not address me further. ~copier-of-behaviour~ 19th September 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.139.98 (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey! NO Fair! I don't want to talk to you either!  Then again I can't imagine anyone that would come to think on it... why don't you just take your opinions an just go away?Tirronan (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought I remembered so I went back to archive page 9 and here sits the same guy with the same behavior. This is the real deal, a guy out of England (you would think they had better manners there wouldn't you?) that indulges in this behavior and then disappears back into whatever. Please refrain from any discussion with this fellow as his one and only joy is yanking necks on talk pages. In other words don't feed the troll and we can get the admins involved if needed. I'm sure his IP vendor would be interested as well.Tirronan (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

ugh
This article needs a lot of attention. One big problem I have with it is that it seems to be peppered with throw-away sentences like: "Canada also emerged from the war with a heightened sense of national feeling and solidarity." They seems to be thrown in to placate Canadians, for whom this war is historically significant, no doubt. Is there no better way to integrate these ideas in an article, or at least to remember that when we edit, when we add a sentence into the middle of a paragraph or section, it affects the readability of the entire piece? The lead is especially bad, and makes one not want to read the rest of the article. If I were to attempt to work on this, what are the odds of getting lynched by zealots?Vinithehat (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead is horrible,,was just recently downgraded with bad grammar and nice POV statements..Moxy (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't lie, you run risks exposing yourself to some of the fan-base around here. One of the other editors and I joked about lining the two sides up and letting them have at one another with stone clubs.  As you see in the above sections I guess we are supposed to make everyone feel good about the war not how the war was, and we have a few that assume (behind the lies and bias) the single real reason was Canada.  Regardless of the mountain's of documentation to the contrary.  R, is right though I have been reluctant to admit it, its just plain anti-Americanism that peeks through when one some of them get really upset.  Still I would love to see it rewritten.  Still I find it amazing that this silly little war that neither side really wanted to fight and just couldn't wait to quit on, still generates so much passion. User:Tirronan (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2010

Unencyclopedic link

 * Battle of Plattsburgh & War of 1812

If this were in proper "cite web" format we would soon see that it is not about the battle or the war, but is about the museum and its exhibits and events. This is, in other words, advertising for the museum. There are no articles or information here. I think it must be a wonderful museum and it must be very informative once you get there and pay the price to get in. I am sure anyone who signs up for the events will probably have a wonderful time. However, we are not about great museums and wonderful times. We want to be informed concerning the War of 1812, and in an encyclopedic manner without advertising. Thank you.Dave (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Replacing the link to James Madison University
Botteville just removed a dead link to the Madison Center (an institute to advance teaching) at James Madison University in Virginia. With a minor amount of digging, I was able to find a War of 1812 bicentennial page at the same site at http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/page19.html. I don't know if this is similar or identical to the page that was deleted. To my untrained eye, the page looks marginal (most of the content seems to be one very simple wall chart and a series of links to other places; no doubt it will expand and deepen as the bicentennial approaches and teachers become more interested in finding relevant resources): I wouldn't remove it if it was already there, but I wouldn't add it to External Links if they already had half a dozen better ones. What do others think? —— Shakescene (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Mr. Shakescene, you caught me right in the act. But on with the show. I looked at your site. I have to point out, you are not giving the web site of the material you want to include; instead you give us this other site that links to the material. The other web site is really quite unacceptable; it contains advertising all over the place. It is advertising. It plugs the society, which although I am sure is quite an excellent one is not encyclopedic information on the war. I don't know why you do that - why not give the information site directly? As for the chart, well, it has some informational value. If it were me I would say not enough to make it worth our while to include. It is more like a grade-school prop. Below level, I would say. But, if you want to put it in I would not take it out. Perhaps as you say it might be better to wait for feedback if the site is questionable in your mind. There are plenty of sites around. The trick is get the best ones for the limited space; we are not lists of links for the sake of the links. Thanks. Don't know when I will look at this again.Dave (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't have a strong position on this one way or the other, which is why I'm asking other editors. I didn't put in the original JMU link, and I haven't put in the new (bicentennial) one, either. (The page isn't really all advertising; it's just embedded into a university site with a lot of institutional links and is offering information to teachers who want information about the war.) The reason I didn't give a direct link to "Prelude to the War" is that (while it promises many things), right now it seems to be just a link to a PDF of that wall chart. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't think you are quite getting the point of a link. Even if there were no advertising in it, it is as you say a university site, not the information itself. We don't want to be offered information to teachers who want information about the war, we want the information. Pick the link, follow it to the information, then give us the information. These links are not references but they could be. In a similar category are magazine sites that offer free articles. We don't want the magazine site, we want the article. The magazine is not of interest, only the information in the article. Similarly the university and the very fact that such a university could offer this type of information are not of interest. The information is, if it is on our topic. Do you see the difference? It is the same principle as giving the Google search page instead of giving them the thing searched for. I admit there are a few cases in which you cannot give the thing searched for, you must give the search page. Those are pretty rare however and this is not one of them. I would say we seem to be agreeing that the WP public does not need the wall chart so the argument is only academic. And, the university site is an advertisement of itself, which is what I mean. It advertises the university. We don't want to do that! All we want to do is present factual information on the War of 1812 and as far as I know the university played no part at all in those events, so what is it doing here? Its like a commercial inserted into a program: "this information is brought to you by x university ...." Advertisers are very subtle, believe me. Sometimes there is a problem making the distinction but I do not see any problem here. The university site is out, it seems plain.Dave (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate link

 * American Privateers in The War Of 1812

Again, if this were in "cite web" format we would soon see that it is not about the privateers in the war. In fact it is an advertising site for materials on the war. It contains an index of sorts to readings apparently by the authors from their books on the war. It is a very large index. I'm sorry, I cannot find the one on the privateers. Now, if you click on the index items you get other sites. If you can locate the privateers site for us and give us THAT website then perhaps it would be appropriate. I cannot tell until I see it. Remember, it has to be encyclopedic and not be advertising and the site has to be specified in one of our "cite" formats; e.g., template:cite web. Thank you.Dave (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Site too general

 * War of 1812 Art Collection Niagara Falls Public Library (Ont.)

This is only the library's search site inviting us to search for materials of any sort. Too general. We are interested the the War of 1812, not in searching the library site for any material we might guess is relevant. By that theory, why not just put Google in as a link? We need specific addresses to particular material. Do your homework! Thanks.Dave (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Anachronous" Reference
Anachronous is defined on dictionary.com as chronologically misplaced,or misplaced in time. The reference to the treaty of Paris was being used to describe the author of my reference's claim that the United States did want to annex Canada. Thereby, deleting the reference(actually, the whole edit too)is merely trying to conceal that fact and keep the page's biased view predominant. Now that I've explained this ,please allow this edit to stand.Ronald Wenonah (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Ronald WenonahRonald Wenonah (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your use of George F. G. Stanley's reference to the negotiations of the 1783 Treaty of Paris is not directly related to the War of 1812. It is out of place by 30 years and is therefore anachronous. The author you are using does not make the claim that Benjamin Franklin's effort to persuade the British to relinquish Canada is evidence that the US wanted to annex Canada  in the War of 1812. Stanley wanted  to show that the US had previously shown an interest in obtaining British North American territory long before the War of 1812. The author did in fact believe that a motive for the US declaration of war was a desire to obtain Canada, but his evidence for this is the usual recitation of the comments of a number of the so-called War Hawks in the time just prior to the war and during the war.
 * What is particularly ironic is that the paragraph that contains Stanley's comments about the negotiations of the 1783 Treaty of Paris has a single endnote reference and that reference is to A. L. Burt's book The United State, Great Britain and British North America: From the Revolution to the Establishment of Peace After the War of 1812. If you look it up it is clear that Stanley took that material directly from Burt. Why is it ironic? Burt is one of the authors that is cited in this article on the War of 1812 who did not believe that the US wanted to annex Canada. So it is obvious that he, Burt, did not believe that the negotiations of the 1783 Treaty of Paris had any bearing on the War of 1812.


 * You stated, "The Napoleonic wars provided an excellent excuse, as the United States could claim that annexing Canada was merely supporting the French against the British as the French had done for the Americans in the American Revolutionary War." I am unable to find any supporting statement from your reference George F. G. Stanley. What is the page number for this claim?


 * As for your claim that "Oswald dug his heels in" I believe that is an exaggeration as Franklin and the other Americans merely suggested the complete cession of Canada and never actually pressed Oswald over it. In any case it is irrelevant with respect to the War of 1812.


 * Your reference to the negotiations on the 1783 Treaty of Paris does not belong in this article. This is an article and not a book on the War of 1812. Dwalrus (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that in 1812 the US was VERY angry with France and at one point there was a suggestion about going to war with BOTH Britain and France. Talk about bad war plans! in any case the US refused to ally itself with France in 1812-14. Rjensen (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

