Talk:War of 1812/Archive 16

American Outlook
Today, American popular memory includes the British capture and destruction of the U.S. Presidential Mansion in August 1814, which necessitated its extensive renovation. From this event has arisen the tradition that the building's new white paint inspired a popular new nickname, the White House. However, the tale appears apocryphal; the name "White House" is first attested in 1811. Another memory is the successful American defence of Fort McHenry in September 1814, which inspired the lyrics of the U.S. national anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner. In John Updike's Memories of the Ford Administration, the central character, historian Alfred Clayton, thinks of the US as having "bitten the bitter apple of defeat before - e.g. in 1812-1814, up to Jackson's delusory footnote of a victory at New Orleans."

Although we all learned about Dolly Madison and the burning of the White House, and the Star Spangled Banner, there is nothing here about how the US views on its Military and above all its Navy were changed forever. There is a reason that the War with Mexico went so well after this war. The US went and got itself proper military academies turning out infantry officers as well as engineering and artillery that it already had. The Congress no longer tried to put its entire Navy out of commision between wars. Why is a fictional characters musings on a defeat here at all?Tirronan (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * most historians credit the Army reforms to John C. Calhoun, who became Secty of War in 1829 or so rather than the war itself.Rjensen (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alexander Hamilton tried to start real professional formations and it was greeted with a dread, suspicion, and some outright hostility. Calhoun had more success because of this war.  The US Navy started expanding right away as it was seen as a more democratic force.Tirronan (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates
The Wikipedia policy on citations (Citing sources) begins:"Citation templates are used to format citations in a consistent way. The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. Where no agreement can be reached, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

I personally dislike citation templates for a number of reasons (the main one being that they either involve endless extra lines, or else, when run together, make it hard to find individual elements and confuse even experienced editors, let alone newcomers already overwhelmed with Wikipedia's other quirks and arcana). However, that's just my opinion: I fully recognize that other editors see good reason to use them.

If you look at the source for an article version just before Botteville's/Dave's first recent revision, for example 18 September 2010, and run a "Find" (control F) for {{xt|{cite}}, you'll find only about thirty, out of 127 separate footnotes. So "cite web" or "cite book" was clearly not the article's format then.

I'm not interested in starting or re-starting an endless war (just in time for the War of 1812's bicentennial), but I would be interested to know what other veteran editors of this article think. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * a agree with Shakescene: 1) I dislike the templates 2) the editors never reached any agreement to change to templates, which means templates violate the quuted rule. Rjensen (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Over the last year I have started to use citation templates, particularly on large pages like this one. It took me some time to learn the syntax -- and that was time consuming, but I think worth the effort for the advantages they bring. I don't place the the fields in the default order, instead I usually place them in order that they appear. IE last name, first names, year of publication... . I don't like their use when they go over multiple lines, particularly in the text of the article. as it can be very difficult to see the wood for the trees. I also don't think that adding lots of blank fields to the template is desirable for the same reason.


 * The real advantages of adding them is the ease of use of short citations. Citation templates ties short and long citations together and the uniformed appearance in the formatting of short and long citations allow for easy spotting of missing information such as year, publisher and page numbers. One other big advantage is that sfn, (other than when in edit mode the template does not interrupt the format of the body of the text much) is that it does away with the need to create named reference tags -- it handles duplicates automatically -- and that does away with a lot of the manual maintenance to named reference tags that inevitably occurs over time with changes to the article. -- PBS (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that you will find that Dave has moved on to other pastures so lets just leave that subject where it lies. Be that as it may the consensus was that if an editor insists on ugly behavior and disruptive edits we can and will take action appropriate to remedy the situation. In other words the war is over.Tirronan (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oop, I just added two references with citation templates, unaware that there was an issue about it recently (never followed this page before--just saw the "citation needed"). Feel free to change them to whatever style is desired. Pfly (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not a big deal with me, despite my personal preferences. No consensus has been established, and what concerned me was an editor who'd templated dozens of existing references (with possible effects on presenting the information that each citation's creator thought important), not the style in which new citations are made. I never use templates for citations myself, but since many of the citations are now tied into an elaborate system, it might even be better to follow the new pattern. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * One advantage of the exercise of reformatting all the citations, is that it has thrown up about 2 dozen inconsistencies that need fixing: missing page numbers, publishers, years and ISBNs. Some like ISBN are nice to have, without the publisher and year one can not be sure of the edition and that can cause problems with verification, but missing page numbers makes the citations next to useless if it is a book that is being cited. It would be a useful exercise if these missing factoids could be found and added to the article. -- PBS (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Biased US slant
This entire article has a biased US slant. God I hope anyone interested in this war will read a balanced bit of historical literature rather than this nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.0.223 (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

War of 1812 Bicentennial
Please note the new War of 1812 Bicentennial article. Please update and change as needed. Thanks! Bill Whittaker (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning it, I wouldn't have found it otherwise. And I'm curious to see how the two countries commemorate the bicentennial. I assumed there would not be much in the US, except perhaps in places like where I grew up, near Buffalo, where the towns all date to about 1812, and evidence of the war lingers on in street names and such. What strikes me upon first looking at that page is the statement about the "U.S. Government has no formal organization or committee to coordinate commemorations of the War of 1812; the War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission Act failed to pass congress in 2006", but nothing about whether the Canadian federal government has or has no set anything up. Isn't the War of 1812 more important in Canadian history? I'd be surprised if there wasn't a federal effort about it; and if there isn't, I'd be curious about why. Pfly (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Broken reference tag
Under "Long term consequences" / "United States" looks like a reference tag is broken due to a typo "rerf" instead of "ref." Maybe someone with permission to edit this page can fix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhavlak (talk • contribs) 22:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

✅ Done -- PBS (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen these edit you introduced two source: Please could you provide the information? -- PBS (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cogliano (2008) p=247 -- but AFAICT there is no long citation for this name so we need a title and a publisher (and an ISBN) for this citation
 * George Dangerfield, The Era of Good Feelings (1952) -- we need a publisher and a page number for this citation
 * ok, done. Rjensen (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

this is wikepedia not ameripedia/canadipedia
'''This is an encyclopedia not an individual perspective of this war from either side. This is supposed to be impartial not a posting war. If this is what wikipedia has come to, then we need a new site for getting info. I keep trying to tell my teachers wikepedia is reliable, and this is hampering my efforts. We need to realize that every ones perspective has a place, but this site is for facts.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalking (talk • contribs) 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Questionable Edits
Ok enough is enough, one more attempt by this gentleman with deliberate misrepresentations of sources and I fully intend on taking him to the admins for action. God knows I have patience for the guy or gal that really believes in their pov but I will not stand for lying and cheating to slant an article.Tirronan (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I redid the disputed edit. It should be less offensive to the multiple Americaneditors who have constantly reverted me. Take me to the admins if you want but before you do so consider this: with the vastly predominant pro-American atmosphere on Wikipedia no wonder they didn't want me to refer to George Stanley-he designed the Canadian flag.Ronald Wenonah (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Ronald WenonahRonald Wenonah (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't care if you were doing this from any side, when you say that a source says this, it had better say that. Lying to me and the other editors to get a bogus edit in is not acceptable.  I know that D has caught you at it no less than 3 times.Tirronan (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted again, for the same reasons that you were reverted last time. Wikipedia is not the place to right historical wrongs.Tirronan (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've talked to another editor here that supports an rfc about this fellow. Interested parties please signal on my talk page for further action.Tirronan (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to simply post his behavior on the admin notice board and leave it at that. The admins can decide what to do about this fellow.Tirronan (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was informed that using someone's user-id in as a header was incorrect, so here we are.Tirronan (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

the war of 1812 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.203.2 (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In the opening paragraph, there is vandalism at the end of the sentence: "The Americans declared war in 1812 for a number of reasons, including trade restrictions, impressment of American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, British support of American Indian tribes against American expansion, and the humiliation of American honor". Please correct this non-sourced and weird statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navaltalks (talk • contribs) 17:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

':Agreed - just what is this humiliation of American Honor''? - facts are that the US authorities saw an opportunity, whilst Britain was occupied with a global war with France, to remove the British from the N. American continent, and allow unrestricted settlement west across Native American lands. I am grateful to see that 'American victory' has been removed.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.60.151 (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

¶ How is this going to be resolved? Will we spend more months in an endless edit war? What, exactly, is the consensus that needs to be reached? Will this reflect the dispute (of about half the duration of the real War of 1812) between DeathLibrarian and others? It's very discouraging to see from the article's edit history that this resumed in earnest just after Botteville's departure. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that the admins are now involved and the edits that Ronald wishes to insert is both bad grammatically makes assumptions about the emotional state of the entirety of the United States. Further the man has deliberately lied multiple times to make his points and try to get his view inserted.  When this didn't work, Dwalrus caught him at it several times, he went to edit warring.  Reading his contributions he is just another POV warrior pounding out the one sided view that he demands.  He has done this with other articles and not just this one.  It comes with the article, we used to have pro US POV warriors visiting at the same time, which got amusing.  When I brought him up I was told to just revert as needed.  I agree that this article has been under pretty serious assault for a very long time and yes I get weary of it.Tirronan (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -- PBS (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Canada listed as a Belligerent?
all this nationalism on wikipedia is getting a bit ridiculous now... i mean seriously, how can Canada be listed as a belligerent? it was 1812, almost 200 years ago ffs. —Preceding Voucherman (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * whether or not canada should be on there, i dont know. But the United Kingdom should not be listed below the British Empire and then level with Canada, as though Britain was on equal footing with it's own colony. It should just list the British Empire and leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.173.10 (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly why is Canada listed as a belligerent? It was a colony and the US wasn't making war on the colony of Canada but on the British Empire of which it was a part of.  I believe that historians trace the beginnings of the Formation of the Nation of Canada back to this war, part of the reason that the outcomes were more important than the war, but the war was between the US and UK and not individual colonies, Bermuda would have to be listed then.Tirronan (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The U.K. and U.S. were the only belligerents and the war ended by treaty between those two countries. The British Empire was no more than the U.K. and its subordinate territories, while there was no political entity called "Canada" and the colonies that would become Canada had no power to declare war.  TFD (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 65.69.204.131, 2 December 2010
The date 2010 in the first line under TRADE TENSIONS needs to be changed to 1810

65.69.204.131 (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I undid the vandalism and reverted to the correct date of 1807.Dwalrus (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Updike quote
I have restored a quotation from Memories of the Ford Administration by John Updike, one of the major American writers, because it gives a different perspective on the memory of the War of 1812: that it was a defeat for the United States, perhaps one that cannot be easily be acknowledged. The fact that it occurs in a novel (one by the way saturated in the contemplation of American historical memory and full of genuine, almost undiluted American history) does not alter the fact that offers a valuable view. Memory and influence leave their marks in all kinds of places. Sometimes the novel is the place where uncomfortable viewpoints can be addressed obliquely, when it would be difficult to approach them directly. Which American author, apart from Gore Vidal, is more worth quoting on 'mainstream' American history than Updike? The thought wouldn't be in the book unless Updike thought it was a serious view that could be taken. Jagdfeld (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * John Updike is a major American writer of fiction and is not an historian. He never published any nonfiction work on the War of 1812. The fact that some view this war as a US defeat is already included in the article. If you take the time to read the whole article you will see that. Updike does not meet the Wikipedia requirement for RS. This edit should be removed. Dwalrus (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Dwalrus. TFD (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Dwalrus, in fact I have removed it no less than twice before, lots of folks including myself think it was a American defeat, myself included, and this is noted. We don't need fictional characters to say that.  You need to achieve a better understanding on how Wikipedia articles are put together and you will have better luck with keeping articles off the speedy delete list.  Please read the policy on reliable sources.Tirronan (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is just as worthy of quotation as The Red Badge of Courage or Gone with the Wind on the "memory" of the Civil War. Of course it is not quoted as a historical source (how could three educated people think it was?) but as an index of memory, which is what the section is about. The distinction seems too subtle for some minds. Jagdfeld (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The first two books have contributed to the "historical memory" of the Civil War in a significant way (as did the films Birth of a Nation, and more recently, Gettysburg and Glory). The contribution of Memoirs of the Ford Administration to anyone's "historical memory" of the War of 1812 (even its reflection of such memory) is imperceptible to me. "The Star-Spangled Banner", on the other hand, would definitely count as one of the few specific things an ordinary American could  readily associate with the War of 1812. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the Civil War is a war people like to remember. It was America's own war - for good and/or bad. Abe Lincoln rather clumsily sent 600,000 Americans, men and boys, to their deaths to protect Northern interests or to free the slaves, whichever you think is more likely as the overriding objective, so it has pathos on its side. 1812 is more embarrassing. One has to seek out reflections upon it in books by arguably America's greatest post-war writer. We could find plenty of reflections upon WW1 and WW11 and Vietnam, even Korea and the Gulf War. The Spanish-American War, the Mexican War, 1812 seem less popular. Paucity of reflection or memory is no reason for removing what little there is. Updike's book should be there with a note about its apparent uniqueness - unless anyone can find other cultural items worth citing. Jagdfeld (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I really do not see how this would add to the article, in fact it was rather jarring and seemed misplaced when I read it. There are lots of ways to contribute to the article, but this isn't one of them.  The one thing that it seems to bring out is that Updike didn't think much of the battle and that is just an opinion.  Regardless of what side you like/dislike a lot of good men lost their lives in that battle and three excellent Generals, I find it very disrespectful to both sides.Tirronan (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Indigenous raids
I've rewritten this section, as I stated in the edit summary I hope it gives a more balance view. If there is much disagreement lets revert and talk about what should be changed.Tirronan (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No need for reversion on philosophical grounds but I see a couple of quasi-mechanical fixes that might help. The Northwest Ordinance wikilink fits awkwardly after the full title of the bill: I'm not sure what you intended. The first sentence of the following section, War of 1812, should probably be rewritten to fit better; right now it just parrots this section. A date should be given for the Northwest Indian War and perhaps also for the Battle of Fallen Timbers. More generally, I think that white attitudes and actions from 1763 to 1776 need a little clarification; e.g. the Proclamation Line, white American trespassing over it, and the complaints about it in the Declaration of Independence. It would make the chronology more apparent. But better by someone who knows the history better than I do. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * the new section is a good idea, and I made some changes. I trimmed the pre-1800 episodes, which are covered in other articles, and emphasized also the religious and cultural values of the Prophet and his brother Tecumseh, and added some recent citations. Rjensen (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to go into the fact that the British also abandoned them again and it was the 3rd time it had happened. One of my absolute favorite things about this war is how one one comes out as the very nice side.Tirronan (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

US casualty estimates
In the info box on US casualties the numbers given are referenced to Donald Hickey's 1989 book The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict. However, in Hickey's more recent book Don't Give Up the Ship: Myths of the War of 1812 (2006) he has changed some of his estimates. The numbers in the info box should be changed as the cited author no longer supports them. I have included the appropriate paragraph from Don't Give Up the Ship as well as the significant endnote. I did this as some may not have access to the book.

"The number killed in battle is usually given as 2,260. To this figure, we must add the 5,240 enlisted men, non-commissioned officers, and musicians in the U.S. Army that John Stagg's analysis suggests died from accident or disease. This would put the total at 7,500. We must also add those civilians who perished in Indian raids in the West, privateersmen who were killed in action or died from accident or disease, and naval personnel and militia who died from from accident or disease. The number of militia who died is especially important in this tally because citizen soldiers accounted for more than 75 percent of all those who served, and undoubtedly a sizeable number contracted a camp disease from which they died after being discharged from service. In all, one might reasonably guess that 15,000 Americans died from all causes as a direct result of the war." (page 297)

Endnote#74: "This is 5,000 fewer than I estimated in my earlier work. That estimate was based on the flawed assumption that militia in service died at the same rate from disease or accident as regulars." (page 406) Dwalrus (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice work! Do you have any other estimates that back it up?Tirronan (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is next to impossible to get estimates/guesses as to the number of militia, or regular troops, who died from disease and accidents during this war. Very few of the authors who write books on the War of 1812 actually do the type of original research that would be necessary to give reasonably accurate figures. The only source that I am aware of is J. C. A. Stagg's article in the William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Oct., 1986), pp. 615-645 titled "Enlisted Men in the United States Army, 1812-1815: A Preliminary Survey." That is the source that Hickey used for both his 1989 book and the more recent one I quoted. Stagg's work covers regular troops so I assume that Hickey's estimates/guesses on militia deaths and total deaths are his own as he gives no other source. The figure of 17,000 estimated deaths that is currently used is only supported by Hickey and since he has backed off that figure something should be done. Dwalrus (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, one of the articles I am working on is the Battle of Borodino, which has the other problem, everyone has figures and some of them even agree.Tirronan (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What figures should be in the info box? I'm going to leave it to a consensus of editors as to what should be listed. I don't have any more information on this than what I've listed. Dwalrus (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd go with the latest figures, sick/injure militia would tend to be sent home as quickly as possible. In that age staying away from hospitals and exposure to new diseases would tend to lower mortality so I would feel inclined to agree with Mr. Hickey.Tirronan (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Tirronan, it appears that no one else is interested in commenting so I went ahead and changed the figure from 17,000 deaths from diaease to 15,000 from all causes. If you prefer a different number using Hickey's estimates then make whatever change you want. BTW, I'm not sure I edited it properly so you should look at it. The link goes to the footnote section but will not link from there to the references. I'm not sure how to do this. Dwalrus (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No I am quite content with 15000, there isn't enough hard and fast evidence for me to be reverting like that. I still find it interesting that in a 3 year war 15k was all that resulted, an amazing silly little war that resulted in so much change.Tirronan (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

British vs. Americans (French)
My school is doing a project about this topic and I would like to learn more about the war than i already do. Q: WHY DID THE BRISTISH NOT WIN WHEN THEY HAD A REALLY STRONG, WELL ORGANIZED ARMY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.162.91 (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a rather strange war, there were not significant amounts of British troops in 2 of the 3 years on the North American continent. They were off fighting the French Empire. and mostly not available.  When they did get some 25,000 troops together they split them up for several tasks.  One group had to retreat when the American flotilla won control of Lake Champlain, another burned parts of Washington DC, then had to retreat when confronted at Baltimore with an Army four times it's size. The last lost 20% of their numbers before the ramparts of New Orleans.  No army of either side accomplished much on the offensive side of operations.Tirronan (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Weasel wording
Heavy use of weasel wording:

See examples: "Before 1940, some historians held that United States expansionism into Canada was also a reason for the war; however, one subsequent historian wrote,"

and "Some Canadian historians propounded"

and "Some British officials".

Change of wording needed.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, feel free then.Tirronan (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see what the problem is -- those statements seem exactly accurate. Rjensen (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:weasel wording for more details on the problems with this kinds of additions.Moxy (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "weasel words" refer to unattributed mysterious statements ("some people say ABC")--it does not apply here because everything here is attributed, as in Egan, "The Origins of the War of 1812: Three Decades of Historical Writing". Military Affairs who lists lists of historians by name. Rjensen (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The use of weasel wording is discouraged for every instance. It leads to people believing a POV statement is about to come up in the text or that the text(opinion to come) its not a widely held view...thus the reason for the use of just the facts and attribution to demonstrate that who and why is important and not just one side of a POV. our readers should not have to search over references to find out who said what and when and its context.Moxy (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"Before 1940, some historians held that United States expansionism into Canada was also a reason for the war; however, one subsequent historian wrote,"

and

"Some Canadian historians propounded"

and

"Some British officials".

I have added two references and I moved the citation to Bowler's article titled Propaganda in Upper Canada in the War of 1812. I was unable to find any comment in the article that supported: "it survives in public opinion in Ontario." Dwalrus (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am a little uneasy about using Bowler's article to support this. Bowler writes about the topics of propaganda used in Upper Canada against the US but relatively little of it is explicitly about annexation. He only mentions two Canadian historians in the twentieth century who continued to use the propaganda and they were James Hannay and George Wrong.


 * He also mentions the use of propaganda in the US and in the paragraph after he mentions Hannay and Wrong he writes: "Because there was so little American propaganda, the revelations which can be drawn from it are few and tenuous. They are nevertheless interesting. For one thing it demonstrates that there were Americans who looked to the addition of Canada to the Union as an outcome on the war."


 * So it is apparent that when Bowler wrote this article he agreed with the view that some Americans did want to annex Canada. Dwalrus (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Two things here, let there be no doubt there were Americans that did want Canada, and it wouldn't be truthful to say otherwise. One was shooting his mouth off in Congress as a matter of fact and its recorded in the national archives I believe.  As for weasel wording we really should list who did rather than some officials for instance.Tirronan (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The American leadership did not want Canada permanently--only as a bargaining chip. For example, Protestants certainly did not want Catholic Québec, and Southerners did not want a dramatic expansion of the northern states. The Northeastern states nearest Canada strongly opposed the war. Public opinion in Ontario is taught otherwise because it is to the advantage of Canadian nationalists to stoke up fears of American annexation, but they have not studied the scholarship of the last 50 years Rjensen (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt that catholic and French Lower Canada (Quebec) would not have been welcomed by many in the US nor would the addition of Florida have offset the addition of British North America in the mind's of many in the south but there is still more to the debate. J. C. A. Stagg whose writing is used in the article to deny that the US declared war to annex Canada states: "Yet there can be little doubt that, had the War of 1812 been a successful military venture, the Madison administration would have been reluctant to have returned occupied Canadian territory to the enemy." That is from his book Mr. Madison's War on page 4.


 * Donald Hickey has written extensively on the War of 1812 and as quoted in the article he also believes the US did not declare war with the intention to annex Canada. Hickey gave a lecture this past year at the Canadian Military College in Kingston, Ontario where he reiterated his belief that expansionism into Canada was not the reason for the US declaration of war. However, in his book Don't Give Up The Ship! he states on pages 38: "Another reason for the popularity of the annexationist myth is that the US government never clarified its position on Canada during the war. It never said that it would hold any conquered territory as ransom for concessions on the maritime issues, nor did it repudiate the annexationist proclamations issued in 1812 by Brigadier General William Hull on the Detroit frontier and by Brigadier General Alexander Smyth on the Niagara frontier. Doubtless the government wanted to keep all its options open in case the British proved more willing to part with Canada than with their maritime pretensions. Doubtless, too, Republican leaders did not want to forestall the annexation of territory if they later concluded that public opinion or public policy demanded it. Indeed, it is hard to imagine the United States voluntarily surrendering Canada if it had been conquered, but that does not mean that the desire for Canada caused the war."


 * Clearly some of the best historians on this war, who have done extensive research in US archives, see the situation as something less than black and white. The US did not declare war with the intention of annexing Canada, but if the war proved militarily successful, then it is possible that annexation could have resulted.Dwalrus (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * indeed, it is a lot of fun to speculate "what if". What if the British had won a decisive victory, then they would have seized control of the entire Midwest, as well as control of the Mississippi River, setting up a satellite Indian state that would have been supervised out of Québec. As numerous cited historians have pointed out that was a long-standing British goal, and it was the main British demand in 1814 at the peace conference before the Americans rejected it. The British failed to achieve that goal when they were defeated in Western Ontario, (Battle of Lake Erie, Battle of Thames) and at New Orleans.  Nationalistic Canadian historians have lamented that this did not happen.  To quote Morton, "Those interests of British North America were once more sacrificed on the altar of Anglo-American understanding....  The country of the Lakes was lost conclusively and for ever.  Canada had been driven back upon the Shield, the fur trade, and its primitive northern economy." ( W.L.  Morton, The Kingdom of Canada (1963) 207). Although Morton lamented the loss victory, it is easy to see that the existence of such an Indian state would have led to a series of unending wars between Britain and the United States. Rjensen (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're interested in more comments similar to those you quote from Morton then give Donald Creighton's books a look. As for the "what if" the British had achieved a decisive victory it is fairly obvious that they wanted part of Maine, moving the border south in the area of Plattsburgh, NY, Fort Niagara, as well as a huge Indian territory in what is now the US Midwest. The article already includes a comment on this British desire to reward the Indians for their support against the Americans. This is included in the sub-section Indigenous Raids under the section Reasons for the War. This should not be included as there is no evidence that this was a reason for the war. I've never read any historian claim that the British desire for a protected Indian territory was a cause of the war. It's important to remember that it was the US who declared war and not the British.


 * Most of the quote I gave from Donald Hickey is not a "what if." I gave it because it shows why some people have doubts about the true motive of the US. The argument that J. C. A. Stagg makes in his book is based on circumstantial evidence as Reginald Horsman stated in his review of the book. I find both Stagg and Hickey to be convincing in their views but I realize that given the lack of definitive evidence the issue is not as cut and dry as nationalists in the US or Canada/Britain believe it is.Dwalrus (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * one major reason the Americans want to war involved the British support for the hostile Indians in the American Midwest. The British had always been active there, and knew that their presence greatly antagonized the Americans. That's what a casus bellum looks like.  The neutral Indian state was the main British demand at the peace conference. Rjensen (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interestingly one of the things that has never been brought up is British interest in containing the US by various means and their attempted land grabs are also there to see. It seems they were very interested in keeping the US trade where they wanted it and deploying what means were available to curtail American growth. Where it breaks down for me is, no the US didn't got to war to get Canada, but even Madison's cabinet wondered how he proposed to give it back.  I get my back up when someone insists that Canada was the central issue when that is blatantly not the case, but to say that there were factions that wanted Britain off the continent entirely and assumed Canada colonists would join us was pretty darn clear.  Asserting that it was a main cause is about as stupid as it gets, there is a ton of evidence that this was driven by the Maritime issues.  Was it seen as a desire by some of the War Hawks but it was not a primary driver.Tirronan (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

grammar
apologies if i'm not going about this the proper way, as i don't edit wiki very often, but...

in the introduction paragraph, second sentence from the end, the sentence reads:

"American repulsed British invasions of New York in 1814." "American" should either be changed to "America", or, preferably, "American forces"

"American" cannot repulse anything, it's an adjective in this usage, not a noun.

also, i believe that "repulsed" is not the proper word, it should be "repelled".


 * Feel free to do so, this is obviously a horrible mistake on our part.Tirronan (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So far as I know, "repulsed" and "repelled" are both equally acceptable English, so it's a matter of which style you prefer. I'd probably lean towards "repelled", although "repulsed" does (for me) carry more of a connotation of finality (it seems to suggest that another attack was not attempted). But this is off the top of my head (i.e. WP:Original research); I'm certainly open to further elucidation. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC) ¶ On further research: the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Cassell's English Dictionary (3rd ed.), Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (7th ed.), and Webster's New World Dictionary all give "repulse" as a transitive verb on the same level as "repel", so it's definitely not incorrect. The first instances of "repulse" (transitive verb) in the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.) go back to 1490-1533. The first instance it gives of "repel" is about a century earlier. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Indiana Territory and sourcing
The map is the first time I have ever seen "Indiana Territory" placed in Wisconsin. Far too much personal, unattributed input in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.19 (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well gee, 148 citations are just not enough eh? Then again that comment is so general as to be completely unless, this isn't a forum for your opinions either.  Care to point out exactly where or is that just another case of someone thinking their sorry opinion just has to be voiced no matter how ill informed?Tirronan (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Creek
Edmonds says that Tecumseh was indeed recruiting among the Creek Indians, "with some success." Edmonds, Tecumseh p 148-52. The British saw the Creeks as allies and tried to send them military aid (but they were destroyed at Horshoe Bend before it arrived). The Brits appointed Woodbine as agent to the Creeks (with rank of major) and sent in troops to Florida but Jackson destroyed the British/Spanish base at Pensacola to end the British efforts. Heidler, Encyclopedia p 410. Rjensen (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know he caught a Scott over there that he suspected was an agent for the British and had found letters from the Spanish Regent encouraging attacks on GeorgiaTirronan (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits
It seems that we have attracted yet another person that loves to disruptively edit. Please use the disruptive editing templet on each of his next editing attacks so that I can begin posting on the WP:ANI board as soon as possible this person is at level 2 now so the next would be 3 of course. I am in no mood to tolorate any more nonsense with this type of person anymore.Tirronan (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When going there, ask for a good month block, an escalation from the 1 week they have been given in their last 2 blocks . I have also warned this person several times, as have numerous others, for disruptive POV pushing editing, as can be seen from their talkpage.  He  iro  00:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This guy has been teeing up articles for over 2 years without a meaningful contribution, might as well go for the dreaded permaban at this point.Tirronan (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Owenmann, 12 February 2011
Please add a space between the flag & Tecumseh's name in the box, to make the formatting match.

Owenmann (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.  He  iro 00:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Owenmann, 13 February 2011
edit semi-protected

Please link "suspension of specie payment in 1814" in the section "Factors leading to the peace negotiations". The best link I've found is Treasury Note (19th century)

Owenmann (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not done. Wikipedia is, sadly, not a reliable source and cannot be cited for this information. If the information was sourced within that page, we could use that source, but we can't just use Wikipedia. Please find an outside, reliable source to verify this information. --ICY TIGER'S BLOOD 01:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation ?
The section "Factors leading to the peace negotiations" under the Treaty of Ghent was created by an unregistered editor [here.] The editor lifted the material from Jon Latimer's book 1812: War with America and used Latimer's references to supply sources for the material he copied. He made some changes and in the three years since the material was added to the article there have been some additional changes. I am listing material from the article and then the exact material from Latimer with his page number for others to check.


 * Article: "It is difficult to measure accurately the costs of the American war to Britain, because they are bound up in general expenditure on the Napoleonic War in Europe. But an estimate may be made based on the increased borrowing undertaken during the period, with the American war as a whole adding some £25 million to the national debt."


 * Latimer: "It is difficult to measure accurately the costs of the American War to Britain, because they are bound up in general expenditure on the Great War in Europe, but an estimate may be made based on the increased borrowing undertaken during the period.... ...on this basis we may conclude that the American War as a whole added some £25 million to the national debt."   page 389


 * Article: "Licensed flour exports, which had been close to a million barrels in 1812 and 1813, fell to 5,000 in 1814. Insurance rates on Boston shipping had reached 75%, coastal shipping was at a complete standstill, and New England was considering secession."