One interesting thing to note is that in the "United States Expansionism" section every single author cited(except Burt and Stanley)are either American or British. And since the British public never really noticed the war the overwhelming atmosphere on that page is pro-American. I expect that if I had used the treaty of Paris reference to support the United States there would not have been a single objection.In addition, the vast majority of the editors on the War of 1812 are American.It is sort of like the War of 1812:the British and Canadians vastly outnumbered.Except in this case the invasion is of bias into Wikipedia and not of the Americans into Canada.Ronald Wenonah (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Ronald WenonahRonald Wenonah (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Among scholars, the Canadians and Americans are now in very large agreement, and the issue of bias seldom appears anymore in the RS. However, at the popular level, anti-Americanism is still a factor among a certain fragment of the British Canadian population, one that continues to exult in the burning of Washington. But those folks are out of touch with Canadian scholarship, as shown by their reluctance to acknowledge the central role, and decisive defeat, of the Canadian First Nations in the war of 1812.  The British continue to ignore the war -- for example the major new survey in the New Oxford History of England, by Boyd Hilton (2006) has only one paragraph  on the war,Rjensen (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr.Wenonah, why don't you create a nice user page? As you can see, not having one is not going to protect you from being questioned. You might as well be questioned in style! The rest of you, why do you not welcome Mr. Wenonah to WP? Welcome, Mr. Wenonah. You have to persist around here to be of much use. By the way, Mr. Wenonah, I do like your writing style. Excellent style. Many of your problems come from not doing references in proper format. It might make life easier if you can do that. I suggest perusal of template:cite book, template:cite web and others of the family. WP is serious about those. There are copyright considerations. Now for the issue at hand, I'm not turning into a War of 1812 scholar, so I would appreciate it if you afficionados would get this matter resolved so we can get that tag off the section. There is no point in having these tags being left on for months and years the way they often are, is there? Mr. Wenonah, what would you consider non-biased language? Exactly what sentences trouble you? What would you accept? Can we look at this in short sentences to the point? Thanks.Dave (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How many time and by how many people have to tell you about your behaviour and insults.Moxy (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Botteville
Well, it looks as though we need a few experienced hands here. I need about 50. I think my country ought to have good articles. Class B is too low for this one. I think I will place this on my list. That means, every once in a while I make a few changes. I generally start with the links and the refs. I always explain my changes. I never delete material unless it is wrong. I insist on proper formatting. I check all refs: they better say what they are supposed to say. I don't like personal opinions. I am by trade a writer so I am interested in good English. English is my first language. I'm a New Englander. I think I'm a reasonable man and I expect things to be worked out. You won't be left without reasons for the things I do. I won't be doing too much at first, as I have a pretty good list now. I will be aiming at a shorter, better-written, comprehensible, mainstream article. If I'm still around eventually I would expect this to be a good article, the gooder the better. I'm not interested in your bickering, so don't bother me with it. Unless you have a better or equal reason to mine, I won't take no for an answer. Balance and neutrality certainly are good ideas. Quality of article is my main concern. Don't expect a lot at first, but better be ready. Don't bother to answer this as I will not reply. See you around.Dave (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No ego or attitude problem there, I see. If you won't take no for an answer unless someone offers what you consider to be better or equal reasons, then what if someone else won't take yes for an answer unless you offer what he or she considers to be better or equal reasons? But you think you're a reasonable man who expects things to be worked out.
 * Please don't treat us like wayward, bickering children. This article has been a long time in the making by a host of preceding editors, many of them quite experienced hands (and probably more than 50), both in its great detail and in trying to work out the various point-of-view and organizational problems. (My own involvement has only been as a very light copy-editor using his own journalistic/editorial experience, whose knowledge of most of the underlying matter is too superficial to create or alter the substance.) A perusal of the article history and of the talk page archives will show not only some repetitive childish, nationalistic squabbles, but a great deal of hard research and thoughtful discussion (much of it over my own head) from all sides of the various questions. It takes a great deal of self-confidence to think that a new broom is all that's needed to solve the problems (e.g. overall length) that most of us have recognized for quite a while and tried to reduce in various ways. Thanks. (By the way, when you say "my country ought to have good articles", you may not be recognizing what's been a consensus here, that this article is equally about three countries. You wouldn't say "my country ought to have good articles" about World War II.) —— Shakescene (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The too long intro tag
I read that intro carefully and you know what? I think it is well-written and hangs together well. And, there is nothing incomprehensible or unclear about it. I was having trouble seeing what could be cut out. Some intros are longer than that. In the early years of WP there were severe space limitations of article length. That changed after I got started but some editors developed a one-sentence intro style and from time to time I still get such comments. Frankly for a great many articles one sentence is just not going to do it. I think the problem here was the statement about the Canadians toward the end of the intro. That can be be handled by a reference if necessary. If you really want one just put a small "fact" template on it. No big deal, no big mess. I therefore second the tag's removal and would not take kindly to anyone reverting it. Unless you have good reasons other than "I like short intros" I would treat that as vandalism. We don't like a short intro in this case. If you disagree with something, or know it is wrong, or really want a ref on this overview, use the small template tags please. Otherwise I would expect to see the same thing whenever I get back. By the way, use of the top-article templates on an article is a serious objection to it. I wouldn't expect to see any thrown in without the discussion promised in the tag. If I do I am just taking it out. Bye now. Thanks.Dave (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the "too long intro" tag, but I wouldn't consider its return to be vandalism. That's stretching the word a little bit far. If it was repeatedly restored without discussion, then we'd get into edit wars and the 3-reversion rule, but not vandalism. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Major reference format problem
I was just about to leave this for now when I noticed a major problem, which I should point out before I go. It's no one's fault. It is just a lack of understanding of the Harvard Reference system as used on WP. The so-called "additional reading" actually contains the bibiography for a partially implemented Harvard ref system. It should be labeled bibiography and go under the notes if in fact we are going to set up refs that link to it. Looking at the notes I see some of them have Harvard refs without any corresponding item in the bibiography. No, you can't do that. These errors come from copying the notes from somewhere else without much thought. Don't be a robot, be a thinker. That means, a lot of these refs are no good as such. Someone has to do the research to find the book. I see we are going to go around and around about this. The biblio items have to be in the usual "cite x" format. I got us started by showing you how to do a "cite web." I will have to put off showing you the Harvard ref system until next session - whenever, unless you know a little more and want to undertake it yourself. Meanwhile you might just finish up the links.Dave (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you mean that the long reference should go into the "References section"  and that using a harvnb or sfn template as a short citation in the text will generate the appropriate list in the  "Notes section". Providing that a parameter "|ref=harv" is added to the long citations templates (such as cite book) the two will be linked together. -- PBS (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Major reference problem
I am sorry to relate there appears to be a major reference problem as well as a reference format problem. It appears as though things have gotten out of control. I went on a bit and looked up the very first item of the references, an article on upper Canada. Guess what - wrong reference. You can't distinguish volume and issue and both are wrong. That means, whoever did it did not work from this reference, he copied it over from elsewhere getting it wrong. That being so, how can we trust it? This initial failure to check out is probably indicative of the whole thing. What good is this, editors? You are willing to bicker viciously to get YOUR opinion in, but you are not willing to do the work to get it right? I suggest you stop work on WP immediately, take some time to think it over, and come back with the appropriate attitude. Unless this article is mainly correct, it is worthless to anyone, is it not? As no one is getting paid for it, there is no value; you are wasting your and our time. If you can't do it right, don't do it!Dave (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good points on the reference issues in two paragraphs above; I've been seeing the same problem and encourage editors to take the time to do it right. A general website isn't sufficient; the entire source can be removed and added.Parkwells (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Changes to cites
You've accused me of something I didn't do; I didn't change any cites nor their formats. In fact, several of my changes were lost because someone else was editing the article, so perhaps it went back to before the version you had corrected. Can't figure out exactly what happened, but I didn't do it.Parkwells (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry parkwell. Please accept my heartfelt apology. I also seem to be troubled by persons trying to edit when I am editing. Well after all it is a popular article and we are all trying to get it right. Probably the number of collisions is proportional to the editing population. You would think with so many editors it would start coming out right! Again I apologize. I'm going on with the show until the references at least are correctly formatted. Ciao.Dave (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Dave, I understand (and agree cite format is important.) This article reminded me I needed to copy the templates to a page where they're easier to find when I need them. Good luck with the work - we know there's an audience for careful, good work; that's the reason to work on these.Parkwells (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Links to pay sites
Generally we do not link to sites that require you to buy the book. I'm pretty sure of this policy. During my earlier years on WP I don't know how many times I had links to Amazon removed, but it was a lot. And yet, Amazon lets you look at as much of some books as does Google! These are commercial sites. The user can find his own way to them without us. The same thing applies to JSTOR. Every once in a while JSTOR gives you a free article (not very often). I don't hesitate to link to that, as the article contains no reference to JSTOR, only to the original publisher. Sometimes they give you a free first page. Mostly you have to pay for the article at a price they advertise. If you belong to an organization that belongs to JSTOR you can get the article for free. Again, the user can find his own way to that. Most people can't afford the membership or the article and it is WP policy not to present pay articles to anyone as references. Please, stop putting the link to JSTOR on the reference. Go to my home page, look in the upper right corner, tell me what you see there and what it means. I'm not a sysadmin but often sysadmins take an interest in what I do. I will in fact push this until one does decide. No pay sites, please.Dave (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * JSTOR is not a pay site--you cannot purchase access. (only libraries can join) Bottevill is wrong about Wiki policy--and he is unable to cite any such rule. It is a disservice to users and editors to erase links needed to verify information--verifiability is a very high Wikipedia priority.  JSTOR gives out the text free--the first page free to everyone and the full article free to tens of millions of students at about 6000 universities and schools worldwide.  Rjensen (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This link is NOT needed to verify the article. None of the other books and articles need any such verification. Anyone can look up the book or article on their own any time he or she wishes. You misrepresent veifiability. It is NOT the ability to see a link to the article in WP. It is the existence of the article as cited. How and where they find it is not our business. It is WP policy not to recommend any specific organization. JSTOR IS a pay site. You can buy the article. It is not available to the general public. Please stop trying to sell JSTOR on WP.Dave (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. I don;t know what you mean by my not being able to find any policy on it. I didn't even try. Since you have requested it, please see WP:BOOKSPAM. Do you think you are going to bully us into allowing you to advertise? You yourself admit "tens of millions of people" have to buy more than the first page.Dave (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is true that including a link to JSTOR may be redundant if the complete citation to the print version is provided, by the same token such convenience links are quite clearly NOT prohibited by policy. Calling the addition of such a link vandalism is profoundly mistaken. older ≠ wiser 22:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't agree with that. It is not a convenience link. There is nothing at all convenient about it. If I could see the article that would be convenient. By your line of reasoning, why are not Amazon links convenient, or any other book seller? Any commercial link is prohibited by WP. Since you have jumped in on this and now I am talking to you, first let me find out who you actually are. Are you an admin? Rank counts, you know. I'm not going to waste my time if I am being outranked. Otherwise I am not yet convinced. Then I will look at all the sites you gave below. To me a convenience is when you can actually look at the article. I cannot see how you can say in full conviction that this non-look-unless-you-pay is convenient. I will get back after I check on you.Dave (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello buddy. You've been on since 2004. That's a bit longer than me. I take it this is your legitimate opinion. So, this is a disagreement. As I understand it, you believe WP allows the editor the option of including a link to JSTOR if he/she so desires, as a "convenience." I think this is mask for inclusion of a sales site. They want you to buy JSTOR. I don't think he has the option. Let me check out the sites you have given. You don't say if you are an admin, a "Wikicop." I don't have the power to fight the fuzz, even if they ARE wrong occasionally. If I can't agree I will simply ask for more input from the editors and eventually we will get it. Since the issue is already well-publicised now there is no need to throw on a tag. Actually I don't care if it stays, I only want the matter to be set right. We can't have this article sitting around waiting to be cleaned up forever. Ciao. Let you know in a few moments.Dave (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (after ec) You might not agree with that, but it it rather irrelevant if it is not supported by policy. See WP:PAYWALL for actual policy with regards to citations. Citing the content guideline WP:BOOKSPAM in this case is nonsensical. You keep repeating that JSTOR is a commercial link, but you are obviously poorly informed. Yes, it sells access to institutions, but at an individual level there is no commerce. Why do you care who I am? Does who I am make any difference if what I'm saying is correct and based on policy? older ≠ wiser 23:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have the knack of destroying what I was going to say before I can save it. So I am not going to say what I was going to say. It makes a difference who you are because I might not agree that what you say is true and someone has to resolve insoluble problems. Admins do that. You know all that perfectly well so why do you not just drop the little hypocritical vanity? Don't give the the "poorly informed" routine either. There is too a commerce. Anything you have to belong to and pay to belong to is a commerce. I'm going to start a new topic in this discussion presenting the issue and asking for additional opinion. I regard this as a continuation of the previous unresolved debates concerning JSTOR. It seems to be the exception to the rule; no one can agree on it. I do not know if we are going to agree now either. Meanwhile the link can stay. I think that is what a court would do in the American system anyway. IU'm appeaking to the public. Pending appeal, the link stays.
 * Not sure what you mean by destroying what [you were] going to say before [you] can save it. If you mean edit conflicts, you should know it's nothing intentional. As for paying attention to who's an admin and who's not, I think it's pretty silly. Admins are able to click some buttons that other users don't have, but admins' words do not carry any additional weight in discussions by dint of their being admins. It may be that they tend to know what they're talking about because of experience, but not because of having an admin bit set in their profile. You are welcome to carry on the discussion about whether a link to JSTOR is spam wherever you please. older ≠ wiser 23:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we could go on with this interesting exchange until one of us runs out of colons. We aren't really agreeing on anything, are we? For example, I'm sorry, man, but admins have the power to threaten to block and rollback and they use it frequently. I've seen a lot of it. So you have to be either very naive or else an admin yourself. Most senior types go for the power so I would guess the latter. I'm not against admins, without them we couldn't have an encyclopedia. I don't really care to mince words however. I set up the section as I said so really apart from its human interest the conflict has moved to a different level now. We have decided what to do and that being so does not remain to decide. I'm going on to the rest of the refs and the ref set-up and then I can do something else for a while. If you care to chat further I don't mind at all but I suggest we start another section before being overwhelmed by indents. No, I still don't agree with a thing you say. I get the feeling of talking to a JSTOR salesman but there seems to be nothing else I can do about it at the moment. I could ask if you belong to JSTOR, but your answer would probaly be at the same level it has been. Let's see what the good people have to say, hey?