 * Latimer: "Licensed flour exports, which had been close to a million barrels in 1812 and 1813, rapidly fell to 5,000 in 1814, by which time the insurance rates on Boston shipping had reached 75 percent, coastal shipping was at a complete standstill, and New England was considering secession."  page 241


 * Article: "Exports and imports fell dramatically as American shipping engaged in foreign trade dropped from 948,000 tons in 1811 to just 60,000 tons by 1814."


 * Latimer: "Exports and imports were severely curtailed as the American shipping tonnage engaged in foreign trade dropped from 948,000 tons in 1811 to just 60,000 tons in 1814...."  page 246


 * Article: "With insurance rates between Liverpool, England and Halifax, Nova Scotia rising to 30%, the Morning Chronicle complained that with American privateers operating around the British Isles, 'We have been insulted with impunity.'"


 * Latimer: "...insurance rates between Liverpool and Halifax rose to 30 percent, and the Morning Chronicle complained that with American privateers operating around the British Isles 'we have been insulted with impunity.'"   page 364


 * Article: "The British could not be celebrate a great victory in Europe fully until there was peace in North America, and more pertinently, taxes could not come down until there was peace in North America. Landowners particularly baulked at continued high taxation...."


 * Latimer: "A great victory in Europe could not be celebrated fully until there was peace in North America; more pertinently, taxes could not come down until there was peace in North America. Landowners in particular baulked at continued high taxation...." page 364

The last quote from the article is cited to Latimer but instead of giving the specific page from where it was taken the editor gave a range of pages of 362 to 365.

In the next section Negotiations and Peace the third paragraph contains more material lifted from Latimer by the same editor [here.]


 * Article: "With a rift opening between Britain and Russia at the Congress of Vienna and little chance of improving the military situation in North America, Britain was prepared to end the war promptly. In concluding the war, the Prime Minister, Lord Liverpool, was taking into account domestic opposition to continued taxation, especially among Liverpool and Bristol merchants—keen to get back to doing business with America—and there was nothing to gain from prolonged warfare."

pages 390-391
 * Latimer: "With a rift opening between Britain and Russia at Vienna and little chance of improving the military situation in North America, Britain was prepared to forgo territorial gain. In concluding the war on these terms, the prime minister was taking into account domestic opposition to continued taxation—especially among the merchants of Liverpool and Bristol, who were keen to get back to doing business with America—and foreign policy considerations of far greater significance."

This last quote from the article is referenced to Latimer but considering the use of mostly the same words used by Latimer I believe there is a problem here. I would like to have this reviewed by editors and determined what if anything should be done.Dwalrus (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dwalrus has a very good eye. The edits were added on 17 Dec 2007 by 81.154.238.211, and that's all the editing he did for Wiki.  The info is useful so I recommend rephrasing the statements, and keeping the cites to Latimer. Rjensen (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they can not stand as they are this is a clear copy write violation.Tirronan (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the text to avoid the copyvio. Rjensen (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job. I'm happy that has been done. Dwalrus (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Strange marks
There are some strange markings just before the lead of the article. They seem to have originated from this edit [|here]. Does anyone know how to correct this?Dwalrus (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorted. The stray characters were actually in Campaign box for the American South. HLGallon (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The USA Fails to achieve it's goals
USA wanted to expand further north. Therefore they declared war. But they failed to achieve their goal which means that it was a British Strategic Victory.

--Arsaces (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.59.109.85, 22 February 2011
edit semi-protected

Please note that the article states that Andrew Jackson helped defeat the British towards the end of the War of 1812. Technically a treaty had been signed before the battle of New Orleans began, so the battle should have never been fought. Without this knowledge, the two armies fought with Jackson's army coming out on top.

69.59.109.85 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * the treaty of Ghent did not take effect until it was ratified--and that happened 6 weeks AFTER the battle. Rjensen (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The British didn't recognize the Louisiana purchase and wished to proceed with the capture of New Orleans with the hope of severing the entire Mississippi River and thus closing off the rest of the North American Continent from the United States and curbing its growth. So what we have is a naked land grab that didn't pan out. As for the timing the Battle occurred 2 weeks after signing and 6 weeks before ratification. It pretty much sealed the fate of any more thoughts of expanding the British Empire south of the Canadian border. Tirronan (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparency of the southern theatre being a context for the defeat of Britian's ndn allies
''Liverpool wants to set the Indian question aside in order to get on to more important matters. He is perfectly prepared to yield on the exclusive military occupation of the Great Lakes. What he really wants is to hold what the British have gained by conquest, specifically, Michilimackinac and Fort Niagara. If he can get these, and Sacket's Harbour in the bargain, then he will waive all claims to a chunk of Maine.''


 * All three English-speaking nations could be sure that when peace was declared, business would continue as before. But not the Indians. The British gave back Mackinac and Fort Niagara; the Americans returned Amherstburg to Canada.


 * Correct me if I'm wrong here: so you're saying that a key military objective so sought after by all three powers like Mackinac has no bearing to promote the apparency of a "destroyed Indian alliance" for a military campaign such as the War of 1812? Just so you guys know (coz I don't think you do---at all), this battle (for Mackinac) was fought during the summer of 1814. But, I guess you guys are right: my mistake. InternetHero (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Just so you guys know (coz I don't think you do at all- - -at all)"...


 * Not sure what your characterisation of other editors' actions or what your characterisation of their imputed intent has to do with improving this article? Also, thought you'd want to know that your two references to Pierre Berton's Flames Across the Border'(pages 409 & 425) are visible in the Editing Window but this information is not visible when simply reading this talk page.  Shearonink (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Right on, my-man. InternetHero (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all certain what you are saying at all, how about in plain English outlining what you are getting at? I've read this 3 times without success in discerning your complaint?Tirronan (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also don't understand your point. Explain in plain language the edit you want to make, and provide references to reliable sources supporting that edit. Insert or revert me again before this is ironed out and we can go to the Edit warring noticeboard. After seeing the number of near incomprehensible, POV pushing edits you've made in the last year, I am no longer inclined to AGF with you. You've been here long enough to know how WP works, your opinion doesn't count as WP:RELIABLE.  He  iro 03:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The deposition of Mackinac Island has been covered by the article already nor is there any extraordinary claim made against it. There wasn't an American Army at Mackinac, like most of the war it was fought with very small forces to large outcomes. The large armies would be found at Plattsburg, Baltimore, Bladensburg and New Orleans. If you are going to edit war then I believe it is time to start and RFC and post you to the ANI board again, I doubt they are going to put up with any more of your disruptive editing. I've seen your train wreck of a editing history, how you have avoided a ban is beyond me.Tirronan (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Be advised I have issued a level 3 warning for disruptive editing for this behavior.Tirronan (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

''Correct me if I'm wrong here: so you're saying that a key military objective so sought after by all three powers like Mackinac has no bearing to promote the apparency of a "destroyed Indian alliance" for a military campaign such as the War of 1812? Just so you guys know (coz I don't think you do---at all), this battle (for Mackinac) was fought during the summer of 1814. But, I guess you guys are right: my mistake. InternetHero (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)''


 * It would be helpful if you had a clue as to what the facts where in the 1st place, what three powers? Last time I checked the only two nations involved where Britain and the United States.  Secondly again the fact that the British won control of the island is indeed noted with the events.  Third, removing content you think isn't right is an opinion that you are acting on unless you are providing proof.  Forth, a link to the entirety of the Treaty of Ghent is provided so that any question as to its provisions is just a mouse click away.  Fifth, a verbatim repetition of what you said before isn't making your objection one bit clearer.Tirronan (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ttt = tothetop. ie: correct me if I'm wrong. InternetHero (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

InternetHero, you have deleted the words "destroyed Britain's Indian allies" more than once but you have not used the talk page to explain your reasoning. Now you come to the talk page and write about a small battle at Fort Mackinac in 1814. Hopefully you realize that the battle at Fort Mackinac in 1814 had absolutely nothing to do with the warfare that occurred in the southern U. S. that the words "destroyed Britain's Indian allies" refers to. If you want to be taken seriously then you need to post serious comments and not nonsense.Dwalrus (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * He has already been posted to the WP:ANI board, which is apparently what he wanted. I'm for letting the admin's deal with this and his other issues from this point on.Tirronan (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually he has been reported to 3rr not ANI. When I reached 3rr with him last nite and he reached 4 and later I think 5 rvts, I reported and sought to disengage. He then started harrassing me on my talk page. I didn't report him to ANI because I didn't want to be seen as forum shopping iin a content dispute. If anyone else would like to make a report there or to rvt his last edit on the article page, be my guest. I'm away from computer today on phone, so can't do much. Also can't link to pages, sorry.  He  iro 18:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was informed that it wasn't all that hot to make a user a section so renaming.Tirronan (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually meant to be n previous section, but difficult on phone. Rectified.  He  iro 22:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The user has now been blocked for two weeks, we'll see if it takes. My money is on him returning in 4 to 6 weeks to start over, which seems to be his pattern.  He  iro  02:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

British Empire
The use of the term "British Empire" is misleading since it did not seriously begin to form as we understand it until after 1815. The introduction should say the war was between the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (92.20.40.168 (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC))
 * Historians commonly use the term "British Empire" for this period. They rarely use the term "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" or United Kingdom-- they use "Britain" or "Great Britain"; as shown by the titles of their books.  see the bibliography on 1812 and Historiography of the British Empire for titles. Rjensen (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which historians, please? The bibliography in the article (and List of books about the War of 1812) have several dozen titles including "Britain", "British" and one or two "United Kingdom". Not one title includes the words "British Empire". (One title, by Robert V. Remini, includes the words "American Empire", but this is probably irrelevant.) Use "Britain" or "Great Britain" as shorthand, by all means. I know that "England" is deprecated, even if it was synonymous with "Britain" in contemporary usage. But, you will probably find very few references in contemporary documents to any "British Empire". HLGallon (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The titles are easy to find: for books during the war itself see :


 * 1) A treatise on the wealth, power, and resources of the British Empire Patrick Colquhoun - 1814 online edition
 * 2) The Historical Register of the United States by Thomas H. Palmer - 1814  Page 19
 * 3) The campaigns of 1812, 1813, and 1814 by James MacQueen - 1815 Page 693; and for recent reliable sources see:
 * 4) Canada and the British Empire by Phillip Buckner - 2008 title page
 * 5) The War of 1812- Page 64 by David Stephen Heidler, Jeanne T. Heidler - 2002 -
 * 6) The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects... Alan Taylor - 2010 p 9
 * 7) 1812: war with America  By Jon Latimer p 4
 * 8) Atlas of American military history by Stuart Murray - 2005   - Page 52
 * 9) The Oxford History of the British Empire: Historiography edited by William Louis 1999, ---  Rjensen (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The correct title from 1801 to 1927 was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The term "British Empire" did not begin to be used much until the later part of the 19th century. (92.7.21.145 (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC))


 * For your information here is what is actually stated in the official U.S. declaration of war:
 * "An Act Declaring War Between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Dependencies Thereof and the United States of America and Their Territories."
 * You can find it here.Dwalrus (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes that would sound much better. The British Empire did not really come into effect until the interventionist foreign policy of Lord Palmerston from the late 1820s to the mid-1850s. (92.20.43.58 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC))
 * No that's legaleze from a primary source and not how historians write. They talk about the British Empire at this time and anon is simply wrong to say it started later. Rjensen (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Then the introduction should also mention the American Empire. (92.20.43.58 (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC))


 * America of 1812 had a colony, let alone an Empire? Hell we barely controlled the east coast of the United States, know what you are talking about before stating the patently stupid.Tirronan (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't believe this is an important issue. If it was my decision I would just state that it was a war between the United States and Britain. If the support of secondary sources (reliable sources) is the determining factor then it should be Britain or Great Britain. Secondary sources don't state that it was a war between the U.S. and the United Kingdom. Also, I cannot remember a secondary source that actually stated it was a war between the U.S. and the British Empire. Does anyone have a quote from a reliable secondary source that states it was a "war between the United States of America and the British Empire?" Neither Jon Latimer nor Alan Taylor explicitly state it was a war between the U.S. and the British Empire.

Wikipedia does allow the use of primary sources WP:PRIMARY but it is necessary to use great care when doing so.Dwalrus (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm about the least sensitive Editor I know about naming conventions but I assure you there are Editors on this page that have pitched a fit about naming conventions. The one that frustrates me is why Canada is listed as a belligerent, it was a British colony not a nation at that point.  Had Canada been a French Colony it wouldn't have been involved in the war at all.Tirronan (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The United States had already begun to annex other land and wipe out the Native American Indians. It is ridiculous to suggest the war was one country versus an empire. The war was fought between the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (92.7.25.110 (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC))


 * While I would prefer the use of Britain or Great Britain, in my opinion this is not an important issue and I don't understand why you are so upset and agitated about it. The only reason I would use Britain or Great Britain is that they are the most commons words used by historians. The exception to that is the recent book The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, & Indian Allies by Alan Taylor. I suspect that Taylor used British Empire more than any other writer since it is more supportive of the main emphasis of his book. Most writers/historians don't even have British Empire listed in the index of their books. As for when the British Empire started even the British writer/historian Jon Latimer in his book 1812: War With America states: "The end of the Seven Year's War in 1763 marked the true beginning of Great Britain's empire...." (page 4) Also, take a look at the British historian Jeremy Black's book The War of 1812 in The Age of Napoleon. Black uses Britain and Great Britain as his words of choice but his title of chapter 5 is The Empire Strikes Back, 1814-15. Obviously he recognizes that the British Empire did exist at the time, although he used Britain or Great Britain to describe the country. My suggestion to you is just relax about it.Dwalrus (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not the least upset, I think the consensus when this was last brought up, over my use of United Kingdom and UK, was that British should be used. Personally I care not a wit.  I'd suggest using British myself but like I said I am not all that particular.  American or US works just as well for me.  As for the ANON, I don't really care, if you don't care enough to get a free account I see no reason to accommodate a hider.  Just another internet hider who thinks uninformed opinion is supposed to count.Tirronan (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * one advantage of using "British Empire" is that it includes the colonies that later made up Canada, as well as other colonies in the Caribbean. When  talking about the war in Europe against Napoleon, Canada and these other colonies were not important enough to get much mention, that certainly is not true for the war of 1812 work Canada especially played a major role, not only in the fighting but in Mister T. chick goals of the United States in opposing the British Empire by conquering the Canadian part of it. Rjensen (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Tirronan, I should have made it clear that I was only referring to the unregistered poster and not to you. Sorry about that. I am fine with leaving the article just as it is and was only playing the devils advocate.

Actually I feel like doing a little more of the devils advocate act. Rjensen makes a good point in stating that the use of British Empire suggests that the British North American colonies played a role, and an important one at that, in this war. It would be reasonable to expect Canadian writers/historians to have used British Empire and not Great Britain or Britain, but that is not what has happened.

Probably the most widely read author in Canada on this war is Pierre Berton who wrote a two volume work on it. I should point out that many historians do not approve of his work but that is of no importance here. What is important is that his work is the most widely read. In his first volume, The Invasion of Canada, 1812-1813, on page 99 he wrote: "On June 18, the United States proclaims that a state of war exists between herself and Great Britain."

The highly respected Canadian historian J. Mackay Hitsman in The Incredible War of 1812 (1965 ed.) wrote on page 45: "The first intimation in British North America that the United States had declared war on Great Britain ...." In the fine book by Canadian historian Wesley B. Turner, The War of 1812: The War That Both Sides Won, he wrote on page 145: "United States declares war on Great Britain." In the biased book by Canadian Carl Benn, The War of 1812, published by Osprey the largest publisher of military books in the world, he wrote in the introduction: "...when the United States declared war on Great Britain."

I have not seen any Canadian historian in the last 50 years actually state that the United States declared war on the British Empire.

I previously pointed out what was actually declared by the U.S. Congress in its legislation. It should also be pointed out that President Madison in his proclamation of the declaration of war the next day, June 19, 1812, used the very same wording that the declaration was against the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof." You can see it here.

One additional interesting point concerns an item in George F.G. Stanley's book The War of 1812: Land Operations. On page 59 he has a reproduction of a notice that was issued in Quebec City on June 29, 1812 informing Americans that they had to leave the city and province within a specified period of time. It stated in part: "Whereas authentic intelligence has been received that the Government of the United States of America did, on the 18th instant, declare War against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and its dependencies...." It does give some food for thought.Dwalrus (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

While Britain's victory in the Seven Years' War had made it the world's largest colonial power instead of France, the British Empire did not really begin to exist until the middle of the 19th century. Since Canada was the only part of the Empire involved in the War of 1812-1815 I think it would be better if the introduction read that the war was fought between the forces of the United States and the forces of the United Kingdom and Canada. (HantersSpade (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC))
 * The historians are agreed the Empire began well before 1800. See for example 5-volume The Oxford history of the British Empire (1999) which only gets to 1812 in volume three! Look at T. O. Lloyd, The British Empire, 1558-1995(Oxford University Press, 1996) for another example. HantersSpade has not given any RS for his personal view of such a late start.Rjensen (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not disputing that Britain had an empire in 1812, although it was nowhere near as large as it would become by 1912. However the use of the term "British Empire" in the introduction is deliberately misleading since it suggests Britain had thousands of soldiers from India, Australia, New Zealand etc fighting in the war (as in World War I & World War II), whereas in reality the only country involved was Canada. (HantersSpade (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Canada was not a country at the time, and colonies such as Newfoundland and the Bahamas were also involved against the US. If people are thinking British Empire = New Zealand, well they need to read more Wikipedia articles. Rjensen (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand was part of the British Empire from 1840. The War of 1812-1815 only involved North America. (HantersSpade (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC))


 * Again, Canada was invaded because it was a Brit colony, had it belonged to the Dutch or the French, there wouldn't have been a reason to attack, Bermuda was a colony and was also involved, we were fighting Great Britain, period.Tirronan (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the use of British Empire in the introduction is "deliberately misleading" as alleged by HantersSpade. Furthermore, his claim that "...it suggests Britain had thousands of soldiers from India, Australia, New Zealand etc fighting in the war (as in World War I & World War II)..." is bizarre. Why would anyone make such a wild conclusion?Dwalrus (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably because saying it was between the US and an empire suggests it was one small country versuas two-thirds of the world. Canada was invaded because the US wanted to annex it from Britain, just as Britain had annexed it from France in 1759-1760. Declaring war on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1812 was America's biggest foreign policy mistake until the Suez Crisis. (92.20.41.82 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC))
 * I recommend editors working on history articles avoid the term "United Kingdom" and its variants; historians rarely use the term. The Empire was central to Madison's reasoning (says Stagg) because without food from the US and Canada the rich sugar island colonies in the Caribbean would starve.  The goal of the war was to restore America's national honor (besmirched by impressment and trade rules) and end the Indian attacks on the frontier, and that was a success, though the trade between canada and the islands was not cut off. Rjensen (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The war achieved nothing, as Dr Kissinger correctly wrote. Madison was wrong about the food from the US and Canada because Britain was growing plenty of cheap food in the West Indies themselves to feed the natives. (92.20.41.82 (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC))
 * the war restored national honor and ended the Indian threat--that meant a lot to Americans. Rjensen (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The war ended on more favourable terms for Britain and Canada, and it achieved nothing that could not have been achieved in talks. I don't think opening the way for a genocide of the Native American Indians is something to celebrate. (92.20.41.82 (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC))


 * You should take your opinions/biases to an internet message board such as Armchair General or The History Channel or Military History Online. It is obvious that you have nothing to add to Wikipedia. Dwalrus (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hardly a biased opinion, most modern historians agree that Britain did far better out of the War of 1812-1815. (92.20.41.82 (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC))
 * what's curious is how the Canadians today ignore what happened to their First Nations--which were the big losers in the war we all agree. So how can Canada do well if its natives did so poorly, and its whites remained at the status quo? Rjensen (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada did well because it successfully repelled every American invasion from the very beginning of the war. (92.20.41.82 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC))


 * Blah blah blah, guys stop replying to this troll, Canada wasn't a country, I'm not interested in his opinions and this isn't what this page is for. Go find a nice blog site and blast off there.Tirronan (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada was indeed a country, largely populated by loyalists from the American Revolutionary War. (92.20.41.82 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

Your attention is requested
Folks familiar with the far western front of the War of 1812 are invited to take a look at the article Peoria War. I've pointed out on the talk page that the article needs renaming and refocusing. I have too much on my plate to fix this myself, so hopefully you might want to fix it, or at least comment on it. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 15:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Source?
Just this bit: "By the 21st century it was a forgotten war in the U.S., Britain and Quebec." That's a pretty big sweeping statement, considering that the one citation goes to a poll that doesn't even exist anymore. I don't know what it means by 'forgotten'. That it isn't taught in history courses anymore or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.231.69 (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The meaning of "forgotten" in this context is that people have little knowledge or remembrance of the war. Britons will almost universally tell you that there is little knowledge of this war since the much more important war against Napoleon overshadows it. In the US most will say that there is little knowledge or interest in the War of 1812 compared to the US Civil War. The poll that is referred to in Canada was conducted for the Association for Canadian Studies located in Montreal. I expected the newspaper link to eventually become dead. However, the poll result is available on their website. Click on the War of 1812 to get the report (.doc). Someone will update the source for this. Dwalrus (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Except for a few of us that have an interest in history, what most people know is what they were "told" by someone else. The #1 response from Canadians was "I don't know".  Much of the Canadian population cares more about it than the average American, as it was the 1st stirrings of Nationalism in Canada.  For American's its a weird little war between the Revolution and Civil wars, both of which are seen as much more important.Tirronan (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Canadian population cares more about it" - Hit the nail on the head there - see History of Canada - note how the war has its own sub section -  WWI and WWII dont even have this.Moxy (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rwgugenheim, 23 May 2011
Please look at the very last sentence at the end of the "Course of the War" section:

"The war had the effect of uniting the peoples of the U.S. as well as the people of Canada, and opened a long era of peaceful relations between the United States and the British Empire."

I have three problems with this sentence.

First, it is grammatically incorrect. For it to be grammatically correct, the second half of the compound sentence should have "it" (referring to "the war") following "and." Or it could be corrected by removing the comma before "and" and changing "opened" to "opening."

My second problem with the sentence is much more important. Just because peaceful relations followed the war, no one can assume that the peaceful relations were caused by the war. The way that sentence reads now it could be read that the peaceful relations were a result of the war.

Third, "uniting the peoples of the U.S." is a false statement. To which people are we referring? Are we talking about the Native Americans and the African Americans? The U. S. was still far from an undivided nation in many respects at this time. The enslavement of African Americans and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans are obvious examples of divided peoples. The division between poor whites and wealthly landowning whites would also be a dividing factor.

Thank you.

Rwgugenheim (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Done I concur with all of your points, and have removed that sentence as unsourced POV. If someone has a specific reliable source that makes those claims, then it could be re-added with a reference and specific attribution. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I rephrased the statement and added cites to the evaluations by several leading RS.Rjensen (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, i.e. I was writing the following while Qwyrxian and Rjensen were also responding): Those are all good points. The protection status this page is under is just to prevent drive-by vandalism by over-passionate nationalists (U.S., British or Canadian) and bored high-school students. In less than a week, you should be just as free to edit this page as any other editor. If you have some suggested alternate language, please feel free to offer it in this Discussion (talk) page section. Alternatively, once you are able, you could just edit the section yourself and see how other editors respond, although your changes might be worth mentioning here, too, in order to avoid a cycle of retractions and amendments to the article. You might also want to look at the treatments of similar topics at the end of the article at War of 1812 and War of 1812. I wrote, purely as a sense-and-style editor, much of the former when trying to give a coherent, logical form to this very long discussion, itself the product of an even longer wrangle you can find scattered through this discussion page's archives. ¶ As to the substance of your second point (which you'll find echoed in similar language in those last two sections), it's of course impossible to weigh precisely what factors contributed in what measure to the improvement in Anglo-American-Canadian relations. It wouldn't be that hard for me (a non-expert) to find citations in various popular histories that say the Treaty of Ghent opened the way for better relations (and as you imply, "opened" can suggest several different things to different readers). But while a necessary condition for better relations, the Treaty wasn't by itself sufficient. It would probably be better to find what Wikipedia calls a Reliable Source or good authority that uses more precise or nuanced language. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fact is there was no more war after 1815. historians give the Treaty considerable credit. Thompson & Randall, Canada and US (2008) explicitly say the Treaty (and Rush-Bagot) "set the terms for Anglo-American ...relations for the next generation." (p 23) which seems to be about the same as "opening the way". They also say the war "inculcated separate national identities" for ordinary people in US and Canada (p 24) --which speaks to national unity. Rjensen (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalized....four letter words at the top of the article....
would fix it if i could.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.130.151.231 (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, could someone with editing capability remove the four-letter words at the top of the article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.43.172.77 (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Moral Hi tones and occasional low brows
Every few weeks we get someone that wants to throw what I like to call Morality issues at us, mostly as a justification for tilting the article. As someone that studied the period pretty closely I would suggest that anyone wishing to ascribe bad morals and intentions to the United States at that time should be aware of some of the other things going on.
 * The 1st Nations be they on either the northern or southern side of the US/Canadian boarder didn't fair well.
 * The Cree Nation didn't boarder US territories, they were raiding across Cherokee lands into American Territory for fun and profit, mostly in the hope that the Cherokee would be left holding the bag when and if retaliation took place. For some silly reason the Cherokee Nation objected and started killing ever raiding party it could get its hands on.
 * It was common practice to hang starving women and children in London for the high crime of stealing food.
 * Low pay, starvation rations, and horrible treatment led to massive desertion from British ships and troop formations. So popular was service in the Royal Navy that Jack Tars would drown trying to swim to American shores.  Marching a British Troop formation in American Territory meant losing between 5% and 20% to desertion.
 * Land grabbing, often brought up as an American avarice, often overlooks British refusal to abandon the NW territories, ceded by treaty, plans to take New Orleans, and the entire Mississippi river valley from America, as well as attempts to annex Maine.
 * And we have the American murder of Indians, true enough, while ignoring the uncomfortable fact that any native population unfortunate enough to have suffered colonization by the British Empire, will not sing its praises to this day.
 * Slavery ended in the United States as of 1865, and was abolished in the British Empire in 1831.

Before we sing of our ancestors high morals we'd better all realize they were as human then as we are today and often had less compunction about humanitarian violations.Tirronan (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ask people in Hong Kong and Burma whether they would rather still be part of the British Commonwealth. I agree with Shimon Peres, without Britain's influence India would not be a democracy today. (92.7.13.187 (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC))


 * I'm sure that the Zulus just love your empire, and I know 1st hand the loveliness of the Indian subcontinent colonization. I'm also aware of the term Wog, and how it was applied.  Sing your praises somewhere else where people are not aware of the "kindness" bestowed upon them.  Its just more hypocritical tripe slung about by boosters and nothing but justification for greedy British land grabbing we so abhor America for on these pages.  There are no good guys in national politics, countries do what is in their best interests every time, and always will.  Any good of it was a unforseen by product, not benevolence.Tirronan (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk about the Panama Canal, the invasion of Mexico, and the Phillipines. (92.7.1.246 (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC))


 * Yes,that is my point, there are NO good guys in international politics, never have been never will be.Tirronan (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop attacking people today for what happened long ago, and by people who have nothing to do with them - regardless of what country they come from. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Please be advised that if you violate Wikipedia Disruptive editing policies, you are likely to be reported for it on the disruptive editing 3RR notice board. We have one user in danger of being blocked. Please talk about your proposed edits and gaining consensus before getting into revert wars with other editors.Tirronan (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Spelling & usage rules: honor vs. honour, abbreviation of months vs. not, and so on
Generally when an article is established, the spelling and usage rules it originally had is kept in the article. Per the Wikipedia guideline of retaining the existing variety, the original spelling used by the first major contributor to the article is what should be kept. I would suggest that all interested parties read and study up on: National varieties of English. A Wikipedia-style discussion of which English-spelling to use is in order here. Thank you. --Shearonink (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