 * (after ec) Rjensen is correct here. While WP:ELREG discourages links to sites that require a paid subscription, that guideline applies primarily to items in the External links section. It specifically exempts citations. For some discussions on precisely this point, see here and here and here. For what policy says, see WP:PAYWALL. And for recent a discussion, see here. older ≠ wiser 22:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

While I don't have a particular viewpoint one way or another about JSTORS what I suggest is lets go get an official wiki ruling and let us all live by what is said. What we don't need is charges of vandalism if you revert/insert et all. I don't believe anyone in this discussion is that type of editor. Let us go to source and get a ruling and be done with this.Tirronan (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Recursive references

A recursive reference is a reference on a reference. It is a sort of chain of references. The first note gives you the ref. The note on the note gives you an additional ref. This is the first and only time I have seen the arrangement. It strikes me as very clever, but like many clever things, unuseful. It requires the notes be below the reference list or it does not work. The way WP has designed this autonote system is, you have one list of notes. Sometimes you might have two sets of notes, one for sources, one for extra information. In that case the sets are parallel to each other. First you get one set followed by the other. You put the reflist for each in different headings. To avoid the limitations of notes on notes, I ask you to make your second note into just an ordinary note. We often have notes right next to each other. I am going to finish implementing the harvref system someone started. To do that I must change the order of the final section and to do that I must remove the notes on notes. Please, if you want those notes, just put them in the text next to the other one with which you wanted to associate it. Eveything will then work fine. Thanks.Dave (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Senior input requested (others welcome also)

An issue has come up that has come up before on WP. You can read the discussion above. No resolution was reached before. It concerns JSTOR. As most of you know you cannot give links in references or external links to people who are selling books or articles, such as Amazon or many of the others; i.e., to commercial sites. We aren't helping anyone to sell here, or are not supposed to be. Is JSTOR such a site? In order to read most of their articles you have to join and to join you have to pay. However, everyone lives near a public library and most public libraries belong to JSTOR so working through a library site you can read JSTOR articles without payment (except taxes). Some would argue that by giving a JSTOR article in a reference or link you improve its verifiability. Therefore JSTOR should be allowed. Others would argue that verifiabilty does not exist without access to the article and if anyone has to pay to join then verifiability is not universal, only for those who can join, some of whom have to pay. There is no dispute concerning Amazon and not even much of a dispute concerning Google. For some reason there is a dispute concerning JSTOR. I mistrust that, but then I can prove nothing. What I for one think would be useful is more senior opinions than the ones I have seen. Anyone can jump in of course. We do have a case in this article where one editor wants to remove a JSTOR link and two others to keep it. The one who wants to remove it is a reviewer and one of the others won't say who he is. So what do you think, people? Is JSTOR a special case or just a clever purveyor of articles?Dave (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for input from editors with experience regarding the topic at hand, you might want to post notice at places like WT:Verifiability or WT:External links or WT:Citing sources. older ≠ wiser 00:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, with regards to inclusion of this particular link, I think it is immaterial. Since the complete citation is provided there is only marginal benefit to including the link. But so far as policy is concerned, I do not think it prohibits including links to sites such as JSTOR in references. It is rather convoluted logic to treat such sites as spam. Access to some things costs money. Simply because something costs money does not make it spam. But regardless of this particular link, what sparked my interest in this was Botteville's edit summary calling Rjenson's edit vandalism. Such inappropriate name calling is clearly prohibited by policy and you'd be well-advised to avoid such provocative behavior. older ≠ wiser 00:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * With regards to your view, you have consistently opposed and misconstrued everything I have said. JSTOR is an inaccessible site. It requires money to access it. That is quite clearly against policy. To continue to revert that link without discussion to me is vandalism, an edit war. Your current tone and continued misconstrual of everything I say is clearly an edit war. You have refused to tell me what your rank is. However, I think we have gone beyond rank. I would tell you this no matter what your rank is. I find your stance very unhelpful. I am trying to clean up an article tagged for cleanup. You are opposing the most elementary formatting steps. We do not include links to articles that cannot be accessed. I thought we had an arrangement worked out. Now you come back with this. Please resign from WP immediately. I think this discussion has reached the end of its utility. Unless you give me reason to change my mind, that will be so. You would be well-advised not to try to oppose clean-up further.Dave (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jstor does not charge any user a penny. Paid subscriptions are sold only to universities and libraries. Rjensen (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Botteville, your repeated inquiries about rank demonstrates a profound level of cluelessness about how Wikipedia works. My apologies for even trying to engage in an intelligent conversation. older ≠ wiser 01:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok folks, 1st off Rjensen isn't a vandal, 2nd if there is a ranking system here I sure don't know what it is, 3rd lets get a ruling on JSTORS and I am asking everyone to back it down now please.Tirronan (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Quaestia same case

Thanks for your de facto cooperation. For JSTOR, save yourselves the trouble, that book is not even the right one for the references given in the article. However, if we could have gotten a ruling we would have. Now the same issue has come up with Quaestia, same deal as JSTOR. I belong to Quaestia myself. You cannot link to Quaestia; it is a pay organization. Unless you log in, you don't get your page. To log in you have to join. Sorry, them's the rules. The source is a good one - it is Horsman - and since I belong I can check you on it. We just can't link to it. There is a limit to how helpful you can be. I see someone went ahead of me and did some work. Thanks. I realize now the meaning of the hidden tag in the links. You people are all secondary school or belated teenagers. Boys, in a few short years you are going out into a pretty serious world where you like as not are going to be in danger of life and limb. I suggest you start getting serious. In the town I live in colonial 18-year-old's were going out to sea sometimes as ship's officers and even vessel owners. What are you doing? On WP I have talked even to children who could hold their own with an adult. You don't fit that category. I don't have time for your boyish nonsense. I suggest you start thinking of growing up as you will be at a distinct disadvantage if you do not. Do you realize how absurd you sound? "a profound level of cluelessness." How long did it take you to think that one up, and why on earth would anyone think that was an intelligent thing to say? The key of course is that you are saying it to an adult. Are you having problems with your father? Maybe you better keep it in the family. For reply, don't bother. I do appreciate your helping to clean this article if it is you. I hope you can start finding positive and useful things to say, otherwise you aren;t going to find real life quite so amusing as you seem to think it is now. Best wishes. I only mean this for your own good.Dave (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Was just about to comment on main question but think that other problems need to be dealt with first  Please...do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Might be best to re-word above. See Etiquette for more info. Moxy (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Botteville, Do you realize how absurd you sound? -- echoes in a house of mirrors. Did someone say "clueless"? BTW, the policy on pay sites in references is WP:PAYWALL. older ≠ wiser 02:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks (always best to take the Moral high ground)...So about the main question... What i ask myself when deciding to link a book to a pay site (in references)?

1..Does the book link go directly to the page refer-to in the reference or just a general page about a book? 2...Does the book link make the reference verifiability easier to check for all users regardless of Internet experience? 3Does removing a book link from a references make it harder to verify the content in question and the context of the reference its self? 4..Does the linked book page have an option of a "Full view" thus limiting the amount of promotion of the book site that is seen? ..So what to link..According to  Template:Cite book It should only be linked to the pages in-question and not to the pay sites  ingereral ..SO if no  visible page is available it should NOT be linked. url: URL of an online location where text of the book can be found. If applicable, should point to the specific page(s) referenced. ...........WP:COMMON should be applied to everything you do... Moxy (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ..SO does it go directly to the page like this or  just a useless link like this (y useless because all the info provide on the page should be in the references)
 * ...As project we believe that anything that makes navigation of a topic be it internally or externally only benefits our readers  and lends instant  credibility to the articles its self.
 * ... i.e The traditional theory has been that these early migrants moved into the  Beringia land bridge between eastern Siberia and present-day Alaska around 40,000 – 17,000 years ago. This ref puts into context the problem and helps our readers understand ...so y would we not have it?...ISBN are great and the norm..but access to knowledge is  Wikipedia's main principle and the reason it was founded. So lets  help as much as we can.. If you find a rule/guideline/policy that prevents you from doing this Ignore it!
 * ....Add view vs full view...full view limits the amount of promotions people will see.


 * I'm here because user:Tirronan left a message on my talk page. The first thing I will declare is that I am an administrator as it is an issue that seems to concern Dave. However Dave being an administrator does bring some responsibility for overseeing editorial behaviour, it grants no special privileges regarding the content of articles, or insight into the content of articles.


 * I broadly agree with what older ≠ wiser has said and I think he is describing what is the agreed consensus on the issue. Let me give you an example of where your strict interpretation of this would take us. Google books is more restrictive outside the USA than it is inside. Your position would have us removing links to only those available to that nation with the most restrictive copyright policy on the planet. In the UK nearly all local authorities have paid for residents in their areas, who have a public library card, to have access to the Oxford Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. In the case of the latter, there is a project on Wikisource to make available the Dictionary of National Biography but some of the information in the 100 year old DNB is out of date, so people will update biography entries with a link to the ODNB. Because it is not generally available outside the UK should that like be removed? Dave the consensus is against your strict interpretation of commercial links.


 * Where I do think you have a valid point is that if the information is cited with a link that is not generally available, and you have reasonable doubts that the restricted access reliable source supports the sentence or sentences it is purported to support, then you can ask for quote to be provided from the source on the talk page. A classic example is when a few sentences have been placed in an article by one person, another editor comes along later and asks for a citation, and still later a third editor provides one without altering the original sentences one jot. It is possible that the reference is a perfect match but in such cases asking for a quote on the talk page does not seem to me to be unreasonable. Likewise if the restricted citation is to support a surprising position, asking for a quote on the talk page does not seem unreasonable to me. But editors can not demand a quote, and we must assume good faith. -- PBS (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * JSTOR again

Please, no JSTOR. The most current insertion has us referencing JSTOR as part of the reference. We are not endorsing JSTOR, as far as I know. They can look the article up wherever they please, not necessarily JSTOR. And, JSTOR definitely is a pay site. The site given states that you can purchase the article for $9.00. It is quite clear, they are selling the article for $9.00. Otherwise you cannot access the article through the link given. This is NOT a link to the article, only to the pay site. Thanks.Dave (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See the comments above about this (eg in ). I did not add it, it was already there and you do not have a consensus for its removal. Up to now AFAICT you are the only editor who has suggested on this page that JSTOR links should be removed. -- PBS (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave is misled. There are no alternatives to JSTOR for most scholarly journals. (Some journals do sell their articles and JSTOR lets you link to the publisher, but JSTOR does not sell to users.) If we want verifiability we must have JSTOR--going to a library means going to JSTOR at the library and it's best to do it thru Wiki.  At root is that dave is hostile to libraries and to things that cost money, like books and journals.  Freedom from money is nice, but in this case his advice means ignorance and non-verifiability. Rjensen (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are wrong. Please stop selling JSTOR on this site.Dave (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How many people need to tell you you are mistaken before you accept that your understanding of WP policy on the topic might be less than perfect. older ≠ wiser 14:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are wrong. Please stop selling JSTOR on this site.Dave (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC) PS I do not need a consensus of editors to implement WP policy. WP is not a democracy. The final decisions are made by admins not editors. WP is owned by Jim Wales. He choses to utilize a board to help run it. There is nothing democratic about that. It is called private ownership, but it also happens to be non-profit. Jim has made this encyclopedia into a public service. The private owner(s) have asked for contributions from the public. To make sure that is orderly, WP has implemented certain policies and procedures. Policies concerning the fundamental philosophy are already set and are not open to discussion or consensus by ordinary editors. There is a part of Wikimedia that you can join to give your opinions on procedures and policies. I belong to it, but I usually only give an opinion when asked. Your hypocrisy in denying JSTOR is a pay site and your pretenses that it is not commercial are contrary to the fundamental principles of WP, which is that this encyclopedia is a free, non-profit service to the world population. I give my time and my talents for free and so do most of all the other editors and in addition plenty of persons give their money to the support of this public service. To recommend that we buy articles from Quaestia or JSTOR on the WP dollar is an exploitation of the service. You are helping to appropriate advertising time rather than showing the public where they can obtain free information. This information is for free, do you undertand that? We do not want to pay JSTOR the $9.00 they ask for reading the article at the site YOU give. No consensus of advertisers such as you is required to remove your links. I will continue to do so until such time as the owner through his admins says to stop. I happen to believe in the same principles as he. So far my time in and my judgements have given me some editing rank. However I see you as a problem beyond my powers. I am not going to pronounce on exactly what you might be considered to be because I do not know. I will continue to insist that you are mistaken. All this is so unnecessary because as I see it you have made good contributions. At this point I trust you to complete the references in the way WP asks. So really, I don't know what else to say to you. I hope you will reconsider and go along with the WP philosophy of free public service. Thank you, I'm going to let you finish the references now without having to share the space with me, but I will continue to check and I will continue to remove your pay site links until such time as the admins care to rule. Ciao.Dave (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, please read that actual policy on the matter: WP:PAYWALL. You are in fact mistaken (both in this matter as well as in several other tangential points you make). older ≠ wiser 15:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WOW you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work here. There is no Rank as you put it  all are equal ..There is no way in hell your judgment is above any other persons.  Never seen an editor so off on our principles after being here so long. Does anyone know what we can do or show  Dave to get him to understand our core principles. So as a community what should be done  about his behaviour. Moxy (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've heard you refer to yourself as a "Senior Editor" and I admit that I am confused. I stopped talking when this seemed to be getting personal between us though that was not the intent.  I am not aware of any ranking system either.  I think that I have contributed to Wikipedia but I don't think that grants me any special rights that I am aware of.  Just for myself I've been editing here since 2006 and I don't remember having this major a conflict with anyone before.  Rather than get into a fight with everyone can't we simply get a ruling on JSTORS and get on with it?Tirronan (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Admins, you might want to consider putting the block up again on this. Just a suggestion; there obviously is an edit war going on here. I'm an autoreviewer. Thanks.Dave (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * May need a block again
 * Side Note: have a made a very simple proposal about Subscrption links ..pls see Template talk:Cite web.Moxy (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I just noticed Shearer is an administrator. Did you just change that on your site, Shearer? Anyway that changes the situation. I must consider myself outranked. Understand, I do not agree with you. I wish you would reconsider. In the future I wish you would identify yourself earlier. I asked people to do that but all I got was ridiculed. I do not think your behavior in this article is up to administrator level. You failed to identify yourself and you assisted or allowed the other editors to be disrepectful. By not being up front about your rank you encouraged this incident. Ordinarily at this point I would insist you resign. WP is not supposed to be about power struggles and you are not supposed to provoke people. Let my objection to your methods be registered here. I hope the persons who outrank you will take notice. On the positive side I notice you are now taking an interest in getting the refs fixed. I approve that, I hope you continue. As whether there are section heads or the additional notes should be two-column, well, six of one and a half-dozen of the other. There is no sense in my contributing if you are going to anull every improvement I make. We can't both do it. So, I'm taking the article off my list unless you request me to stay. If you did, I don't know what I would do, as I am not an 1812 scholar and there are obviously some of those aboard. Once the format is fixed it is going to be a matter of content. I don't see anything wrong with the writing. Some condensation might be called for. The main savings would be eliminating duplication. Well, since you are taking charge of this article and you are working on it my work here is done. I'm still a reviewer and you have had the benefit of my review, as well as some malicious fun at my expense. Let's see how it looks in 6 months. Maybe I will be delighted and say, well Shearer is a hard man, but he gets it done! I cannot say I have enjoyed working with the three of you. You knew all along that you were going to outrank me. Then you provoked me by reverting much of what I did without explanation. I notice the threats also, all this business about "be advised." It was clear you were not taking me seriously but until now I was not able to say why. There also is a serious disagreement of philosophy. I don't think yours is the WP philosophy. I would describe you as a power clique. Be that as it may you have had the benefit of whatever I could do, and unless you change, that situation is not going to change. So take charge, do what you can do. My goal of a good article is still valid. Turn it into a good article, hey? What else are we here for? To engage in edit wars? No, you know that is frowned upon. I think the the discussion is pretty well over. I'm not interested in further communication with you unless on a friendly basis and between equals. Bye now.Dave (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I have just read some additional comments. Hm. To me, you typify everything WP should not be. Is this the way you want things, Shearer? Is this the way it should be? These are questions you should consider.Dave (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that once again we just go get an official ruling on JSTORS? It would seem to be the easy way to end this and we don't need the personal commentary.Tirronan (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just can't seem to stay away from this. Maybe there is some sort of hidden spiritual connection that if you are recognized you must make some contribution. However the case may be, I was getting off this article anyway as I cannot be that useful in the content. My talents lie elsewhere. So here it is. Of course you know I am againt linking to sites that require money. All right, I do admit there is a category of sites within WP that are sort of ambiguous and between. They are not exactly commercial and not exactly free and non-profit either. My view is that they should not be legal. If we were to take a true WP-wide consensus (and not three people) I think the editors would be against it. I would be certainly. We should not flag in our efforts to seek a ruling. It might save this sort of conflict in the future. That really is about all I have further to say, except that if you don't want to get personal, don't get personal. It is a two-way street. Meanwhile there is no further need for me on this article. I appreciate learning about Mozilla. I've tried it and found the quality of display not quite as good. I will however repect features that only appear on Mozilla. It looks to me as though there are now plenty of formatists on this article. I am not stomping away, I am only saying, this is the logical end of my efforts here. I've given you all my strong opinion and also I have reviewed the article and given you my review. Take it away, fly, make it great! The public deserves it. I just admitted your main point, there is an ambiguity. If it comes down to a vote, you know where I stand. I feel better about leaving this now. You know where to reach me, but why dont you let some water flow under the bridge first? Good bye, for now anyway.Dave (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * again, it could have been just getting a ruling and being done with this. Had things not gotten personal its quite alright to have objections but get them resolved in the proper format.  JSTORS is an important issue in that many scholarly articles are not available otherwise and I am not going to live in a college library, been there done that and have the degree to prove it.  However right or wrong if WP says this is the ruling I'll live with it.Tirronan (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Dave you write "In the future I wish you would identify yourself earlier". See the history of my user page: it has not been changed since March; See my second posting to this page "I'm here because user:Tirronan left a message on my talk page. The first thing I will declare is that I am an administrator as it is an issue that seems to concern Dave. However Dave being an administrator does bring some responsibility for overseeing editorial behaviour, it grants no special privileges regarding the content of articles, or insight into the content of articles. ..."

Dave there is no need for this article to be blocked, no one has taken any action to warrant it. If they do, and their actions are seen as disruptive, then the editor concerned can be blocked.

Tirronan there is no official ruling on content that can be made, we can go through the dispute resolution process. I see little point in doing so as it will be a waste of time, but if Dave wants to initiate an RFC or post a question at reliable sources noticeboard he is of course free to do so (with the proviso that this is not a licence to go forum shopping which would be seen as disruptive). -- PBS (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I don't like wasting time but it was a thought to get some input as I thought JSTORS was pretty darn nice to use. But I can't see getting myself upset over it one way or the other.  I think Dave has decided that he is needed elsewhere for now which rather makes the whole point mute.Tirronan (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

..i see Dave has opted out of editing the page - i cant speak for all....However i dont believe anyones intent was for Dave to stop adding his good additions. But rather to simply leave in the links that he believes are unvalued. My main concern is Dave simply going to still be deleting things at will of this nature in other articles? I dont realy see a resolution here but rather Dave saying hes moving on and will continue removing this as per his views of spam and not what was stated here or Template:JSTOR, WP:PAYWALL, Template:Cite book, Template:Cite journal subscription required, etc. Moxy (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Still concern


 * I'm not interested in running anyone off. I would prefer a definative answer and move on if it isn't possible or there is in fact precedent to that JSTORS is in fact allowed then that has to answer the question.  If the patterns of behavior continue to be disruptive then unfortunately there is the rfc procedure that can be invoked as a last resort.  That whole sandbox thing really bothers/scares me it was borderline delusional.Tirronan (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont think this off topic situation is helping the page a bit,,,,but i guess it will help Wikipidia in the long run. Lest be clear as to what we are pointing him to ....So his cant say he did not see it...

1. A free online version of the full text 2. An online version of the full text, for which subscription is required 3. An abstract or information page, if no DOI or PMID record is available So...what are we to do...do we look at all his edits (is this even possible) and reinstate the links he has been deleting for years... and what about future edits of this nature now that he is fully aware of the current position on this links. Would be best if he could say he understands that an rfc procedure may occur. I do believe that all his previous deletions were done in good faith. However this cant go on. Moxy (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First we have a template just for JSTORS his main concern Template:JSTOR (i just found this).. let alone the others templates like it i know of like MathSciNet to pay sites.
 * Then we have WP:PAYWALL that says = "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries."
 * Then we have Template:Cite book that says = "URL of an online location where text of the book can be found. If applicable, should point to the specific page(s) referenced
 * Then we have Template:Cite journal that says = " url: This should point to, in descending order of preference:
 * Then we have subscription required the purpose of this is specifically to let readers know of the situation and that a subscription is required.
 * Looking at those links I would have to say that JSTOR is in fact allowed. I'm pretty darn sure of it as a matter of fact.  So much that I am going to start reverting JSTOR removals.  Obviously, I'd prefer a printed book but it occurs to me that it can be much tougher to lay hands on the book or I have to stretch my book buying budget further.  I don't have a copy of Hicky or Staggs for instance and no idea that I should have to when I have quite a few sources already.
 * 1. Going after someone retroactively is against my personal belief system. I'm a Christian and its pretty categorical that I'm not only supposed to forgive someone, its a requirement.
 * 2. That being said, further disruption by repeated removal simply can't be tolerated. While I might be a bit put off by the other behaviors if left alone I don't feel I need to be the Dave cop and follow him around to take further action.  There are a lot of folks that have some issues while on Wikipedia and I don't think playing enforcer is much like either of us unless/until pressed to do so.
 * 3. The abhorrent behavior, chosen of God, appointed savior stuff, just leaves me failing arms without a clue as to what to do. A pretty sure sign that I need to do nothing until it begins again here.
 * 4. Fairness, in all due fairness yes he probably should be told that further incidents involving him would leave me at least seriously considering an RFC procedure.

I'd like to hear what others have to say, I'd like to make sure I am not in left field on this.Tirronan (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have left him a message with the intent that he sees all this info....Post at User talk:Botteville..Moxy (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikiquette alerts seems like an appropriate tool. This whole, rather one-sided, divisive diatribe diverted considerable time and effort from the real task at hand.Silverchemist (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure this is needed as there is only a question of one person understanding current polices. But yes a big waste of time...however will only aid Wikipidia with verifiability in the long run.Moxy (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, siverchemist, you have put your finger on the problem. Why are we wasting time on this instead of doing the articlles? Is this what WP is at heart about, the chance to make war on each other? And moxy, this will only aid WP in the long run, as it will become more obvious that backing pay sites is the wrong way to go. As time goes on, remember this.Dave (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in making war or anything like it. However I do wish to see the disruptions stopped.Tirronan (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "backing pay sites is the wrong way to go"...still not sure you understand what this site are..they are academic tools that are used by every university and are were the most reliable sources can be found. In fact with out them i would have never been able to write my Doctoral thesis. Moxy (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since we are down to the reasonable discussion phase I don't mind discussing reasonably. It seems to me the communication problem is occurring because we are on different mental tracks or thought sequences. I agree with everything you just said about JSTORS. I appreciate its value in serving as a clearing-house of articles. However, look at your environment - you are not the general public, you're academia. Most people do not get a PhD and are not acquainted with academic tools. This encyclopedia is aimed at the general public, not the academic establishemnt. If you read the writings if Jim Wales you see that he had considerable dissatisfaction with academia, who were in his view hoarding the information. I know in my field, archaeology, hoarding is so bad that often the archaeologist dies unpublished losing all the priceless and non-repeatable results of excavation. Jim wanted to create a free encyclopedia and give it away to the masses, especially of the third world. One of my commentators made a remark about being too cheap to spend the $9.00 on the article. But, for most people, $9.00 for an article is more than they can afford. If you think about this, I am sure you will see that public education is quite a different thing. Massachusetts has long recognized the difference. Some poor kid cannot even buy his lunch, and he has been told to do a report on the war of 1812, and along comes a PhD and says, well, kid, look it up in JSTORS - don't be too cheap to spend the $9.00. How do we do something for the minds of the average or marginally average men? I do understand your point of view. Please excuse me for fighting on behalf of the common man. JSTORS fills a needed clearing house role, but mainly not for the average man. So you see, I am not really attacking JSTORS or your valuation of it. I am saying, we are not all geniuses, let's give the common man break. You have based your WP argument on verifiabilty. I understand. However, let's look at that peacefully for a moment. These articles were not originally published by JSTOR, which is only a clearing house. They all have journals and dates. The public can find the article at many locations (typically). Our citations however, often leave that information off and just say "in JSTOR." For the poor and ordinary, the non-academic, who can't pay for the membership or know enough to want to seek it, is that verifiable, really? This is for your consideration, not for debate.Dave (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We all agree, the disruptions should stop. I have a few suggestions. We should address the causes not the results. I think you realize that and currently are trying to fix the causes. The thing that attracted me was the bad references. The article has been around for a long time, it needs to be finished up. I see you are doing that. If the formats are correct and everything is in order the article will attract only subject-interest attention. Then the tags of dissatisfaction were another significant factor. I see you are getting them off. If you give the article loving attention it will repay you. I think threatening and formal procedures are the last thing likely to work. I know that, being an intelligent man, you will give means and methods some serious thought. What good does it do to get good contributions and take them off again for the sake of a power struggle? Frankly that is the main complaint I have heard about WP and the main reason why many skilled people I know will no longer contribute to WP. One has to give a thought to long-term strategy. "WP, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Is that really true? Not unless we make it so. Thanks for listening. I look forward to seeing this article made into a good one after you finish with it. I am happy to cede it to you in the interest of peaceful development.Dave (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know when I can get back to this, I have so much to do.Dave (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Moxy asked me to come back over here presumably to gaze at this. All right, I have gazed. I think some of your concerns are legitimate. The rest is just rude behavior.
 * Dave here