For most of the page's history, American spelling has been the norm; there is absolutely no justified reason to use British spelling. In addition, the abbreviation of months goes against the rules, as specified in WP:Date. Pyro721 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's kind of what I thought (re: American spelling/usage), but I haven't had a chance to look through the edit history/past versions yet. Thanks, I'll take a look at WP:Date too - sometimes I just don't quite know where to find things around here. --Shearonink (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Pyro's interpretation is exactly opposite to what I've understood to be the consensus on this page for several years. Since the War involved not only the U.S., but Britain, Canada and other parts of the British Empire, while editors and sources come from all those countries, there's no clear rule available under WP:ENGVAR other than to follow the style of the first major contributor, who apparently used British spelling. I've truncated the title of this subsection for various technical reasons (readability for screen readers; allowing direct links to this section, etc.) As for abbreviating months (but not converting them to numbers), that's permissible but hardly mandatory where space is limited, as in Information Boxes, tables, etc. The Manual of Style does not favour abbreviating months in body text, and has not yet reached a decisive consensus (so far as I can tell) about abbreviated months in footnotes/references. If fully-displayed months are not squeezing a table, box, or reference section, I don't think it's wise to start abbreviating them. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See, for example, Talk:War of 1812/Archive 12. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But if Pyro is correct that for most of the article's history American spelling is used, it should be retained because engvar states "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety of English it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic." It also should be noted that "harbor" should be spelled the American way when it refers to places such as Boston Harbor. Hot Stop (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Honour, for instance, originally started with American spelling, but evolved into a now unimpeachable British spelling (ironic given that the article's only picture is of two Americans). Hot Stop (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I was about to add that point (local spelling for places), which you can see elaborated in the archived talk section above, where one question was whether New Yorkers ever used a U in New York Harbour, and whether modern U.S. spelling should be used if they did. (I think I had been wondering whether to change it back to New York Harbor.) Looking through some old versions from 2004 and 2005, it's hard to see at a glance if any particular style was in use, but so long as I've dabbled fitfully here (since 2008), my understanding was that the article had been using British spelling which current editors were following. And as I noted above, almost everyone agrees that there's no single "strong national tie" in this transcontinental topic that would override the original editors' style. (added after edit conflict) I hunted for "hono.." and "cent.." (for center/centre) without success in the earliest versions, but could only find "harb...", which with the exception of "Sackett's Habour" seemed to follow modern local spelling. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it odd that Drunkest1 isn't participating in the very discussion he/she/it requested. But anyways, many of the battle pages (with the exception of York) use American spelling; for consistency, American spelling should be used on this page. Pyro721 (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * i think American usage works best. regarding the "first editor" rule--the first editor did not write a word; he merely copies the entire text of the Encyclopedia Britannica 1910 article, paying no attention to spelling issues or the changes in style over the last 100 years.Rjensen (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is certainly no opposition to changing it back to American spelling. Pyro721 (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, while I'm certainly open to being persuaded that U.S. spelling was in fact the default here, I'd have to see far more evidence (not that I'm eager to) before agreeing to a wholesale switch of the spelling, since I've been labouring under exactly the opposite impression for the several years I've watched and worked on this article. I'd also like to see comments from some of the recent major editors besides Rjensen. But perhaps the huge size of this article and the exhausting debates on the talk pages have persuaded them to work elsewhere. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I have never looked at the origin of this article and was not aware that it started with U.S. spelling. It should have remained with U.S. spelling, but apparently editors were not alert to the change and allowed it to happen. Now some are going to be less than happy given that British spelling had been the norm for some time. Dwalrus (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Show me a single example where I have used anything but American spelling here. For that matter show me one example where I have ever objected to someone changing it to British usage.  Its just not that major an issue to me one way or the other.   Leave the date with the full month name it looks better. Tirronan (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Revisions dated between September 2010 and February 2011 used a combination of American and British spelling (e.g. "defense" next to "defences"). There really is no reason to use British spelling here; this historical event, although obscure to many on both sides of the pond (not including some historically challenged Canadians who falsely believe that their ancestors deserve credit for torching Washington D.C.), had severe implications for the Americans if they had lost. Pyro721 (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not Canadian, but I'm sure that Canadians feel (in fact it's part of their traditional national myth) that if they had "lost", there would have been severe implications for Canada (perhaps no confederation; perhaps a much faster consolidation; perhaps eventual disintegration; perhaps even gradual absorption into the American Union). And had the British "lost" what's been considered a sideshow while engaged in a struggle for national independence against the armies of Napoleon's empire, the ultimate consequences might have even graver for Britain and Ireland. I'm surprised at the implied importation of the "Strong National Ties" argument into this discussion: from what I've learned in these discussions and elsewhere, many of the campaigns were outside U.S. territory. It's not so clearly an American topic that the strong national ties argument can be applied. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a second look at the original article and it has both British spelling - favour and paralysed - as well as U.S. spelling - criticized, so I'm not sure it can be used as a precedent. I really don't care what spelling is used. Dwalrus (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also found "harbor" (not as a proper noun) and "mobilize". Pyro721 (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The above comments about Canada are curious. Between the US, Britain, and Canada today, the war is clearly, from all I've read, most meaningful to Canadians and Canadian history. I don't know if that should or ought to be a factor in what spelling norm to use, but if it does, I'd suggest a "Canadian English" spelling, which differs from both US and British in various ways. Pfly (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's equally important to both Americans and Canadians; Canada could've been seized by the US and the US could've been retaken by Great Britain. Pyro721 (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * the hypotheticals are pretty serious indeed. For example (a) if the British had succeeded in capturing and holding New Orleans, or (b) in creating a neutral Indian state in the middle West, in my opinion there would have been additional large scale warfare between the United States and Britain. The United States wanted to seize Canada to give it a bargaining chip in case the British succeeded, but we could also speculate (c) what if United States has seized Canada, and Britain failed to take the Mississippi River-- would that have led to additional wars between the United States and Britain?  Who knows -- but I strongly suspect that the southern states would vehemently reject the idea of acquiring more free territory in, say, Ontario, Québec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or even PEI because it would upset the balance of power in the United States Congress.  The balance of power issue did explode in the United States in 1820 on the Missouri compromise issue. Rjensen (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was initially written- based on the first revision from 2001- in British English. see? The word "favour". Since then, it has basically always incorporated both variations. If this is a serious issue to some people, I suggest they get started converting it to British English- but they should know that this "issue" has existed in this article for nearly a decade.  Swarm  X 02:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I have worked on this article, the rule of thumb has been that the article was originally written in British English, and thats what people were using - was suprised to see Theatre spelt as Theater.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * the first editors did not write the article or choose usage patterns--they just copied it wholesale from the Ency Brit 1911 (which used Brit spelling). Very little is left of that ur-source, so it's not much help in shaping editorial choices today. Rjensen (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The text of the original article uses non US spelling - they could have changed it if they really felt strongly about it, presumably. Is the fact that it was Brit spelling because it was copied, rather than written by hand, really a factor? So the choice of usage patterns was made by copying the text and publishing it on Wikipedia. Then, from what I understand, the first revision in 2001 was also written in non US English. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The original page is completely in Brit spelling as far as I can see - its a misnomer that criticize with a Z is American English spelling, it is not. There may be some other US spelling, if people can see anything, but I'm not sure why there would be in a UK publication, if it was copied verbatim.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear lord, this again. I can't say I know how much the page has changed in two years, but saying that this was American English for most of its history is stretching the truth somewhat. It was a hodgepodge for a long time and homgonised by me 2 years ago after some event or another (I honstly can't remember). -- Narson ~  Talk  • 06:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * By God! My old friend Narson!!!! It has been far far too long! Welcome back to Wiki I've honestly missed you!Tirronan (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The spelling variation that includes "harbour" and "criticize" is Canadian. Some British styles also prefer -ize--JimWae (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Plf5403, 10 July 2011-Treaty of Ghent news took two weeks, not months as the article states in one paragraph.
Simply change months to weeks between the text in footnotes 51 and 52 in the body of the text. According to the Wikipedia article on the Treaty of Ghent, it took two weeks for the news to reach America. QUOTE: [51] As a result of this stalemate, the two countries signed the Treaty of Ghent on December 24, 1814. News of the peace treaty took two MONTHS to reach the U.S., during which fighting continued. The war had the effect of fostering a spirit of national unity and an "Era of Good Feelings" in the U.S.,[52]

Plf5403 (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI... Plfs5403, you've already passed the time threshold to be autoconfirmed, all you need is 8 more edits and you can do editing of semi-protected articles yourself. Shearonink (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS - Wikipedia articles cannot use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reviewing one of the sources for the Treaty of Ghent, source indicates that the fighting didn't end until after the February 8th attack by the British on fort Bowyer. which is closer to one month then two, but certainly is not two weeks. Word may have arrived to different places at different times, but without a source clearing showing word did arrive at a certain time, I think it should be left as it is. Monty  845  15:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also looking at sourcing from www.history.army.mil/U.S. Army Center for Military History (I found that reference/website independently of Monty),


 * Named campaigns of War of 1812 the news took from December 24, 1814 until February 14th 1815 for the news to catch up with the British troops in Mobile ("The surviving British troops withdrew to Lake Borgne and reembarked on 27 January for Mobile, where on 14 February they learned that the Treaty of Ghent, ending the war, had been signed on 24 December 1814."),
 * 30 Years' Peace took from December 24, 1814 until February 13, 1815 ("When an express rider galloped into Washington on the night of February 13, 1815, with the news that the War of 1812 was over...")
 * so I agree with Monty845 that the wording should be left as is. The treaty was signed on December 24th, and then the news reached Mobile on February 14th and DC on February 13th so in my opinion that length of time can be characterized as both weeks (more than seven) or as months (about 1.75 months, rounded up to 2 months).
 * I also think that it is possible you mis-read the paragraph you are referring to in the Treaty of Ghent article as saying "weeks" not months. The lede states that:
 * "Because of the era's slow communications, it took weeks for news of the peace treaty to reach the United States, and the Battle of New Orleans was fought after it was signed." and
 * "News of the treaty finally reached the United States after the American victory in the Battle of New Orleans and the British victory in the Battle of Fort Bowyer, but before the British assault on Mobile, Alabama."
 * Both those statements indicate that it took the several weeks/two months that are presently indicated within this article War of 1812. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Erronous sentence found in intro
Removed the falsely labelled definition of "destroying" Britain's native allies as there were some 30,000 skirmishers that weren't contacted by any Indian agents such as Dickson or McDouall, I've already labelled this fact but I intend to waste my time further---not to mention there are some 71,000 Creek indians living and improving their quality of life; gotta love casinos, lol. Send cookies. InternetHero (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * the sentence reflects modern scholarship The RS report the Indians alliance entered strong in 1812 and collapsed in the war after major defeats, and Britain dropped its demands for an independent Indian state. That is Indian power ended. There were plenty of Indians still alive, but without coordination they were small bands who could no longer challenge the USA. Rjensen (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edit has been reverted User:InternetHero and yet another warning has been placed on your talk page, which looks like a train wreck of disruptive editing by you. Be very aware that the editors on this page have been dealing with this sort of thing for years, if you want to get banned just keep going on with this type of disruptive editing.  You have been blocked for exactly this sort of action for a total of 3 weeks, surely you understand that the admins are not going to put up with this kind of behavior much longer from you.  I have better things to do than run to the 3RR board but if I have to once again I will and there isn't going to be a whole lot of doubt what the outcome is going to be.  Consider this your very last warning.Tirronan (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll waste my time further by saying that, as skirmishers/consolidators, the Cree weren't small (they were the biggest in North America besides the Mexicans) localized bands that couldn't challenge the U.S.A. Since you say this is modern scholarship, then I will forever challenge you in this regard. InternetHero (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)  unfortunately, it is not just your time you are wasting, further any more of your disruptive edits and we will be heading the the ANI board again, but you have already been there before so you should be use to it by now.Tirronan (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

How about some cleanup
Since I don't care to log in, could one of the regular maintainers of this article please get rid of that orphaned "German campaign (Napoleonic Wars)" in the lede? It appears to be left over from the whole Napoleonic Wars infobox thing. Whether that is appropriate here or not, that line certainly doesn't belong there. 192.91.173.42 (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have fixed it. The problem was in the template. Every article that linked to that template had the problem. Thanks for notifying us. Dwalrus (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I put a notice over on WikiProject Military history, did that help? Anyway, glad it's fixed. Shearonink (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Internethero is back
Our long term "friend" has returned to troll the page once agaqin, see. Anyone care to support his edits? I think they are unneeded, in several cases taking specifics and generalizing them, adding unneeded emdashes, adding specifics that are unsourced, and putting his usual POV slant. He has also decided to troll my talk page again and, after being specifically asked in the past not to post his disruption there. I would like some community feedback on his proposed "changes". If he becomes disruptive in any way again, I plan to go straight to the admin boards, with the detailed list of diffs of disruption he has left on this article over the last year, to ask for indefinite block or topic ban. I'll leave it up to the other regular editors of this page to decide if his proposed changes have any merit, I've already stated my opinion on them. I will be busy IRL for the next 24 hrs minimum (a 10 drive across country tomorrow, etc.)  He  iro 06:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was about to revert when I discovered you already had. I don't follow this page closely and don't know about this particular editor, but thought the changes read worse, mostly. The edit summary stood out in a passive aggressive way, which is why I even took the time to look it over. Pfly (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

British Empire?
Surely it should say the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The British Empire didn't really begin until after the War of 1812. (92.7.22.1 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC))

Wrongo. 205.133.161.55 (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The British Empire began after the War of 1812. The article should call it the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (92.10.135.209 (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC))
 * Source? Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The British Empire began long after the Napoleonic Wars had ended in 1815. Before that there were just a few colonies. (92.7.19.156 (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC))
 * Source? Citations? Reliable sources that state this?  He  iro 17:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Just look at any map of the world in 1812 compared to 1900. The use of the term "British Empire" is deliberately misleading. (92.7.19.156 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

Edit Deletion
I don't understand why you have a problem with this edit. It is properly cited from a reliable source. It reflects the genuine ideas of most Canadians who actually know about the war. Several American authors agree with this. Please give some reasons for deletion before doing so again. Ronald Wenonah (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I am now very annoyed. User:Rjensen deleted my edit without giving reasons for it here. As I have been repeatedly told to use the talk page to work things out, I am somewhat frustrated watching all this hypocrisy. Please give reasons for deletion! Ronald Wenonah (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You have done the right thing here by asking why this is happening - lets wait a day or so see if they reply here. If not we can contact them on there talk page.Moxy (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wenonah, I told you a year ago on your talk page some of the problems with your edit. The reason I did so on your personal talk page was that you were not commenting here. Your edit contains comments on the negotiations to the 1783 Treaty of Paris and that is not relevant to the War of 1812 as far as this relatively short article is concerned. George F. G. Stanley who you refer to includes it in his large book (489 pages) as part of a background to US-British relations prior to the War of 1812. He can do that because of the fact he wrote a large book and has the space for it. Stanley never said that there was a direct connection between the Paris negotiations in 1782/1783 and the War of 1812. Your statement that it set "the stage for the War of 1812" is your opinion/POV not anything Stanley stated. Also you used the words liberate and liberated in quotes and that is not from Stanley. It appears to be another attempt to inject a POV. The article already contains the point that some believe that the US wanted to annex part or all of BNA and there is no reason to repeat it. I'm not particularly in agreement with the way it is written in the article but your edit is poorly written and not acceptable. The fact that the US had a very small navy compared to Britain in also already in the article. I have no idea why you listed the reference as pages 11-31 since what you are talking about is contained on just two or three pages. Dwalrus (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you are incorrect. I know what was on those pages, which is why I cited them.Also I used liberate in quotes because it would not have been genuine liberation: it would have been annexation. Ronald Wenonah (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has access to a copy of that book, The War of 1812: Land Operations by George F. G. Stanley can look at it and see that your reference is to many pages that have nothing to do with what you are talking about. As I said there are only a few pages that deal with what you stated. Your problem, Wenonah, is that you have a record of putting up phony sources and you cannot run away from that record. You wanted an explanation of why your edit is not acceptable and you have my reasons. Perhaps some others will add their reasons. Dwalrus (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