For your legitimate concerns, I think we have to focus on the administrator among you. Admins are WP officers and have the final authority unless overridden by higher admins. Committees and consultations are fine but they are only advisory. Even the elections are only advisory. We vote for the candidates and the owners may or may not follow the vote in selecting board members.

Tirronen has some concerns which to some degree reflect the concerns of others. I believe I have already said I recognize an area of ambiguity in the concept of paysites and commercialism. The sites we mentioned are in the grey area and that is why all this is occurring. Tirronen has ruled that JSTOR is to be allowed. Unless I appeal to a higher authority or unless one steps in, it is incumbent on me not to change any more. That does not bother me. Since the ruling has been made, I don't mind following it.

I presume the clearly commercial sites are not affected by this ruling. I don't believe, tirronen, you are saying the template listed above can't be used with it, the "subscription required". In contrast to what some of you are saying, I am a rule follower once the rule has been established. It hasn't been universally established but it appears in process. In the meantime, you are right, it shouldn't be deleted. So go ahead, put as many as you like in. The more the better. This will bring them to public attention and we may be able to finally get a definitive universal ruling. You admit, tirronen, you are not universal, only one admin.

So, in answer to your legitimate concerns, no, I will not delete any more anywhere on WP until this matter is finally resolved (which may be some time). Satisfied? Now, for what I may have already deleted - well, I don't remember ever seeing any JSTOR links outside of this article. Usually people don't use JSTOR. I only work on select articles anyway, not in general. You are welcome to check anything I have ever done.

I must say I am totally surprised that having created an autoreviewer, for which my work was already checked, WP would now turn around and say, OK, we are going to reverse everything and revert everything you've ever done. It seems to me these suggestions were made by persons of malicious personal intent. Frankly, moxy, I suspect you of having malicious personal intent because you do not like my criticisms. Shame on you. I will be back to this.

What I will do is, in the round of my articles if I see any places where I remember I deleted a JSTOR non-free articles I will fix that place. I don't delete references to free articles if I can help it. I've used page 1 in JSTOR myself, but the information was on that page. I have nothing against JSTOR or any of the others for that matter. I just don't think we should be endorsing subscriptions and giving them advertising when we have to ask for money ourselves. But, we've been over that.

Well I believe that covers your legitimate concerns. As for your other talk, such as being a Dave cop, that seems quite irrational to me. Why would you need to police an autoreviewer? If you did, why would WP make me an autoreviewer? As far as reverting all my stuff, well, all I can say is, you go right ahead, do that. I believe I'm a valued contributor.

Let me outline the way I procede. I look first at links and references. They have to be in "cite" format, you know that. That is where the commercial sites get an opening. Also there are copyright considerations. We can't alter or improve on their names and we don't comment on their sites. This is all standard stuff. From there I go on to content.

There's nothing different about me. I fight hard for what I believe is right. I accept what has to be in the end. I don't see how else you can get good articles. Now, I'm only consenting to be here because this seems to be a more formal hearing, so to speak. Always defend yourselves at hearings. I'm not too proud to do that and I don't think I am superior, so just get that nonsense out of your heads. As far as asking for any forgiveness is concerned, for what? For trying to obtain good articles? No, no apology is due. You should be apologizing to me for all the excellent contributions I have made.

That gets me around to the topic of rudeness. I would appreciate it if you would quit being rude. I'm trying to help here. Show some sanity; I can't be a great editor one minute and a long-term vandal the next. I feel you are getting carried away by the edit war that has consumed page after page of discussion and my advice to you is, if you want good articles on WP, don't conduct edit wars.

Now, for this article, I am actually done with it, as I said. I reviewed the content. I liked it. There is an organization problem and that involves the whole set of 1812 articles. I don't feel up to it. I hope someone does and I hope he gets a different treatmant than what you are giving me. How you behave is your own responsibility. You are responsible for your own consciences! The formatting work I saw to be done I did until you took it over. So you don't prefer my formats, you prefer some other formats. Fine. As I said, it isn't the code but the look I care about. Two people do it different ways. That's to be expected. You are using your authority to override my way. Well, as long as it looks good and may be animprovement, that is fine.

It appears as though my work is done. I don't need to cop out of anything; there is nothing further to cop out of. You've taken it over. Now, with all you people on it, why is this not a superior article by now? What is the story? Have you WP first in your minds or other more personal reasons? I think I brought these issues up before. I put the articles first myself. If that is not what WP wants then I fear I do not know what it does want and will stop trying to seriously contribute. You summoned me to this hearing. I did not despise you but came. I believe I have answered you concerns.

Kindly start being polite and repsectful to me. Resolve this issue whatever way you think best. If it is going to be in an irrational and malicious way than WP truly is not worth spending any more time on. I'll be available for more hearing-type questions if any ambiguity remains. I will not be available for more maliciousness.

I do have one more offer. I notice tirronen began in a reasonable vein. He said he would miss my contributions. Well, tirronen, put up .... I offer to attempt to cut down on the size of this article and reorganize it as a group with the other articles. I could only work on it sporadically and I would require more cooperation than what I have now. These articles certainly are challenging. I am a professional writer and I might be able to do it, but not if I have to fight you. Maybe you would prefer to do it yourself or with some with someone with whom you get along better.

Now, I have things I need to do. If it is all right with you I think I wil get about them. If you do contact me make sure it is necessary and relevant and not in the same malicious vein. Why don;t you pick someone else to contact me?Dave (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok then so you will not be deleted the links you dont have access to. You can ask for access to the pages at WikiProject Resource Exchange were they will use there subscriptions to verify the sources you cant see or do not wish to pay for. As for being respectful i believe i have been and have not called you any names or implied anything but that you simply misunderstood what a pay site and spam is.  I have  no intent to revert all your additions but was simply implying that if you have been deleting all this refs that they need to be restored.Moxy (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Might help if you spelled my user-id correctly...Tirronan, no Mr. or misspellings. Understand that rudeness is a matter of perspective and speaking for myself I've felt maligned a few times.  Getting along here is easy, I might not agree with some of the conclusions that are reached but it never gets personal.  Had the comments stayed to the content I don't honestly see why any of us will have a reason to object to good help.  Right now until it is proven otherwise it appears that JSTORS is allowed, if you can live with that ok if not there is a ton of things to do around here that don't include this page.  This was what I was attempting to relay the 1st time.  I will defend your right to edit here to my own account's banning so long as it is constructive.  Other than that so long as comments about other editors are left out why would any of us object?  On the last subject, the one that frankly scared me, no one here is appointed by God to save WP, a senior editor, ok but at best it is an empty title giving no superior rights to one editor over another.  I hope that what I read was simply a misinterpretation of a frustrated man, God knows I have been with some of this.  None of us is the sole purveyor of the way, they truth, and the light.  I can understand frustration, I have less success understanding divine right.  I confess I don't have ESP and I don't know what you were truly thinking but it flat concerns me.  If we have agreement then I would welcome you with open arms and forget/forgive all this.Tirronan (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You boys ought to slow down a little, I can hardly understand what you say. The emotional content as before gets across. You really love me and you want to be friends. I've loved you all along, even when you were rude. I don't know what you did to me here yet - it appears as though I can still add links. If it makes you feel better go ahead, block me from all JSTORS links! My main interest here is content. I felt I ought to do my share of the routine work and that is always the links and the refs. I'd much rather work on content. But, I have this list of articles and whatever they need I will do if allowed. For the rudeness, well, you don't know how rude you can be! You hurt my feelings. What, I'm not supposed to have feelings just because I edit here? I'm a very sensitive man! I am sorry if I was a bit hard on you. You aren't so bad but some of the editors on here are enemies of the English-speaking world and get very nasty. Let us put that aside. While you were deciding I was figuring what to do with my apparatus here in case you succeeded in booting me off. I resolved to write a series of short books. I think I will still do it but if you are not going to boot me I will still spend some time here. You know what would be nice, if you could arrange with JSTORS to be treated as a public library. How much would that cost I wonder? As for your names, you know, I not that good at names. Most of my miscallings are actually mistakes. Sorry. There's a ton of names on here. I am glad you did not decide to revert all my stuff. It would have been a serious loss to WP. In some areas you'd be back in the stone age. Do you think the established scholars would put up with this stuff? No way. I got the training but I'm not established, otherwise I wouldn't be here either. For this article, I see changes are being made. Maybe we just better leave it at my taking it off my list. You know, I see allowance of these subscription links as a step backward. I know you don't agree, and we've been thru this, so let's just forget it. Due to your haste I am not sure exactly what you are saying above, except for the emotions. Didn't you ever have a spat with your friends? Now, for the policy, In my haste I did not explain what I meant. I KNOW in theory the admins are supposed to be just editors and I KNOW (in theory) there is not supposed to be rank. Have you ever seen anything work according to theory? Look at this incident here. You spoke with a boldness and moved with a decisiveness that only someone assured of victory would have. As they used to say in the navy (maybe still do), RHIP (rank hath its privileges). As far as never getting emotional goes, well just look at us! Again, that is only an ideal. If I were able to achieve my ideals we would have the Biblical paradise here. No, WP editors and admins are not God and neither is anyone else. It is totally amazing how often we all forget it. Anyway boys I agree to disagree and you outrank me so you win. You don't want to be hated. I DON'T hate you. A man who still hates at my age is a very sorry case indeed. I lose my temper, sure. I am glad I lost it in a good cause. It's been settled, for now anyway. I'm very busy now. You won't see me as often any more (I have books to write) but you will see me. Now I probably will never encounter another JSTORS link. Inshallah, boys, Inshallah.Dave (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath, outcome, consequences, results
Well, I appreciate all your points of view. I notice they were being amply given long before I got here and I did not expect they would cease to be amply given. Something has to be holding this article up. I am making some progress on references and links. You have stopped reverting my reforms. Thanks. A second major difficulty with the article is the extremely lengthy political and social analyses. An attempt has been made to offload much of it per the suggestion concerning length. Unfortunately nothing gets deleted or condensed. So, the result is mutiplication. Have you noticed, we have an Aftermath, an Outcome of Conflict, Consequences, and then a different main, Results of the War of 1812? Don't you think that is a bit much for aftermath? I suppose that whoever does these things does not dare to condense or delete for fear of more of this incredibly huge discussion, much huger than in just about any other article I have worked on. Someone has to take some action here. It seems as though I can either join your gigantic discussions more than I have or work on the article. Being an experienced reviewer I chose the latter. I do apologize if I offend your various sentiments, tastes, opinions and whatever. You are not unique- there have been and are some pretty terrible articles on WP. An article gets terrible when this sort of thing happens. But there is hope! I have seen some of the worst turn into some of the best! That is what I am trying to do here. Don't think you can evade it forever by discussion. Eventually what happens is experts get appointed to straighten it out and all your huge (and mainly pointless) discussion gets archived and no one ever reads a word of it again. So, whatever you may view me to be, I assure you I am only the forerunner. Eventually the admins do get serious about articles such as this. Don't get me wrong, there is much good about it! Now, for those that are interested, let's get on with it, shall we? I want to try and condense and offload all these aftermaths without losing any points of view. So now in addition to formatting changes I will be making content changes. Ordinarily I would have gone on but I have a certain amount of time I want to spend on troubled articles and this one needs it. Again, for those who have been inclined to cooperate, thanks. For those who are not, well, you puzzle me greatly. I have no idea why you'd be doing it. I will be adding sections to here as I discover problems. Unless your comments seem critical and need an answer I will not be answering those. If you have alternative solutions I certainly would like to see those. Ciao.Dave (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave I don't have much of an issue with a rewrite and is required. I do take issue with some of your comments towards other editors and apparently addressing them as children to be chastised.  Regardless of your editorial skills I don't remember a job description calling for that.  I don't expect to see that kind of behavior again. I'll go a bit further in that it is not your job to lecture us as children either.  If you can't stop, get off the talk page.
 * I've remained mostly silent to this point as I think that many of the website links that I reviewed after you called them out flat did not belong in this article. Yes I think we don't need 3 separate articles to deal with the outcome of the war.  However, it must be stated, in this war far more than most the outcomes were far more important that the war itself.  Boiled down to its essentials, we have 3 years of offensives by both sides that failed every time. So much was changed by the war that its worthy of a good 1/3 of the article.
 * The reason you have such a meandering article has been too much pandering and frankly too much non-stop fighting about partisan issues that have gone on far too long. We've had a 3 year campaign by one fellow to get the outcome box changed and a forced mediation cabal for another section in this article that its fair to say most of us didn't want or need to see here.  We've had many a visit by POV warriors and vandals all who absolutely know better than we who bothered to research the war.
 * Mostly what has ruffled my feathers is the assumed superiority in tone, and the lecturing of us by you that was not asked for... shut up with the comments about other editors, just get on with the edits and a short comment ABOUT THE CONTENT and leave it at that. The rest of the commentary isn't required or asked for.Tirronan (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Mr. Tirronen, What is this, one-sided advice? Look back through here - do you see one polite thing that was said to me? I saw a bunch of immature juvenile statements concerning me so I concluded I was dealing with immature juveniles. If that is not so, I am at a loss to explain it. I am sorry your feathers are ruffled. I can't imagine anyone reverting something rightly formatted to something wrongly formatted, insisting on the wrong reversion and then calling the person who set it right four kinds of fool. Where were you when I was trying to set it right, standing by? Why didn't you jump in then, why now? But let us set that aside for the moment. Some of these editors such as you have some pretty good experience on here. And yet, this article is wrongly formatted and has been so for quite a long time. There is page after page of discussion and yet it still is all wrong. Why is it you experienced editors have not jumped in to fix it and insist on it staying fixed? Usually people thank me for doing the work to set it right! Obviously whatever has prompted several archives of discussion and prompted you to jump in on THEIR side is largely what is wrong with this article. No one is allowed to fix it! Would you care to explain that and explain why you are a part of it? I think I can identify mature statements and behavior when I see it. There is one editor who spoke maturely; he said since I seemed to know what I was doing concerning harvref he was going to defer to me. He did, so now the harvrefs are getting fixed. Apart from him there is a considerable deficit of the qualities required to do a good article. You people have gotten into a kind of negative downward spiral here that has to be broken before we can get the article fixed! You fill up kB after kB of this kind of pure stuff and forget all about the article. I'm only bothering to answer you at all because you seem to be an experienced editor. We need to break out of this spiral, would you not agree? I think you really do as you mentioned it. I'm sorry, standing around a politely allowing someone to revert the wrong without discussion is not my idea of how to break the cycle, wouldn't you agree? That is NOT how it works on other articles that need work and NOT how it ordinarily works on WP. That is why I ask you, what on earth are you people doing here? Practicing your efficacy at edit wars? So, I am going to personally appeal to you to cease and desist from this long, disgusting edit war, which produces nothing but bad articles, and start working to improve the articles. I wouldn't expect to see any more of my changes reverted without discussion, and none of them reverted to something that is manifestly wrong. And after this moral lecture on your part I would not expect to see any more insulting disparagements of Botteville for trying to fix things that are wrong. Whew. I know there are plenty of editors. I know this war has been going on non-stop for as you say three years. If the admins are not going to put a stop to it then it is up to us experienced editors to do so and if we don't stick together that isn't going to happen. It is prety plain I am needed here. What good is to be experienced on WP if you cannot make a difference, if you cannot stop wars and start things in the right direction once more? Why even bother? I'm sorry to inflct this lecture on YOU but it seems called for. I do hope you get over it soon. It seems to me it is time for a shock not to go around rewarding wrong editors for being wrong. None of the people who brought me up on WP rewarded ME for doing it wrong. I could either do it right or get off WP. The message was not lost so I'm passing it on to you. For my progress, well, I'm making it blow by blow. I always start around the edges and work to the center, which is what I am doing now. It has not escaped me that much of this article is well-written and in fact balanced. Maybe the edit war did achieve that, I don't know. We aren't writing a book here, so like it or not some consolidation must occur. 117 kB is too long. What I usually look for in that case is duplicate material - it has been offloaded but left here. Or, articles covering the same material, which could be placed in one article. This process helps me to identify subjects that might be spit off. That is what I am trying to do after I fix the formatting, is that all right with YOU? Do you think you can assist me in this effort? If so we might be able to fix the length and sprawing problems without taking away from the goodness of the article. It just needs some polishing up here to make it shine. Wouldn't you rather have worked on a shiny article than a tarnished one? I don;t mind listening to you as long as you listen back. This one-sided morality is really too much. Well, at some point I will be taking a break for a few weeks. I do not feel I am at the point where I can do that yet. I will let you know. Anyway thanks for your advice. Do take it, will you?Dave (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The rest of the commentary isn't required or asked for.Tirronan (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe in the do unto others rule Mr. Tirronan. If you don't like my commentray don't offer me any. I do not volunteer these things. I'm sorry there's war on. Let's you and I drop out. Thanks.Dave (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of any revert that I have done to a single change over the last week. I've noted the personal attacks and additional insults.  I'm going to ask you to refrain from more of the same.  Any more attempted slights and we can take it to the powers that be.Tirronan (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Moxy's blank line
Hello Mr. Moxy, I see you are trying to tell me something. You seem a little impatient. I just now noticed you. I took the trouble of looking up template:-. The rest of you, Mr. Moxy insists in putting one of those at the end of the "See also." You know, I rarely see one of those? It seems to have an obscure software effect. It probably did have some effect at one point. I am not sure where things stand now. Leaving it out had no effect that I could see, except for the blank line. The template write-up mentions "the ugly additional blank line." I presume you must know something I don't know, some evil bug that might become obvious in the article. Do you care to tell me what that is? This is not sarcasm, I'd like to know. I see the portals are there. Does it have to do with those? Why are you inserting "the additional ugly blank line?" Hm. I notice that the write-up recommends template:clear for cases in which the line is less desirable. May I? I am going to try it. Again, I'm quite amenable to hearing why THIS article has to have the blank line. I've already encountered a situation where one error was being condoned by introduction of another and I am wondering it that is so here. If so, would it not be better to correct the first? So, I'm putting the "clear" in but only tentatively. I look forward to your explanation.Dave (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I put the "clear" in. The blank is still there. I confess I'm stymied. Can you enlighten us on this Mr. Moxy? Why do we have to have the blank line?Dave (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, wait - I added an item and the line went away. It works after all. I still would like to know what difficulty the "-" or "clear" avoid, if you feel like it, Mr. Moxy.Dave (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ....Will not work if the section above it intrudes..So or

will allow spacing so coding will work...I take it you still use IE to edit Wikipedia should try any other browser and you will see the proper outcome. Multiple columns are generated by using CSS3. Too many references can fixed by having columns. Using will create a two-column reference list, and  will create a three-column list. Using will allow the browser to automatically choose the number of columns based on the width of the web browser. Choose a column width that's appropriate for the average width of the references on the page.


 * Mozilla Firefox and other Gecko-based browsers support multiple columns with two caveats:
 * may create widows
 * may mangle long URLs in the printable version; see Image:Wikipediareflistoverlap.gif for an example
 * Internet Explorer through version 8 does not support the column property
 * Safari through 4.03, Google Chrome and probably other WebKit based browsers have a bug that breaks links in multiple columns; the column feature has been removed for these browsers until the bug is resolved; see Template:Reflist/Safari testcase for details and information on enabling WebKit columns per editor.
 * This issue has been resolved in Safari 5 and Chrome 5. WebKit support will be returned once the usage reports indication a preponderance of adoption.

....Moxy (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot mox. You're right, with my browser I don't see any of that. If I see any more I will make sure not to remove them. You imply I can use clear if the space appears.Dave (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Off topic For fun you should try Mozilla Firefox is free and i find much more user friendly with Wikipidia and comes with a spell check that works normally on Wiki. Plus all the extra layout coding you will see...no odd gaps..Headers in the right places...Fixed image sizes and of course nice columns and auto text justifying.Moxy (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Right to the Point I got WP open under Mozilla. What a diff! All the columns come out, everything. The question now arises as to whether to work under my vanilla comcast browser or Mozilla. Probably most people are reading it with a vanilla browser. I don't want to use features they cannot read. On the other hand I seem to be missing the point of some special code. I don't want to meddle with anyone's set-up. Maybe I better work in Mozilla for a while, see how it works out. Thanks for pointing out these higher-level nuances. Dave (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