But those pages are included in my citation. I made said that already. If you would like me to change the citation, which pages do deal with what I stated? And what happened to "Don't judge a book by its cover"? I could say that you have a record of vandalism, because you keep deleting my properly cited and reliably sourced edits. Ronald Wenonah (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You're focusing on the wrong point of what I said. The fact that you cited pages 11-31 instead of 29-31 is interesting but not the really the main issue here. Your edit is not being opposed because of your sloppy referencing. I mentioned it as the last item in my post merely because I found it interesting. The important issue is that the negotiations of the treaty ending the Revolutionary War is not relevant to this article on the War of 1812. Just because Stanley has it in his book is not justification to include it here. There are many points that are made in numerous books that are not included in this article. Dwalrus (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the fourth or fifth time that Ronald Wenonah has attempted to put this paragraph, practically word for word, into this article. Its merits were extensively discussed on each occasion; and the last two episodes led to him being banned for edit-warring. One would have thought that by now most sensible contributors would have learned that there was no concensus for its inclusion. The paragraph contains a sentence of non-informative verbiage ("Having failed to capture Canada during the American Revolutionary War, any annexation of Canada would have to be done militarily"), one which is completely redundant ("The United States, with a semi-existent navy, had no way of taking its revenge against Britain directly. Therefore, the Americans thought annexing Canada would easily accomplish this goal as they could bring much force to bear on the North American continent"), as this information has already been given, in much better form, in the paragraph immediately above, and two sentences on the negotiations following the War of Independence, are not really related to the preceding sentences or the article in general. I see no reason to keep the paragraph, and certainly no reason for the persistence with which it has been reintroduced so regularly.HLGallon (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wenonah explains his motivation: "It reflects the genuine ideas of most Canadians who actually know about the war." now that is not true in the first place, especially since he privileges folk wisdom above the many RS that are cited in the article. His POV belongs on Wenonah's personal Facebook page, not on Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The last time he got involved with trying to insert that paragraph verbatim to this attempt he then attempted to make this out to be a personal attack by myself upon him. The net result was that Ronald got himself blocked again.  Ronald then went over to a Hunting article and proceeded to get himself blocked again for edit warring.  The multiple attempts to put false references we have all noted and in fact looked them up.  Assigning a revenge motive when both countries had all but open warfare going on at sea would be a bit difficult.  We have sources that deal with the 19 years of trade tension I would suggest that we take a look at it.  The proposition that Ronald wants to put in the article boil down to redundant and badly written paragraph  with assumptions that I couldn't prove if I was offered a thousand dollars to do so.  Basically, we have a bad actor here.  Nothing is going to make any difference to Ronald except putting his paragraph in the article, end of story.  A look at his history with other articles points out that the fellow not demonstrated any ability work collaboratively with other editors.  Stooping to accusation of personal attacks by me has rather badly colored my view of the editor and I am not willing to tolerate any more of his actions on this page.  Any further insertions by Ronald should be posted to the ANI board and let them deal with him.  Once again he has managed to take up time from all of us on his nonconstructive actions.Tirronan (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 21 November 2011
Second paragraph of Negotiations and peace.

Can not should be cannot

Noxoin (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have made the correction. Thank you for pointing out the problem. Dwalrus (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Other British wars
I think the hatnote of this article should be changed to the dab page War of 1812 (disambiguation) as the Brits were involved in three other wars in 1812 (two of which by 1812 were over bar the shouting): -- PBS (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anglo-Russian War (1807–1812)
 * Anglo-Swedish War (1810–1812)
 * Wellies in the sun "Oh this year i'm off to Sunny Spain Y Viva Espana"
 * Oppose. the "War of 1812" is a standard name and it is not used for those other wars. Rjensen (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - its called War not Wars of 1812 - A dab page could be made called Category:Conflicts in 1812 that way its not just British stuff thus making it inclusive of  all nation. Because Wars of 1812 dont just cover British wars nor this war.Moxy (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is also not the standard name for the [Russian] Campaign of 1812, what exactly is it that you think you are opposing? The dab page "War of 1812 (disambiguation)" already exists I am suggesting that the current hatnote is replaced with a hatnote to that page. -- PBS (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Omg did not realizes what you were saying at all - (both of us misunderstood I guess). Sure what your saying sounds fine to me.Moxy (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I just knew there was a great reason to stay out of this!Tirronan (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry (perhaps I shouldn't be) I came into this late, but I've been slowly tapering off my WP:Wikipediholism to a more-manageable level. I wrote the hatnote that's been changed, but I have no problems with the change. At the time, the disambiguation page for War of 1812 had basically only three items: this page, Napoleon's campaign in Russia (which is what most Europeans and Britons think of when seeing "War of 1812") and Tchaikovsky's overture. With only two possible alternatives to the Ango-American War of 1812, making a reader go to an intermediate page to find what he or she was seeking seemed an unnecessary burden. But with many other items, it makes sense to direct him or her to the disambiguation page, although I'm tempted to fork the hatnote with a direct link to Napoleon's campaign, since I think that's by far the most likely reason someone would come here without an interest in the US War of 1812.
 * [This is a natural evolution as Wikipedia expands: see Talk:Frank Williams (Formula One), which I found when it was just "Frank Williams" and I was looking for a completely different Frank Williams (the Rhode Island jurist). Originally, the F1 Frank Williams was the only major entry, so it made sense to direct "Frank Williams" to that article, with two hatnotes for lesser alternative meanings. But a few years later, a dozen other Frank Williams appeared in disambiguation, so there was no dissent to distinguishing the first Frank Williams with (Formula One) and directing unmodified "Frank Williams" to the disambiguation page.]—— Shakescene (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and changed the hatnote by adding a separate link for the Franco-Russian contretemps, since (in my humble opinion) that's by far the most likely reason for someone uninterested in the trans-Atlantic war to come here (and by far the most common meaning in my British youth of "War of 1812"). I also changed "other wars" to "other meanings" as the least clumsy way of accommodating those looking for Tchaikovsky's overture. So it now reads
 * This article is about the Anglo-American War of 1812 to 1815. For the Patriotic War of 1812 against Napoleon, see French invasion of Russia. For other meanings, see War of 1812 (disambiguation). —— Shakescene (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Link to The History Channel's First Invasion: The War of 1812
Shouldn't there be a link to The History Channel's Sept. 11, 2004 documentary; First Invasion: The War of 1812? The link should be to the Wikipedia article on the show, and/or the History Channel's page that talks about the program. Looking at the article on the War of 1812, a person might think that the only USA television documentary on the war was the PBS October 10, 2011 program.204.80.61.110 (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Bennett Turk
 * Well, we are not a promotional arm for the history channel nor are we a LINKFARM for every possible tv show about a subject.  He  iro 19:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, The War of 1812 has only been the subject of two television documentaries on the subject, one from the History Channel and one from PBS. A lot of people do learn about history from watching tv documentaries. I doubt if PBS will be repeating their documentary on the War of 1812 as often as the History channel shows their program. I think people should see both programs as they do offer two different views of the war. The History Channel mainly focuses on the war from an American way of looking at it, while the PBS show gives the point of view of the war from Americans, English, Canadians, and Native Americans. The War of 1812 has for the most part been ignored by television, and I doubt if adding a link to the Wikipedia article on the show "First Invasion: The War of 1812" on the article on the War of 1812 needs a lot of effort.204.80.61.110 (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Bennett Turk


 * The History Channel's First Invasion only covers in any detail the British attacks on Washington, Baltimore, and New Orleans. It has been highly criticized as being biased and I believe most of the criticism is justified. The PBS production is much better although I do believe it is superficial in its coverage of the prewar period and there are occasional comments in it that can be disputed. The PBS documentary can be viewed on the web at any time by going to the link provided in the article. The History Channel's documentary cannot be viewed at their website but you can go to youtube and view it in ten minute sections. The Wikipedia article on The History Channel's documentary is pathetic and contains dead links. I don't see any reason to link to First Invasion. Dwalrus (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What, they left out all the frontier action, in Ohio and in Michigan? AND all the action in Canada?!? --Shearonink (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I enjoyed watching the HC's documentary, but Mother of God, the gloss overs and blatant POV was rough to see. I don't think it added a thing to the enlighten the masses.  Anytime I want to get flat angry I watch the Battle of Waterloo documentary, makes me want to get out a Union Jack and wave it around in my American house... sheesh.  Let us not do this OK?Tirronan (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, I used to love the HC, but their stuff has seriously gone down hill. It's hard to even find a show not about truckers, alligator hunters, garbage pickers, pawnbrokers, 2012, Nostradamus, aliens or insert inane pseudohistorical nonsense of your choosing here. Even the actual "history" stuff has seriously declined in any significant value. And their habit of spending 55 minutes with the wackiest fringe nutballs they can find on a subject and 5 minutes with a real historian or archaeologist explaining why the previous 55 minutes is BS makes me want to pull whats left of my hair out.  He  iro 15:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The History Channel is not a reliable source or a good external link in anyway - the channel should be called  "the Alternative Channel"Moxy (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

As if any of you fools could be satisfied with anything American. I spent seven years watching British TV where America and Americans are mocked at every turn. There was one memorable episode of some guy fantasizing about the American colonies losing their fight for independence and describing in detail the hanging of George Washington, without his false teeth of course. That should be good for lots of British and Canadian laughs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.7.248 (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm from the Midwest and live in the South. It has nothing to do with the HC being an American channel, but all to do with how they actually present material.  He  iro 20:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in Texas, last I checked it was in the USA. Personally I'd not be calling folks a fool but I think I have stated it enough HC is bad history.Tirronan (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

History Channel - Hah hah hah. Thank you, needed a laugh :-) Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

British North America (Canada)
The British North America (Canada) section is tagged with refimprove. It would be nice this could be resolved by June 18 so we can list this article on Selected anniversaries/June 18 for the war's bicentennial anniversary. Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 17:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

United States Expansionism
I think that it was wrong to revert my edit. It is irrelevant how the author mentions the information as long as it doesn't violate copyrights,is from a reputable source, and supports the edit.As for the irrelevance of the Revoloutionary War, there is another sentence about the same treaty in the British Support For Indian Wars section,but no one appears to be attacking that.Rwenonah (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The book that you are now referencing is not up to the standards that Wikipedia calls for. How To Loose A War is edited by Bill Fawcett and the articles included in it are written by other writers most of whom are not historians. In fact, most of the writers in that book are actually science fiction/fantasy writers. The person who wrote the article title Napoleon's Seapower Lost At Sea from which you took your comment is Roland J. Green who is known as a science fiction/ fantasy writer and not as an historian. Not surprisingly there is no documentation with the article. This book is not a reliable source on this subject.


 * You have repeatedly attempted to include the reference to the negotiations that resulted in the Treaty of Paris in 1783. I have told you that when Stanley or any other writer writes a book of almost 500 pages they have the opportunity to include many items that would not be acceptable for a relatively small article such as this one on Wikipedia. The reference to those negotiations is not relevant to the War of 1812 and Stanley never claimed it was.


 * As for the fact that there is a reference to the 1783 Treaty of Paris in the article, that is for a valid and relevant point. The US obtained possession of the so-called Old Northwest as a result of that treaty and pointing that out is certainly acceptable.Dwalrus (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with Dwalrus. Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, find a well respected Historian or two and even better three. There are views that say that U.S. Expansionism was an issue.  There is very little of that proof in evidence.  This war was has been documented as slowly bubbling up for twenty straight years.  Almost all of it over the Royal Navy's press, constant and willful violations of Her National borders and waters, suppression of her trade.  The U.S. had more land that it could settle for the foreseeable future.  All of the major debates were over those issues.  From a national view when a country wins a war they don't go after revenge.  The U.S. won its war.  Countries will go to war if they surmise their economy is being suppressed.  I've never seen any official documentation that revenge or righting wrongs from the Paris Treaty were ever a consideration.  America went into this war with many expecting to lose.  Look if you want to contribute so badly then make another suggestion that is based on good reliable sources.  The movement of Canadian independence started at this war.  American went from an importer of fine goods to an exporter because of this war.  The respect that grew between the three countries flowered into iron bonded alliances.  all these things are not explored nearly as well as they could be.  Find a facet of the war not well covered and buy some real books with real historians and hell I will help you edit and create them.  What I want an end to is this constant attempt to put in a paragraph that repeats what is already said, or covers a area of weak influence at the very best.  The personal attack bit didn't help you much either.  Start proving good contributions and we'll find a way to help.  Until that time I too will revert for all the reasons that two very fine editors have stated and that I am in complete agreement with.Tirronan (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I give up.There is no consensus for this edit, whether it is correct or not. Rwenonah (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

France
I did read somewhere that the French actually were involved in the war, and fought with an American ship in one battle. Does anyone know about that? I can't find the source. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a research paper written on sea combat in the war of 1812, I think it was in that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Change "result" in infobox to "British Victory"
It is not because the "result" of the war of 1812 is longstanding on wikipedia that it shouldn't need a little revising. The Americans declared war on the British and attempted an invasion of Canada. The British repelled the Americans and razed Washington D.C.

It has been noted that modern Americans are rewriting history in their favor:


 * In declaring war on Britain, the U.S. put its six frigates up against the mighty 1,000-ship Royal Navy. And in the first few months of the war, this handful of ships scored several surprising one-on-one victories over British frigates. While these victories mattered little from a strategic point of view, they provided a competing David versus Goliath tale that has since allowed the U.S. to remember the entire conflict as a victory. [...]


 * “The Americans have been getting away with this nonsense for two centuries,” grouses Canadian historian Donald Graves, one of Canada’s most prolific writers on the War of 1812. “In their version of the war, the fact that they got defeated doesn’t even rate a mention.”

We should change the war's "result" for what it is : a British victory.

Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed to death already. A quick search of the archives finds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (you can probably find more at the index).  Has anything changed? Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a better link from the giant notice on top of the page saying not to bring this topic up again without good cause. And because every Canadienne makes the point that Washington was burned, we burned your capital too (and you guys held Philadelphia for half the Revolution, did you win that?). Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are correct, the subject has been beaten to death. Bottom line it was a complex war for a lot of reasons that stopped making sense to both parties.  No matter how you cut it, both sides for all intents gave up and went home, literally as well as figuratively.  The British held New York City for the entire war revolutionary war.  It didn't change anything.Tirronan (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:WEIGHT. It is not up to us to make a judgment about who won the war but to report what sources say.  TFD (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, I hadn't seen the notice. Sorry for wasting your time.
 * Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I happened to notice that the British pulled out of the US after retreating at Fort McHenry, and then loosing at New Orleans. Still, the treaty was the result of this war. Bmendonc {talk) 19:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Bmendoc, the British didn't pull out of the US after New Orleans. They were reinforced, went and captured Fort Bowyer and were preparing to take Mobile when they heard the war was ended. They also had troops in various other parts of the US (Illinois, Missouri and nearly half of Maine) who didn't leave until peaces was declared. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The Battle of New Orleans is irrelevant as it happened after the Treaty of Ghent. (JeremeyMurphy (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
 * The great victory at New Orleans did indeed matter. The war was NOT over when the battle of New Orleans was fought. The war ended a month later, in Feb. 1815. when the treaty was ratified (approved) by both sides. Rjensen (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree with RJensen, technically the war was not over till it was ratified by US Senate. However, there is some truth in what (JeremeyMurphy says. There is some truth in the matter that Battle of New Orleans did not matter, as the conditions of the treaty had been worked out *before* New Orleans, and the fact that the US won New Orleans did not change the wording of the treaty, which was then signed by the US. And of course, the British ceased hostilies when they heard that the treaty had been signed, even though the US hadn't ratified it yet, so for them, the war was over as soon as they knew the treaty had been signed, as opposed to beiong over when it was ratified by both nation's governments. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There has been mediation over the result, which I was involved in and a section was inserted to address the range of viewpoints from Historians. Some see this as a victory for the British, others see it as a stalemate, others see it as a victory for both, and at least one other sees it as a Victory for Canada, but a loss for both the US and British!. It wouldn't be apt to put the infobox result as a British victory, however it would be apt to put the result as disputed. This would reflect the article better, and in my viewpoint is more in line with WP:Balance. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice at the top needs to be modified. While I agree, we don't want continued debate about which side one, the notice at the top states the viewpoint that both sides won. This needs to be changed. The article doesn't come to the conclusion that both sides won, it expresses the various viewpoints, from a number of historians, about who won. The article conforms to WP:balance, but the notice does not. If Nicolas M. Perrault thinks the infobox does not reflect the article, he should not be stopped from discussing this, by a banner or by any user. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The Battle of New Orleons was actually completely irrelevant because it happened after the Prince Regent signed the peace treaty which ended the war. The outcome of the battle was of no consequence - it was certainly not a "great victory" for either side, as the war was already over. (92.10.135.168 (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC))

Yes, I agree. The Brits had already signed it, whether they won the battle or lost, the British forces still would have ceased combat as soon as they heard the treaty had been signed. The US too had signed the treaty and the senate still ratified the treaty even though they won the battle... the US were in no position/mood to continue the war.I guess the major effect the Battle of New Orleans had was that the war ended on a higher note from the US people's perspective, and Andrew Jackson recieved even more aclaim than he had previously got from slaughtering Native Americans. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, the British could not have continued the war even if they had won the Battle of New Orleons, due to Napoleon's escape from Elba on 1st March 1815. (92.7.27.253 (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC))

Warning Banner
I think the article reflects a balanced viewpoint on the different historian's viewpoints on who won the war, and hopefully this has stopped some of the constant debate! However, I think this banner no longer should be reflecting just one viewpoint...ie that the war was a draw/both sides won. As per wikipedia policy WP:balance, the warning banner should reflect a balanced view...of the various viewpoints. The article does, and so should the banner.

My point is, the banner makes the bold statement that "both sides won" and then states this is broadly agreed among editors and historians. From the fact that there has been constant fighting among editors about this point, I would dispute that most editors agree on the fact that both sides won. Many editors think that the British won. The banner does not reflect the WP:Balance in terms of the various viewpoints of historians on who won the war, as the article does.

Presently the banner says this:

This page is for discussions about changes to the article. There has been considerable debate over "who won the war" (please refer to Archives 8 and 9 for the most recent discussions). In addition to the position that one, or the other, side "won," there is broad agreement among editors (as among historians) that both sides benefited from the war, or, as one editor put it: "both sides won." Post mediation, in order to get the article to reflect the various historians viewpoints, I think the article should say something like this:

This page is for discussions about changes to the article. There has been considerable debate over "who won the war" (please refer to Archives 8 and 9 for the most recent discussions). Historians and the editors have various viewpoints on which side won, or if there was a stalemate. For more information, see the section *Memory and historiography, Historian's views*. However, the consensus, based on historical documentation, is that the result of the war was per the Treaty of Ghent, i.e., status quo ante bellum, which, in plain English means "as things were before the war."

If anyone has issue with me changing this, please discuss here. Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I would have an issue with it. Since 90% of that discussion was driven by you personally.  We have been drug over that ground so often that it really won't go over well.  We made a concession to you and by God you made everyone of us pay for it.  Then you went to a Irish Blogger and attempted to paint us as one sided American bigots.  You followed that by statements in the bugle about the other editors and me further discussing our narrow mindedness and how you the hero are righting wrongs.  You owe me and every editor on this page an unfettered apology for you behavior towards and about us.


 * Secondly, this issue will never be settled because like the Battle of Jutland, Battle of Borodino, and a few others this war doesn't really fit the standard win/loss/draw. Well, "just gave up and went home" better covers it from both sides but we don't have that option.  The article remains center-lined where historians put it.  It is the only way we can address it.  This really needs to stop here.Tirronan (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I would ask you to please discuss the issues at hand without personal attack, and please regard WP:CIVILIY Yes, 90% of the previous discussion was driven by me personally, I'm quite happy with that, I thought the changes needed to be made, they went through mediation, with input from various viewpoints, and the articles has been changed to reflect the viewpoints and is better for it...not sure what the problem is with that?Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As for your accusations that I went to an Irish Blogger and defamed everyone here,...firstly can you give me some details on this Irish Blogger I am supposed to have gone to? A link would be nice so I can see what I am supposed to have done. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK lets deal with your behavior here in this article, lack of scholarship, shading the truth, and non-stop pushing a view despite repeated calls to stop, all backed up in the archives and your posts in the bugle about the other editors. You have so badly shaded the truth it didn't resemble reality anymore. I'm sorry if your past is biting you but I find myself completely unwilling to entertain you antics anymore. It isn't personal its trolling.  You know where the link is and so does everyone else and your comments.  I don't like the game you play and I'm done.  You need to man up and own your behavior and apologize.  We've argued this over subject over and it never gets anywhere.  Now stop wasting my time.Tirronan (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again - you've made the accusation, back it up. I would like a link to this blogger, and how you came to the conclusion that I did this. I have gone to no blogger to talk about this from memory(?). I did discuss this on the Bugle and then only after I got an invitation to comment on it.If I did talk to a blogger and unfairly defamed people, I will apologise, but 95% sure I only ever commented on the Bugle. But first of all, post the link to it and whatever indicates to you that I contacted this person and defamed everyone. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Otherwise, give me the name of this blogger and I will google it Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Time for a ...? Moxy (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy for a truce, I'm just here to work on the article, this emotive crap gets no where. I would like to see what I have been accused of, and how he has decided that I did it?Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, moving on, I would like to change the banner to reflect the fact that there are multiple viewpoints on "who won the war" not just the one viewpoint that both sides one. If the banner is going to make a statement about who won the war, then it should reflect the range of views, not just sum up and state one viewpoint. Would be great is someone, apart from Tirronan, comments.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree: There was consensus on the banner at the time. However, your change seems like a reasonable modification (you said: "the article should say..." I presume you meant "the banner should say..."). I think the proposed change is neutral, adds more information, and is thus an improvement on the previous wording of the banner. Sunray (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry Sunray, I meant banner, not article :-). Any other comments before it goes up?Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the truce. I do not agree with changing the banner.  We spent the better part of two years arguing about the results of the war or more specifically who won.  This resulted in nothing but endless blogging.  Should there be new evidence or proof that the majority of modern historian had changed their views I would be all for it.  Perhaps you do not have better uses for your time but I simply do not wish to spend all sorts of time re-arguing the same old path.  In fact there is a section dealing with various points of view and it is in there.  Where you and I agree is that the won/loss/draw is not an accurate summation of this and half a dozen other war/battle articles.  I give you the Battle of Borodino where the French won a crushing victory that gave them the ability to move forward to more starvation, disease, and desertion, leading to utter destruction how exactly are we to classify it?  There is the Battle of Jutland, one can make a case that the Germans won as they sunk more ships.  One can make a case that the British won, the held the field and numerically we stronger in a month than they were before.  The balance of forces if anything was even more lopsided.  One can make a case that nothing changed the blockade of the German Empire continued contributing to the defeat of the Central Powers, where are we with that?


 * In this war both sides offensive land campaigns against one another were defeated every single time, so a total wash. The British Navy won the open sea campaign, period, but it never could have been any other way.  Balance that with the inland Great Lakes naval campaigns which the American Navy won, period.  There was never a period where one side won so many victories that the other side said we have lost.  This war was filled with ambiguity and partial answers.  Unless new evidence comes up so it will remain.


 * Finally, Wikipedia history articles are not popularity contests where we decide the outcome by popular vote by nationality. I've never written an article yet where my opinion counted worth a damn.  You pick up a dozen good books on the subject by mainstream historians experts in that area and field and you base the article ON WHAT THEY SAY, not what I, or you, or anyone else, thinks.  I honestly don't care who won, that is not my function here.  I do care that when we write an article and present it to the public as the truth (or as close as we can get to it) that that article is in fact correct as according to the current historiography.  This article is not and should never be a popularity contest.Tirronan (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

concentration camps vs reservations
Wikipedia should refer to the imprisonment of the natives in concentration camps, because that is the international term used for the activity of imprisoning the victims of ethnic cleansing. Reservations are for wild animals, not people. The indians were not wild animals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.118.123 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not even close to the same thing. You should read Indian reservation for a better understanding. —Diiscool (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that from many books that i have read that the states had between 50,000-100,000 militia, but they were poorly trained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.75.211.179 (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why no mention of Rothschild ?
"Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war." - Nathan Mayer Rothschild, 1811 AD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.114.3 (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Because we are not insane and potentially anti-semetic conspiracy theorists. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 February 2012
Request to add the following text, under the section memory and Historiography / Canadian, after the text "In a 2009 poll, 37% of Canadians said the war was a Canadian victory, 9% said the U.S. won, 15% called it a draw, and 39%—mainly younger Canadians—said they knew too little to comment." This is based on publication of new poll results, February 13, 2012.


 * A February 2012 study by the Historica Dominion Institute found that "in a list of items that could be used to define Canadians identity, the fact that Canada beat the Americans in the War of 1812 places second (25%), only behind the fact that Canada has free healthcare (53%)."
 * The Canadian comedy troupe Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie released a popular song in 2000 called the "The White House Burned (War of 1812)" poking fun at Canadian perceptions and American sensitivity to the outcome of war.
 * The Canadian comedy troupe Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie released a popular song in 2000 called the "The White House Burned (War of 1812)" poking fun at Canadian perceptions and American sensitivity to the outcome of war.

--Mindfingers (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Mindfingers

Mindfingers (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The source doesn't support much of what you are requesting. Please trim out the unsupported text and be specific about where to insert the remainder. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Celesta. I'm resubmitting this edit request with exact quotes from the poll. I've been more specific in where it should be placed.

--Mindfingers (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Mindfingers

Not done: Please don't edit talk page comments, it destroys the flow of the conversation. The poll was conducted in January on behalf of the HDI. Calling it a February study by the HDI is not accurate. The HDI doesn't even need to be mentioned, it adds nothing to the text. Quoting an excerpt from the report, in this case, presents a misleading summary of the information in the report. A neutral substitute might read "In a January 2012 poll, the belief that Canada won the war came in second in a list of items which which Canadians felt could be used to define their national identity, only behind free health care." Can you suggest something along those lines? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 February 2012
Request to add the following text, under the section Memory and Historiography / Canadian, after the text "In a 2009 poll, 37% of Canadians said the war was a Canadian victory, 9% said the U.S. won, 15% called it a draw, and 39%—mainly younger Canadians—said they knew too little to comment." This is based on publication of new poll results, February 13, 2012.


 * A February 2012 poll by Ipsos Reid, commissioned by the Historica Dominion Institute found that "in a list of items that could be used to define Canadians identity, the fact that Canada beat the Americans in the War of 1812 places second (25%), only behind the fact that Canada has free healthcare (53%)."
 * The Canadian comedy troupe Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie released a popular song in 2000 called the "The White House Burned (War of 1812)" poking fun at Canadian perceptions and American sensitivity to the outcome of war.
 * The Canadian comedy troupe Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie released a popular song in 2000 called the "The White House Burned (War of 1812)" poking fun at Canadian perceptions and American sensitivity to the outcome of war.

For reasons noted below, I also recommend changing the sentence currently reading:


 * A long-term implication of the militia myth—which was false, but remained popular in the Canadian public at least until World War I—was that Canada did not need a regular professional army.

to:


 * A long-term implication of the belief that the militia myth, which remained popular with the Canadian public at least until World War I, was that Canada did not need a regular professional army.

--Mindfingers (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Mindfingers

Regarding Celesta's suggestion to remove the source of the poll: The Historica Dominica Instiute comissioned the poll, which was conducted by Ipsos Reid. I've indicatd this clearly in the suggested edit, as well as substituting the word "poll" for "study." I resepctfully disagree that removing the source of the poll improves the article. So does Wikipedia policy, which recommends sourcing and citing edits. I think that it is important to know who commissions a poll. The media reports on this poll (Niagara Gazette, CTV News:  Canadians Tell Pollsters War of  1812 Saved us from US, Chronicle Herald: Poll: War of 1812 Saved us from US Politics and several others),  all cite the HDI.

Regarding Celesta's suggested eidt: I find your suggested text a little bizarre. You are telling me that your rewording (which you claim to be "neutral") of a finding in the report is superior to an actual quote from the second paragraph of the summary of the report, quoting verbatim one of its major findings? Surely the primary source, quoted, is the most accurate reflection of what the report said. I also disagree that the quoted section, in any way, provides a "misleading" summary of the report. All of the aforemetnioned media reports, and many others, specifically cite this finding, which belies your notion that it is "misleading." Even if it were, I fail to see how your suggested edit addresses that specific issue. I would have provided a comprehensive list of all the findings of the report--and I will, if this change is yet again rejected--but I wanted to condense the information (as, I believe, an encylopedia should). I wanted to convey that the War of 1812 remains an important part of contemporary Canadian nationalism (as this suggested addition was to be insteretd into the part of the article specifically dedicated to the meoroy of the war in Canada had to do with the memory of the war in Canada), and so I extracted that finding.

I've also suggested changin the sentence which begins "A long-term implication of the militia myth—which was false, but remained popular in the Canadian public at least until World War I..." simply because the writing is bad. The hyphenated phrase suggests that a myth can either be true or false. However, a myth is generally recognized to be false by definition, so restating the case is redundant. Also, something doesn't "remain popular in the Canadian Public" but "with" the Canadian public.

Finally, I would hope that edits to this page are not all in the control of a single editor. Do you represent a collaboration of several editors, Celesta, or are you just adding your sole opinion?

Mindfingers (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: edit semi-protected requests can be serviced by any autoconfirmed editor. In practice, there are some small number of editors who check on available requests on a regular basis and service most of them. I am an individual and my opinion has equal weight to others, but it is an opinion based on years of doing this.

What, exactly, do you want to add to this article? I assume it is the interesting point that Canadian people consider their belief about the outcome of the War of 1812 as defining their identity (I assume as opposed to being Americans). I assume it is not an interest in advertising the HDI, or in promoting one nationalist viewpoint over another. For a small interesting detail like this, there is no reason to qualify in the text which organization condusted the poll or commissioned it aside from the reference which would serve to allow the reader to verify the statement. You will notice that this is the case with the existing sentence which you mention above - "In a a 2009 poll, ...".

You will be autoconfirmed yourself in two days if you also make another seven edits. It might be better to wait that time and make these changes yourself. The other editors who are active on this article may adjust the text you add in a way similar to what I was suggesting, or they may not.

Regards, Celestra (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As per your request: "What, exactly, do you want to add to this article?" I've submitted my exact text edits twice. I find the information in my suggested addition to be: (a) new, (b) not already included, (c) significant (as evidenced, for example, by wide reports in the media) and (d) relevant to the subject.