ref=harv
Dave I think with this series of edits you have bought a little confusion to the article. See Template:Citation and the following section Template:Citation. There is no need to put in a specific id on each long citation. Instead simply use "ref=harv" and the combination of last= and year= will make the ID unique. Allowing the system to us its own default values makes it less likely that mistakes will happen. I am going to change a couple in the article to demonstrate. But if you dislike the simplicity then revert the changes out. -- PBS (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This edit by user:Geometricks at 07:52 on 4 July 2010 converted some dates from 1990 to 1989 including the long citation but it missed some of them. I will change the last few now. There are further problems with the Hickey citations. For example footnote 39 says "Hickey, War of 1812 p. 183" the trouble is that there are two long citation for Hickey with the name "War of 1812 ...", so someone is going to have to go through the history of the article and find out which one the original editor who inserted the footnote intended it to be. -- PBS (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed fn 39 by using a better source--a detailed book by Gilbert on Tecumseh's role in the warRjensen (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to answer you Phil but your typing bombed out mine. Fortunately I copied it. I'll give it to you in a minute. No, no ,no on that last, Phil. Now you are beginning to see what is wrong with the refs. They only look like refs. A lot of junior editors do that, kluge something phony up that looks like a ref. The ref might not have been valid to begin with. What I do is check the book on the Internet. Going back to the original editor and contacting him about what he intended to say is going to plunge you even deeper into the tangled thicket, especially if he gets defensive. However, do it your way. I only got about 1/4 through the refs. I'm totally delighted someone else around here but me is taking an interest. By the way here is what I was going to say. With regard to any possible reversion,
 * Why should I do that? I started using using the ref=CITEREF because it seemed the only surefire way to cover all cases. There are a bunch of different ways to use "harv." harvnb with a CITEREF is only one of them. Needless to say you can find the total writeup at template:harvnb. Most of the ones I saw in articles didn't work for one reason or another so the editor just abandoned it. For myself I resolved to do it one standard way if I could. CITEREF always works. You can put anything in there, it does not have to be author and date. You might not have an author; you might not have a date. There is also a loc parameter. However, if you have a simpler way I don't object in the slightest. Change them all for all I care, if you have the inclination. Its the functional level that I care about not the code level. If it does the same thing it is golden. What was there were what I would describe as incomplete harvard references: the biblio item was not there so you couldn't tell what book it was, or there were no page numbers, or no dates, so you couldn't tell what edition it was. You might as well have had no ref at all, but it was misleading; it looked like a ref until you tried to find the book. As of this moment I have not looked at your efforts. One feature of the harv ref I especially like is the link to the biblio item. One click and you are there and then you just back arrow to get back. Partial harv refs without the auto features are next to useless. However, as I speak I am sure you have found a simpler way to create the same effect with SOME references. I only got 1/4 of the way through that incredibly long list. (However, I have seen hundreds of notes in an article). I don't know if I shall go to the trouble of switching to your method. I may do it for some of the rest not yet done. If yours does the same, why on earth would I revert it? I think you people have me confused with an edit warrior of the type you have seen far too many of in that article. No, I'm not an edit warrior. I'm turning in now. I'd like to see the refs done before I move on this time. I think content is a little too much for this session. Too many WP would-be samurai tripping over their own bootlaces. So the major content problems, how to organize and distribute all this fine English prose remain unsolved. Ciao.Dave (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Treaty and aftermath
I moved some sections on Treaty & postwar around -- grouping the treaty material together got rid of duplication and keeps events together. The section on memory gets renamed (historians are very keen on memory of events). There were no substantive changes. Rjensen (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers on Stagg
Stagg is cited in a disputed section. There are 2 references to his 1983 book, the name of which I had to get off the list of 1812 books. I presume that is the 1983 book; I can't find another. He is cited for two opinions in the article. No page numbers are given. The book is inaccessible on Google. Amazon does not display it. In my experience I should be suspicious of a manufactured reference. However, All the page numbers in this article I have checked so far have been valid. Not one imaginary reference (yet). So instead of deleting the reference or putting a tag on it I am going to assume in good faith the author of that section had page numbers but they got lost and ask you here to supply the page numbers, please. If you saw this in a regular book you would become very indignant. How are you suppose to find the place without the page number? This is no service. In fact the book editor would never let it through to begin with. So, since we are all focused on this now if someone could take the book off the shelf and look up the page numbers I would appreciate it. Thanks.Dave (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Latimer
It seems at first that two editions of Latimer's book have been cited:

this version from 10 March 2008 there is one citation and a reference in the reference section which links to this Google books entry
 * Jon Latimer, 1812: War with America, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007, pp.362-5.
 * Latimer, Jon, 1812: War with America ISBN 0-674-02584-9

The problem with the entry came with this edit by user:Bender235 for some reason the were changed to
 * Toll, Ian W., Six Frigates ISBN 139780393058475
 * Caffrey, Kate, The Twilight's Last Gleaming ISBN 0-8128-1920-9
 * Latimer, Jon, 1812: War with America ISBN 0-674-02584-9



In making this edit Bender235 changed the Latimer publisher from Harvard University Press, 2007 ISBN 0674025849, 9780674025844 to Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007 0674025849, 9780674025844 and the ISBN number was changed from the short one to the long one. BUT the citation is in fact the same edition. -- PBS (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

PCB Reference changes
Hi there PCB. Thanks for your personal communique. I appreciate the friendship. However, I still have to insist on conformance to WP methods and policies. You made a bunch of changes to the reference list. Let me take this opportunity to explain how the Harvard Reference system as it applies here works. The general purpose is to avoid having to repeat the name of the book over and over in every note. So, you put the full book citation in a reference list, except for the page numbers. Then in the text or in a note to the text you state the author name, the year and the page number(s), or you can state the chapter or section number. Our system links to the item in the reference list. You don't put the page numbers in the reference item because you might have other entries with different page numbers. I did call for page numbers. Thank you for your response. I realize ultimately you are trying to help. I am willing to work with you on this, and rjenson also who I see is taking a hand. The reference list should contain only items referenced. For other bibliography we have an additional reading and also a separate article for the annotated bibliography. The page numbers do not go in the reference item. That item might be only a chapter, in which case the numbers of the chapter can go in. I am going to start from the beginning again and fix the formats. Feel free to do it once you are sure you understand it. See template:harvnb (if you will). Meanwhile I have made a committment here and I will see it through. I will not abandon you on this. Feelings run high I know. So, I will try not to use language you may find provoking. Once you start looking into the template and the system you will get the hang of it. Never be too proud to learn. Thanks.Dave (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, PCB, I just noticed it was you who established the double annotation system. You know, I considered that but it didn't see there were enough additional notes. However now that it is there I approve. I see you can indeed do it. I may have wrongly identified you as the person moving the page numbers from the cites to the reference list. If that is so I certainly warmly apologize. It appears as though the person in question may be rjenson, who keeps inserting JSTOR. Since you do understand the system, perhaps you could help me out on this? I am going to create a special heading here on the topic.Dave (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK PCB, here it comes. Are you ready? I judge that you can handle these references and that you can and will go through and straighten them out. Therefore I am going to give you a free hand. The field is yours. I will be be back to see how things are going. If they are going well I will not have much to do on it. I am following it through as I promised. In this case that means non-interference with someone who looks like he can do it. I'm totally against micro-management. It looks as though we have found the man for the job. You will have to deal with rjensen. He's your baby now. We can't be giving pay sites for references. This is either pure juvenile stubborness or as I suspect committment to JSTOR. Well, good luck. I will see you probably in a matter of weeks. This article remains on my list. Roses are red, violets are blue, the flying fickle finger of fate strikes you!Dave (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Identification of edits
Please identify your edits. I can't tell who to address on this. Apparently there may be some misidentification. WP policy is to adequately identify your changes as yours. Thank you.Dave (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

missing information in the citations

 * Stevens, Walter B. (1921). Centennial history of Missouri (the center state) one hundred years in the union. St. Louis: S. J. Clarke. See choice of volumes on the Internet Archive


 * Theodore Roosevelt, The Naval War of 1812 Or the History of the United States Navy during the Last War with the United Kingdom to Which Is Appended an Account of the Battle of New Orleans. See choice of volumes on the Internet Archive.

At the moment both these authors and books are cited but neither includes volume number of page number. Without this information they are of little value. -- PBS (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Stevens references would appear to be in "Volume 1" for the pages around 480. Would someone like to work out the exact range? -- PBS (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.princedeneufchatel.com/ broken link now a go daddy park page selling stuffTirronan (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * the first Roosevelt reference is The Naval war of 1812, Par II (1814-1815) pp. 155-158


 * The second seems to be The Naval war of 1812, Par II (1814-1815) taken from the Summary that starts on page 180 and more specifically 184. But two points the first is that I could not find a mention of "Another frigate had been destroyed to prevent it being captured on the stocks" and using it to support "Yet—as the Royal Navy was acutely aware—the U.S. Navy had won most of the single-ship duels during the war" is questionable.
 * I do know about the frigate I believe Toll has something on it and believe it or the the actual account from the yard master to the Sec of the Navy (If I remember right) is available online as well. This happened with the burning of Washington I think it was the Brig Argus and I don't remember the frigate name.Tirronan (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What Roosevelt says about that is in the summary section and is criticising "James in his "Naval Occurrences"": "the " New York, 46, destroyed at Washington," which was not destroyed or harmed in any way, and which, moreover, was a condemned hulk; the " Boston , 42 (in reality 32), destroyed at Washington," which had been a condemned hulk for ten years, and had no guns or anything else in her, and was as much a loss to our navy as the fishing up and burning of an old wreck would have been;". It seems there is a mismatch between the cited source and Wikiepdia text. -- PBS (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Rushing down to the river, they set fire to a new Frigate, Columbia, caulked but still in the stocks and nearly ready for launch; and to the new Sloop of War Argus, which lay along side the wharf virtually ready for sea. Ian W. Toll six frigates. p.435Tirronan (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That helps find it in Roosevelt, who put it: "Ross took Washington and burned the public buildings; and the panic-struck Americans foolishly burned the Columbia, 44, and Argus, 18, which were nearly ready for service."(Part II page 47) He also lists them on Part II page 80 under the heading "Destroyed by British Armies." along with the Adams as "Destroyed to prevent them falling into enemy hands" and the much smaller Carolina that was "Destroyed by battery". The number of guns given in Roosevelt's two mentions are different Columbia 44 and 52, and Argus 18 and 22 (different sources? shrug). But as Roosevelt does not mention destruction "on the stocks" it rather suggests that although the Roosevelt book(s) are cited they are not the original source for the Wikipedia text.  -- PBS (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Adams was a wreck to my understanding and perhaps that was to what he referred, contrary to popular film, he had a high reedy voice and was a genius by any measure. I'd be suprised if the Columbia wasn't another Joshua Humphrey's 44 which often really carried 52 guns.  The Argus was most likely a Frolic class sloop and in someways they actually had a better combat record than the 44's.  "Naval Occurrences" is a bit of twisted history to my understanding but I haven't read it.Tirronan (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Theodore Roosevelt is highly critical of British biased sources, and no one who knows anything about him would say he was not an American patriot, but even his summary is less biased than the current one in this Wikipeida article for which his summary is used as a citation. -- PBS (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps it is time to rewrite it. While we are at it, I'm 1/4 Cherokee and frankly some of the Indian sections...Tirronan (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed duplication in the section on the Course of the War
There was a lot of duplication in this section and the chronological order could have been better. I rearranged the section to address these issues. I did my best to maintain the tone and content of the section, but I'm not perfect. Please check it over to ensure that I didn't introduce any errors. Thanks. Silverchemist (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new section
Old section The war was scarcely noticed then and is barely remembered in Britain because it was overshadowed by the far-larger conflict against the French Empire under Napoleon. Britain's goals of impressing seamen and blocking trade with France had been achieved and were no longer needed. The Royal Navy was the world's dominant nautical power in the early 19th century (and would remain so for another century). During the War of 1812, it had used its overwhelming strength to cripple American maritime trade and launch raids on the American coast. The United States Navy had only 14 frigates and smaller ships to crew at the start of the war, while Britain maintained 85 ships in North American waters alone. Yet—as the Royal Navy was acutely aware—the U.S. Navy had won most of the single-ship duels during the war. The causes of the losses were many, but among those were the heavier broadside of the American 44-gun frigates and the fact that the large crew on each U.S. Navy ship was hand-picked from among the approximately 55,000 unemployed merchant seamen in American harbors. The crews of the British fleet, which numbered some 140,000 men, were rounded out with impressed ordinary seamen and landsmen. In an order to his ships, Admiral John Borlase Warren ordered that less attention be paid to spit-and-polish and more to gunnery practice. It is notable that the well-trained gunnery of HMS Shannon allowed her victory over the untrained crew of the USS Chesapeake.

The war is barely remembered in Britain because it was overshadowed by the far-larger conflict against the French Empire under Napoleon. Britain's goals of impressing seamen and blocking trade with France had been achieved and were no longer needed. The Royal Navy was the world's dominant nautical power in the early 19th century (and would remain so for another century). While the land campaigns had contributed nothing, the Royal Navy had in fact destroyed American commerce, bottled up the U.S. Navy in port, and suppressed (though never eliminated) privateering. Though both newspaper articles and official letters were expressing dismay at the assumed unchecked growth of the United States of America, in fact the countries quickly resumed trade and over time saw a growing friendship that has remained over the better part of 200 years.

1. The Naval part of the war was already explained, why do it again? 2. This should be a result on the country not a recap of the war again. I await your comments. Tirronan (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
I like the reorganization and new headings in the article. There are couple of inconsistencies, which should be addressed. The lede says that the war was fought in four theatres: the Atlantic Ocean, the US east coast, at and around the US-Canada border and the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. The section titled "Theatres of War" says there were three theatres (presumably the Atlantic Ocean and the US east coast were combined into one) and then goes on to add a fourth theatre not previously mentioned, Section 4.3 Creek War. This article says "Most historians consider the Creek War as part of the War of 1812, because the British supported them." The article on the Creek War says "It is sometimes considered to be part of the War of 1812." The subsection ===Historians' views=== seems to say that the majority of historians "often conclude that all three nations were the "real winners" of the War of 1812." yet a few sentences later it is stated that "A second minority view is that both the US and Britain won the war". So, is it the majority opinion or a minority view that everyone except the Natives won the war? Silverchemist (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * good point. I regrouped all the Southern battles together. Since the two armies at New Orleans did not know a treaty had been signed and were following war plans made by their governments on the assumption the war would be still going on, it makes more sense to move the section here. On the Natives, it's unanimous that the Indians/First Nations were losers. Rjensen (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

inconsistency in listing historians' views

 * As for your last noted inconsistency, although I had written what was at the time was considered the final edit, I realized a day later that my final re-working included that inconsistency, and protested unsuccessfully that it needed to be resolved. But the principal contestants were by that point so punch-drunk and battle-weary, and so glad to have something that looked like a mutually-agreeable resolution, that they demurred. See the series of sections beginning with Talk:War of 1812/Archive 14 and with Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-11/War of 1812. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Reading the archived discussions for this article is a huge undertaking, so making edits to the article is like treading a minefield. I appreciate how passionate editors working on this article can get. The problem is that it seems that sometimes the article is being written for the benefit of the editors, not the readers. In striving for nuanced perfection, we (editors) have created an article that at times could be unnecessarily confusing for its intended audience. Silverchemist (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

inconsistency in naming the belligerents

 * I have noticed a few other inconsistencies, at least one in this article and others in the whole suite of articles on the War of 1812. Firstly, the size of the regular British Army at the beginning of the war. The infobox says 5200, but the section on the "Course of the war" says 6034. To confuse matters even more, French Wikipedia [] infobox says 48163 (which doesn't correspond to any numbers in the English article).
 * Regarding the belligerents given in articles on battles of the War of 1812, one belligerent is always United States while the others vary widely with no obvious reason in some cases.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Battle !! Belligerent
 * Battle of Baltimore || United Kingdom
 * Battle of Buffalo || Great Britain
 * Battle of Beaver Dams || United Kingdom, Native Americans
 * Battle of the Chateauguay || Lower Canada, Mohawk Nation
 * Siege of Fort Mackinac || Britain, Native Americans
 * Battle of York || Great Britain
 * Battle of Malcolm's Mills || Canadian Militia
 * Skirmish at Farnham Church || British Empire
 * Raid on Elizabethtown || United Kingdom
 * Battle of Craney Island || Britain
 * }
 * Silverchemist (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Battle of Malcolm's Mills || Canadian Militia
 * Skirmish at Farnham Church || British Empire
 * Raid on Elizabethtown || United Kingdom
 * Battle of Craney Island || Britain
 * }
 * Silverchemist (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Battle of Craney Island || Britain
 * }
 * Silverchemist (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Silverchemist (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Various editors have opinions about this too, I was using UK and that seems to cause issue. Might I suggest British Empire?  As for the various 1st Nation's involved it might be better to call out the ones actually involved and on which side.  The Cherokee were a large nation and always fought on the American side of the fence.  The Sauk, and Mohawk, were on the British empire side and found in some battles.Tirronan (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

thumb
 * I think we can put aside "Great Britain". On Wikipedia we usually use that name to describe entity created by the union of England and Scotland in 1707 and United Kingdom for the union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801. We are not the only ones, see for example Britannica Acts of Union 1707 &1801.


 * I'm not sure that in 1812, the concept of the British Empire as an entity existed. There was the United Kingdom and colonies, but unlike at the end of the 19th century when the Empire sent troops to the Boer War, can the British participants in the war be accurately described as Empire troops? Were the troops fighting for Empire or for the constituent parts? What do British reliable sources call British [Empire] troops? -- PBS (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the RS a) almost never use "United Kingdom" -- it's Great Britain or Britain. They call the country UK only after 1945. b) yes the RS use "Empire" all the time--here are some recent major books: # Judd, Denis. Empire: The British Imperial Experience, From 1765 to the Present (1996). # Lloyd; T. O. The British Empire, 1558-1995 Oxford University Press, 1996; # Louis, William. Roger (general editor), The Oxford History of the British Empire, 5 vols. (1998–99). vol 3 The Nineteenth Century  (1998). Rjensen (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. It is not that the British Empire existed and that people write about the British Empire, but for example in an article on a battle are the troops are described as imperial troops, and if when writing about the decisions of the government in London they refer to the Imperial Government/British Empire's government. -- PBS (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from the passage of time and styles (and Irishmen's justifiable sensitivities), I think there might be several distinctions in play. For example, (1) Just using "imperial" in this era can carry the unintentional implication that you're referring to French Imperial forces, since neither the U.S., Britain, Ireland nor Canada had a head of state commonly called an Emperor, while France did, (2) by contrast, "imperial" was often later used in distinction to "home" or "the Mother Country", e.g. "the British troops were beleaguered until the timely arrival of imperial reinforcements", (3) In the beginning of this article (e.g. in the information box and lead sentences), "British Empire" is used as handy term to encompass both British North America and the British Isles. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My reading on this war leads me to believe that the overwhelming preference of historians is Britain with the occasional use of Great Britain. The two most recent British writers on this war are Jeremy Black and Jon Latimer. Black in The War if 1812 in the Age of Napoleon uses Britain almost exclusively in the text and in the index uses Britain with no reference to Great Britain. Latimer in 1812: War with America does use Great Britain in his index but his preferred choice in the text is Britain. The prominent Canadian historian Donald E. Graves does refer to Great Britain in the indexes of his books Where Right and Glory Lead! and Field of Glory, but his preferred choice in the text of these works is clearly Britain. The US historian Donald R. Hickey in his works The War of 1812 and Don't Give Up The Ship uses Britain overwhelmingly but does use Great Britain occasionally. Also, the common references are to the British Government and British troops.


 * Historians make a clear distinction between British armed forces and Canadian militia. Referring to Canadian militia at the Battle of Malcolm's Mill is not being inconsistent. As to the inconsistency of the number of British soldiers that problem also applies to the US figures. The numbers of soldiers given for the start of the war for both Britain and the US in the info box are questionable. Dwalrus (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * On the term Imperial--it was used by Brits. The OED quotes the great authority on English Law Blackstone: 1765 BLACKSTONE Comm. I. vii. 242 The meaning...of the legislature, when it uses these terms of empire and imperial, and applies them to the realm and crown of England, is only to assert that our king is equally sovereign and independent within these his dominions, as any emperor is in his empire. Edmund Burke in discussing the American colonies in 1774: 1774 BURKE  Amer. Tax. Wks. II. 436 The parliament of Great Britain sits at the head of her extensive empire in two capacities: one as the local legislature of this island..The other, and..nobler capacity, is what I call her imperial character; in which..she superintends all the several inferiour legislatures. Rjensen (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking a source from before 1801 is not of much use. For a start it is debatable if the realm of England existed in 1765. But leaving that aside Blackstone is only stating the the King of English held the same degree of sovereignty as as an emperor or in famous words of Richard the Lionhart  "I am born of a rank which recognizes no superior but God". Henry VIII imperium maius was confirmed in the Act in Restraint of Appeals (but that does not mean that Kings of England were ever described as emperors). Burk was arguing a political position that was rejected by George III all this is in the article British Emperor -- PBS (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from those battles fought solely by Natives, would it be reasonable to give the belligerents as "United States" and "British Empire" (the article on British Empire doesn't leave much doubt about the empire's existence at the time of the war)? If a particular group was particularly notable (as at the Battle of Malcolm's Mills), then the listing could look like 🇺🇸 United States 🇬🇧 British Empire: Canadian Militia (this way it doesn't look like the Canadian Militia alone was fighting the whole United States). The same approach could be taken where units of the American forces played a major role. As for "Britain", "British Empire", how about when the term is first used and wikilinked in a section we used British Empire and either Britain or British Empire when not wikilinked. This would be in keeping with what seems to be prevalent use by historians and keep Wikipedia self-consistent. I don't want to get into a protracted discussion, just in finding a practical solution. Silverchemist (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about this war (so I don't know what the sources usually use) but in the Napoleonic Wars British forces are not usually described as British Empire forces because the British Army was not part of an imperial force. I am not sure if Canadian militia involvement changes that ... -- but we should rely on the sources and use the names that they use. -- PBS (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * One other point did Canada exist as an entity? If one says Canadian Militia is that an accurate description of militia from all of the colonies that existed at that time that would form part of the sovereign country of Canada? -- PBS (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * . "Canada"and "Canadian" are different words. "Canadian militia" works for the RS, no matter what the name of the country. Thus Encyclopedia of the War of 1812 (Heidler 2004) Page 352 says: "British officers such as Isaac Brock worked especially hard to organize Canadian militia units, with mixed results." Rjensen (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes documents from the time use Canadian as the term...at the time the terriroty was called The Canadas • (Lower Canada and Upper Canada)  - (1779 to 1841),,-->documents from the time--->The Spirit of the public journals: Being an impartial selection ..., Volume 17 By Stephen Jones 1815 Cobbett's Political Register VOL.XXI From January to June,1812 By Cobbett's....Moxy (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not think we should use "Imperial" to refer to colonial militias; this is a later usage than what would have been used in 1812. In the eighteenth century "imperial troops" would have meant pretty much exclusively "troops responding to the command of the Holy Roman Emperor" - whether the Habsburg armies proper or troops levied by the Imperial Diet to support the Emperor in war. Obviously the Holy Roman Empire had ceased to exist by 1812, but I still think it would be very unusual to use "Imperial" to refer to troops from non-British parts of the British Empire. I'm unimpressed with Rjensen's examples, which neither pertain to the particular usage in question here nor refer to the "British Empire" as a proper noun - "empire" is used by Blackstone and Burke as a descriptive word, not as a proper name. "Colonial" would, I think, be the appropriate adjective for troops from British North America. I tend to think "Britain" is the most appropriate term for the United Kingdom itself, and that "Canadian militia" works well for, well, Canadian militias. Was there extensive involvement of militia units from other, not-then-Canadian, British colonies like Nova Scotia in the war? john k (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The militia units were all from Upper Canada and Lower Canada (as were some fencible units). Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick contributed fencible units, which were local units of the regular British army (see Canadian units of the War of 1812). All the non-Native combatants (excluding, of course, the Americans!) were from parts of the British Empire...either the mother country or its colonies. I had hoped to avoid a long debate on this topic, so again let me propose that apart from those battles fought solely by Natives, would it be reasonable to give the belligerents as "United States" and "British Empire" . If a particular group was particularly notable (as at the Battle of Malcolm's Mills), then the listing could look like 🇺🇸 United States 🇬🇧 British Empire: Canadian Militia (this way it doesn't look like the Canadian Militia alone was fighting the whole United States). The same approach could be taken where units of the American forces played a major role. As for "Britain", "British Empire", how about when the term is first used and wikilinked in a section we used British Empire and either Britain or British Empire when not wikilinked and "British" as the adjective. This would be in keeping with what seems to be prevalent use by historians and keep Wikipedia self-consistent. I don't think we will ever get the perfect resolution to this and some issues with this article: the subject is too complex and there are too many opinions. Rather than debate endlessly, can we agree that it is "better to do something imperfectly than to do nothing flawlessly" ? Silverchemist (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the trend among Canadian historians in recent years is to bring the First Nations into Canadian history. They played a major role here in the causes of the war, and in the fighting in the area around Detroit (1812-13) and Alabama (1814). So if the Canadian militia gets a flag or icon I think the Indians also should have something.Rjensen (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no argument from me on that point. It isn't just Canadian historians who agree on that. the difficulty may be in finding an icon or flag to represent the First Nations (primarily a Canadian term)/Tribes. Perhaps an eagle staff, often carried by warriors/veterans during the Grand Entry at a pow wow? We would need to find a free image. Silverchemist (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)