If it is common Wikipedia pratice to leave out things like the name of the insititutions commissioning/conducting a poll, then I have no problem resubmitting the edit minus those details. Assuming I do so, will there be any further impediments?

Thank you

--Mindfingers (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason to not include some of the poll results in the article. However, the quote, "...the fact that Canada beat the Americans in the War of 1812..." is going to generate needless controversy. It will be pointed out by knowledgeable editors that Canada did not exist at that time and, more importantly, that it was the British who defeated US attempts to conquer British territory that is now the nation of Canada. That quote is fine for a Canadian website promoting Canadian history but highly questionable for this article.


 * The reference to the parody by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie should not have the editorial comment. I saw that parody a few years ago and thought it was funny but it is open to different interpretations. You may see it as "poking fun at Canadian perceptions and American sensitivity to the outcome of war," but others particularly those from the US may see it as a nationalistic Canadian view of the outcome of the war. Leave out the claim about the US and just point out that the parody was popular with some Canadians.


 * As for the edits to the militia myth statement I think it's fine either way. What I find interesting is that it claims it was popular until at least WW1. My understanding is that the Canadian historian C P Stacey is credited with exploding the myth when he presented a paper to the Ontario Historical Society in 1958. Dwalrus (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That opinion existed on both sides of the border. On the American side of the border a standing army was seen as a threat to democracy. During the course of the Civil War it was a common (if unfounded) opinion that state raised forces were superior in the main.  There are many echos of between both nations on the subject historically.Tirronan (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Great. I'l resubmit with these comments in mind. I just suggested that the verbiage regarding militiamen be changed because of poor grammar (specifically the part saying that a myth is false, which I find redundant). However, since then I've also noted that both the external link citations (129 and 130) are dead. Those citations should be rediscovered or removed, I suppose. I'll note this in my resubmission also. Canada is apparently planning some kind of bicentennial commemoration of the conflict at some point and, when that happens, I'll probably submit that suggested addition alos, unless someone else does.--Mindfingers (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 February 2012
Request to add the following text, under the section Memory and Historiography / Canadian, after the text "In a 2009 poll, 37% of Canadians said the war was a Canadian victory, 9% said the U.S. won, 15% called it a draw, and 39%—mainly younger Canadians—said they knew too little to comment." This suggested addition is based on publication of new poll results, February 13, 2012.


 * A February 2012 poll found that in a list of items that could be used to define Canadians identity, the fact that Canada successfully repelled an American invasion in the War of 1812 places second (25%), only behind the fact that Canada has universal health care (53%).


 * The Canadian comedy troupe Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie released a popular parody song in 2000 called the "The White House Burned (War of 1812)."

Here is the citation:

Also, I recommend removing reference 129. It is a dead link.

--Mindfingers (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, thank you :) -- andy4789 ★ ·  (talk?   contribs?)  13:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR
Based on the article history, I have standardized the spelling throughout the article to Canadian English. Note:
 * The earliest version matches Canadian usage better than British usage.
 * This discussion in 2009 attests that the first version of the article uses "British" spelling, but an analysis would suggest it complies better with Canadian than British usage. The words in this version that show regional variation are: favour, manoeuvred, misjudgment, paralysed, criticized, harbours, and organized (each appearing once; this excludes the spelling of "Sackett's Harbour"). All of these forms can be used in either British or Canadian English, but note that:
 * misjudgment is the usual Canadian spelling and a variant (of misjudgement) in BrE
 * paralysed is the usual British spelling and a variant (of paralyzed) in CanE
 * criticized and organized are the usual Canadian spellings and, while both -ise and -ize are used in the UK, -ise is often preferred in BrE
 * Combined with the date being predominantly in the MDY format in this version (in BrE, DMY is usual; in CanE, both are widely used, with MDY as first among equals in The Canadian Style), the usage in the first version would appear to favour CanE over BrE.


 * Failure of past edits to yield consistent BrE, despite apparent consensus for its use.
 * The discussion in 2009 resulted in an attempt to standardize the article's spelling to BrE; however, after these edits, the article's spelling was still inconsistent. On a BrE–AmE "spectrum", we have, for example:
 * BrE: authorised, mobilise, naturalised, organised, sizeable
 * BrE/CanE: centre, defence, favourable, honour, theatre
 * BrE/CanE/AmE: Anglicization, authorizing
 * CanE/AmE: balked, program
 * AmE: defense, favor, harbors, kilometers, neighborhood
 * A long discussion in 2011 is related to the restoration of a group of "British" spellings after an edit in which these were Americanized; however, note that the spelling remained inconsistent after this (for example, defence/defenses, colours/watercolor, favor/favourable, honor/honour, organised/organizing, theaters/theatre, etc.).

WP:RETAIN would therefore support the use of Canadian English. Standardization to Canadian spellings complies with the article's North American style, such as the date format (MDY), hyphenation (for example, "postwar"), and vocabulary (for example, "the fall of 1814"). CanE also falls between AmE and BrE, so is perhaps most fitting for an article that has had inconsistent usage for so long. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 March 2012
Please make the following minor correction:


 * A February 2012 poll found that in a list of items that could be used to define Canadians' identity, the fact that Canada successfully repelled an American invasion in the War of 1812 places second (25%), only behind the fact that Canada has universal health care (53%).[citation needed]...The Canadian comedy troupe Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie released a popular parody song in 2000 called the "The White House Burned (War of 1812)." [133]

Where it says "citiation needed" it should cite Reference 133. Please remove Reference 133 from after the sentence referring to the War of 1812 song by Three Dead Trolls in Baggie. (This does not need a reference since it is referenced in the Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie IWkipedia entry). ie


 * A February 2012 poll found that in a list of items that could be used to define Canadians' identity, the fact that Canada successfully repelled an American invasion in the War of 1812 places second (25%), only behind the fact that Canada has universal health care (53%).[133]...The Canadian comedy troupe Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie released a popular parody song in 2000 called the "The White House Burned (War of 1812)."

Thanks

Mindfingers (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Good catch! elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

American Military History, Volume 1: The United States Army and the Forging of a Nation, 1775-1917
Chapter 6 of the following is on the War of 1812:

IMHO that chapter is much clearer than this article. Chapter 6 can be found online in at least two places: This chapter isn't referenced at all in this article, nor is it in the list of books about the War of 1812. Here are examples of details that might be worth citing:
 * 1) To Great Britain the War of 1812 was simply a burdensome adjunct of its greater struggle against Napoleonic France. To the Canadians it was clearly a case of naked American aggression. But to the Americans it was neither simple nor clear. The United States entered the war with confused objectives and divided loyalties and made peace without settling any of the issues that had induced the nation to go to war.
 * 2) The immediate causes of the war were seizure of American ships, insults and injuries to American seamen by the British Navy, and rapid expansion of the American frontier.
 * 3) The seat of anti-British fever was in the Northwest and the lower Ohio Valley, where the land-hungry frontiersmen had no doubt that their troubles with the Indians were the result of British intrigue. Stories circulated after every Indian raid of British Army muskets and equipment found on the field. By 1812 the westerners were convinced their problems could best be solved by forcing the British out of Canada and annexing it to the United States.
 * 4) While the western "war hawks" urged war in the hope of conquering Canada, the people of Georgia, Tennessee, and the Mississippi Territory entertained similar designs against Florida
 * 5) When the war began, Maj. Gen. Isaac Brock, the military commander and civil governor of Upper Canada, had 800 militiamen available in addition to his 1,600 regulars. In the course of the war, the two provinces put a total of about 10,000 militiamen in the field; whereas in the United States, probably 450,000 of the militiamen saw active service, though not more than half of them ever got near the front.
 * 6) A significant weakness in the American position was the disunity of the country. In the New England states, public opinion ranged from mere apathy to actively expressed opposition to the war....Nevertheless, several of those states spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on local defense even if they contributed little directly to the federal effort. And despite the regional disaffection with the war, New England was second only to the Mid-Atlantic States in providing regular units
 * 7) The war progressed through three distinct stages. In the first, lasting until the spring of 1813, England was so hard pressed in Europe that it could spare neither men nor ships in any great number for the conflict in North America. The United States was free to take the initiative, to invade Canada, and to send out cruisers and privateers against enemy shipping. During the second stage, lasting from early 1813 to the beginning of 1814, Britain was able to establish a tight blockade but still could not materially reinforce the troops in Canada. During this stage the American Army, having gained experience, won its first successes. The third stage, in 1814, was marked by the constant arrival in North America of British regulars and naval reinforcements, which enabled the enemy to raid the North American coast almost at will and to take the offensive in several quarters.
 * 8) Canada was not faced with the same degree of public opinion challenges. Nevertheless, many inhabitants of Upper Canada were recent immigrants from the United States who had no great desire to take up arms against their former homeland. Other Canadians thought that the superiority of the United States in men and material made any defense hopeless. That General Brock was able to overcome this spirit of defeatism and obtain the degree of support he needed to defend Canada is a lasting tribute to the quality of his leadership.
 * 9) The expedition against Montreal in the fall of 1813 was one of the worst fiascoes of the war....
 * 10) During 1813 a new theater of operations opened in the south. Maj. Gen. (of the Tennessee militia) Andrew Jackson, an ardent expansionist, wrote the Secretary of War that he would "rejoice at the opportunity of placing the American eagle on the ramparts of Mobile, Pensacola, and Fort St. Augustine." For this purpose Tennessee had raised a force of 2,000 men to be under Jackson’s command.
 * 11) Congress, after much debate, approved only an expedition into that part of the gulf coast in dispute between the United States and Spain and refused to entrust the venture to the Tennesseans. Just before he went north to take part in the Montreal expedition, General Wilkinson led his regulars into the disputed part of West Florida and without meeting any resistance occupied Mobile, while the Tennessee army was left cooling its heels in Natchez. An Indian uprising in that part of the Mississippi Territory soon to become Alabama saved General Jackson’s military career.
 * 12) Inspired by Tecumseh’s earlier successes, the Creek Indians took to the warpath in the summer of 1813 with a series of outrages culminating in the massacre of more than 500 men, women, and children at Fort Mims. Jackson, with characteristic energy, reassembled his army, which had been dismissed after Congress rejected its services for an attack on Florida, and moved into the Mississippi Territory. His own energy added to his problems, for he completely outran his primitive supply system and dangerously extended his line of communications. The hardships of the campaign and one near defeat at the hands of the Indians destroyed any enthusiasm the militia might have had for continuing in service. Jackson was compelled to entrench at Fort Strother on the Coosa River and remain there for several months until the arrival of a regiment of the Regular Army gave him the means to deal with the mutinous militia.

67.101.5.174 (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I find the article completely POV from the Canadian side where ever that country is involved. Is this deliberate? Can it be remedied? Satanclawz (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * remedied? yes indeed. take one step at a time. begin by telling us the single most egregious sentence showing unacceptable POV. Rjensen (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead picture
Really? Of all the battle art for the War, we use the White House Presidential Mansion, partially destroyed? Perhaps it's me being Canadian, but I find that insultingly trivial, even though it was a victory for "my side". Any image is better than that, you have to stare to even figure out what it's about. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can find an image more to your liking on Commons? Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is actually the Capital building. The difficulty with using battle imagery is that such images tend to glorify one side or the other, and lead us down debates into which battle is the one to be chosen. The burning of Washington DC was an iconic moment in the war. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 16:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zanimum its a bad picture--it suites Canadian POV. Rjensen (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, pshaw. The director of our local SPCA tells her staff "never come into my office with a problem unless you also bring a solution." Good rule.  Do cease carping about a perfectly respectable picture unless and until you can offer a better one.ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  16:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Any of these images are more exciting, including the first one I've included, which is actually of the same burning the Capitol. Or perhaps a series of pictures, a la World War I or World War II? --  Zanimum (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Kudos for some nice images. It is of course hard to find one not glorifying one side or other other.  But I think the first (BritishBurntheCapital) is best for this reason: it shows the British triumphant during what an earlier editor called an iconic moment--yet it is an American image, from within the restored capital that was burned.  So everybody can claim this image shows they won. Interesting trivia:  during their march from burning Washington back to their ships a tornado ravaged the British and killed many men.  Not sure who would claim credit for that, maybe the Almighty in a mischievous mood.ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  17:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue I'd have with that one is aesthetical: It is dark and dank. I don't see the need to make a change just to make a change. As I recall, we moved to this one after back and forth over various battle pictures. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 18:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the last discussion I can find, of the infobox pic: Talk:War_of_1812/Archive_12, 26 to 27 July 2009. --  Zanimum (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of the current picture. It really doesn't show anything, one of the Capitol burning would be better.  Why not do a montage like the one for the Revolutionary War?   Hot Stop   21:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Montages are good. For one thing, it would even give us an excuse to crop in on simple but interesting elements of other images, to create a selection of more graphic images. --  Zanimum (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What about re-enactors? My dad is president of a local art group in suburban Toronto. We recently had some local re-enactors posing for portraits, in US, British, and British Canada uniforms, as well as a naval uniform. (I don't remember the details, may be screwing that up, but I at least know both sides of the border are represented.) Are re-enactment shots valid, technically, are they any less real than a painting of the battles, just because they're decades later? Or what about if I or someone else illustrated one uniform from each side, in a technical illustration feel, like jerseys in sports articles? --  Zanimum (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Zanimum has a very good point. There were no artists or photographers on the battlefield -- all the art was based on imagination years later. Likewise the reenactors. They spend a lot of effort in getting the costumes and gear exactly right, and their effort speaks to the current (2012) memories of the war, so I recommend using their photos. Rjensen (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone object? It's been five days, but I wanted to ask for sure, before I email the re-enactor I know. --  Zanimum (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had a brief eye on this discussion; thought I'd weigh in with an immediately implementable solution. I took the liberty of whipping up a montage of relevant images. There appears to be a consensus that the Burning of Washington is probably the most identifiable event of the entire affair, so what was left of the Capitol takes center stage. The other images are of two decisive British and American victories: Queenston Heights and New Orleans, both images of which highlight particular individuals (Isaac Brock, Andrew Jackson). The naval campaigns are represented by the most known action of the most known ship: Constitution vs Guerriere. And the involvement of the natives is highlighted with the death of Tecumseh. It's thus far more inclusive than just using the single image of the Capitol. The image is ready and raring to go, unless anyone has any comments on better images/size ratios to use. For instance, someone argued for using this for the Burning of Washington; I can use that instead, though its more obvious what the building is with the current one.

I'd strongly recommend against the inclusion of re-enactors for this purpose. Re-enactor photos lack any credence in historiography and culture; paintings and art such as those already pointed out in this discussion do not, and can be as useful to the historian in assessing secondary views and attitudes of conflicts as written sources created after the events. Yes, they're partisan, but that's the point: to show how the war was seen by the two sides. Nor can re-enactors be used to display the range of facets that define conflicts as the paintings in the montage do. Re-enactors are best used for demonstrating uniforms and equipment usage (i.e. this, a good example of how re-enactors can be used on Wikipedia), but not for displaying the entire war. -- Sabre (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent job. I'd say run with it.   Hot Stop   15:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Very well. I've put it up. -- Sabre (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * looks great...:-)Moxy (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)